Christians and the Old testament?

Akrasia

This is a genuine question. How do Christians justify the murderous violent, cruel and merciless sentiments of the Old Testament?

Do christians believe that the old testament is actually representative of the word of god?

I don't think this is trolling. The questions are genuine.

The old God is guilty of mass murder of uncounted Egyptian children, he his guilty of genocide in it's most absolute and extreme form through the great flood. the old testament orders followers to pursue an 'eye for an eye' justice and for genuine believers to murder those who would advocate competing gods or to pursue 'non christian' lifestyle choices.

How on earth can the 'merciful christian god' (allowing that assumption) be reconciled with the god of the old testament?

Excelsior

The God of the Old Testament is the same as the God of the New Testament. For Christians and Jews, God is Holy. That means he abhors sin. He pours out his wrath on sin in the Old Testament and in the New. Its just in the New its easy to miss the fact that he pours it out on himself.

Fundamentally, I have no difficulty with the idea of God killing people. He alone has that right. The question about whether God condoned say the Genocide in Joshua however is something that causes me real trouble. I know that the Revelation is imparted by human hands immersed in human culture but I don't yet have a sufficiently brief answer as to how one disentagles that in Joshua.

Here is something to think about though- what does the word mercy imply? It is true that Yahweh (for Christians and Jews) is a God of mercy. But mercy implies a judgement has been made. To even admit our doctrine of God is one of mercy is to accept that this God has found humanity guilty. In that sense, the judgement of Joshua might be what the scholar Tremper Longman III calls an eschatological foretaste- that is a shadow of what is going to come at the end....

This might seem like fundie babble to you but if you consider the terms you are using, the idea of God we are proposing and what the characteristic of "Holiness" demands it begins to come into focus.

I hope this helps.

Zombrex

Excelsior wrote:

Fundamentally, I have no difficulty with the idea of God killing people. He alone has that right.

The people he killed might disagree.

For example in Exodus, Yahweh kills all first born children to each the Egyptian king a leason. On some level it could be claimed that the Egyptians were guilty of allow the slavery of the Hewbrew by there King. But God also decides to kill the first born child of the non-Hewbrew slaves and prisioners.

What ever system of morality one uses I fail to see how someone can justify that.

This is before the issue of if God made the king stubborn so he could makes "fools" out of the Egyptian people?

Also God, through Moses commands the Hewbrews to genocide the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. No living creature is to be left alive, and those that do survive God will send hornets after then until they are dead. How is that moral?

The cyclical response, that God must be morally perfect, therefore anything God does must be moral, is the only response that seems to be ever given.

Which if fine, this is religion after all (who said it had to make sense ) so long as it is apprecated that such a justification will be rejected by most people.

The other issue is that it is not a great step from God can command that you kill anyone he likes (or doesn't like) to I can kill anyone I like because God has commanded me to, which through out history has been used as the justification for a lot of pretty bad things.

mountainyman

I disregard it. The God of the Old Testament is Jewish specific tribal deity. The old testamnet is a collection of myths irrelevant to the new Testament. Jesus says that he is the Alpha and the Omega, he is the beginning and the end.
As a result it is not necessary to beleive in the Old Testament to believe in the new.

Incidentally the Old Testament has some utility as a historical document and there are some (relatively few) parts that can be appreciated as literature.

MM

maitri

Excelsior wrote:

The God of the Old Testament is the same as the God of the New Testament. For Christians and Jews, God is Holy. That means he abhors sin.

...


Fundamentally, I have no difficulty with the idea of God killing people. He alone has that right. The question about whether God condoned say the Genocide in Joshua however is something that causes me real trouble. I know that the Revelation is imparted by human hands immersed in human culture but I don't yet have a sufficiently brief answer as to how one disentagles that in Joshua.

This is not just in Joshua. What about the story of God ordering an army to kill non-combatant women, children, and infants in Samuel 15:2-3:

Thus says the LORD of hosts. . . 'Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey'"
(Samuel 15:2-3,)

And murder, rape and pillage of the Midianites, in Numbers 31:7-18:

They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.(Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)

And more Murder Rape and Pillage in Deuteronomy 20:10-14

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

Or the law about Sex Slaves in Exodus 21:7-11

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries
(Exodus 21:7-11)

God Assists Rape and Plunder in Zechariah 14:1-2?:

Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

Could these things really be ordered by the God you believe in?

JimiTime

Anything God does is just. If you don't think it is, that is of no consequence, because perfect justice and morality is beyond all of our comprehensions. You can say about the flood etc, that this was immoral, but we are short sighted. You can ask, 'How could God do this?' and arrive at a conclusion that he is not loving, but once again this is of no consequesnce. When God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son Issac, Abraham did not question Gods 'thinking' or morality, but rather had whole-heartedly put faith in God as Just and loving. A faithless man would have pleaded or refused, or based on his own view of righteousness would have questioned Gods. Jesus himself rebuked someone for calling him 'good'. He said 'there is no-one good but God'. So the assumption that you are good is just that, an assumption. If you have no faith, then you have no understanding, and until you do have faith, you will continue to hold your own morality and righteousness above Gods.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

Anything God does is just.

Says who? If the understanding of perfect morality is beyond human ability then how can you recongise Gods actions in the Old Testement as being examples of perfect morality.

And as Mairti asks, if that is the case that God cannot do something imoral, then could the things described in the Old Testement truely be the act of your god?

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

Says who? If the understanding of perfect morality is beyond human ability then how can you recongise Gods actions in the Old Testement as being examples of perfect morality.

And as Mairti asks, if that is the case that God cannot do something imoral, then could the things described in the Old Testement truely be the act of your god?

I think you missed the point. You are looking to undermine, not gain insight. You must start with faith, not the other way round. Only through faith will you gain insight. Yes the the flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah were acts of God. You mentioned in a previous post somewhere, I think it was in reference to the flood, that you are sure the people he killed didn't think he was loving. Well, thats the point! If you think you have a better idea on morality and justice than God, thats your perogative. Through faith and humility however, God is the only Judge of what is good, bad, moral or immoral. Love is so much more than we can imagine.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

I think you missed the point. You are looking to undermine, not gain insight.

I am, because I don't think what is described in the Old Testement can ever be moral, god or no god.

Giving over the women of the fallen enemies of the Israelites so that they can be raped is not something I can see as ever having a justifiable reason.

Now of course you can claim that I am not a god, so therefore I cannot see the reason that God did this. But TBH that seems more of an cop out than a reason. It assumes God must be perfectly moral so that there has to be a justifiable and moral reason for doing this, even if we just can't see it.

From where I'm sitting a more logical conclusion is that God can and does do things that are immoral.

JimiTime wrote:

You must start with faith, not the other way round. Only through faith will you gain insight.

It seems in this instance that faith clouds judgement more than enhances it.

Your faith is not that the things described in the OT were moral acts, it is that God cannot do something immoral so these too can't have been immoral, even if the reason why it wasn't immoral is not obvious (at all).

You can't tell me why these things were moral, you can only tell me that you have faith that God cannot be immoral, and therefore these things must have been moral. Why do you have faith that God cannot be immoral?

JimiTime wrote:

You mentioned in a previous post somewhere, I think it was in reference to the flood, that you are sure the people he killed didn't think he was loving. Well, thats the point!

But how is that a justification?

How would you explain to the daughter of a Midianites soldier that she is being raped and tortured because God is mercyful and loving? What answer does you faith provide you that I'm missing?

Would you tell her that she deserved this punishment? That God has found her deserving on this treatment? Under what crime? What crime could possibly have that as a fitting and just punishment?

And if she doesn't deserve to be raped and enslaved as a sex slave then how is it moral that God commands that she is?

How would you explain that your god is love to the Egyptian slave girl who's 5 month old son has just been killed by the angel of death? Was that punishment? Punishment for what exactly? Was it justice? Did he deserve to die? For the sins of her masters, who she is forced to work for?

JimiTime wrote:

Love is so much more than we can imagine.

And horror that we unfortunately can imagine.

bonkey

JimiTime wrote:

Anything God does is just. If you don't think it is, that is of no consequence, because perfect justice and morality is beyond all of our comprehensions.

OK. There's a whole slew of dangerous implications arising from this, but for now I'll leave them aside and accept your stance on this.

If you have no faith, then you have no understanding, and until you do have faith, you will continue to hold your own morality and righteousness above Gods.

This suggests that the understanding one gains with faith is simply that we do not understand perfect justice or perfect morality, which in turn requires that our own notions of justice and morality are, therfore, imperfect.

Man is imperfect. We know and accept this, so we're still good here.

Or are we?

We go around and not only seek to impose oyur notion of justice and morality on others, we judge them by it. This despite being told to judge not, and having evidence that people can do morally correct things that seem immoral to us (given that we don't uinderstand morality perfectly).

Not only that, but we were also told not to kill. But if God tells us to kill, that obviously cannot be applicable.

So we'd presumably agree that killing is wrong, unless God tells you to do so...

...which is where the trouble will start.

If someone tells you they killed because God told them to, they could be telling the truth. So what basis to we have to judge this person? We've been told not to judge. You tell us that, additionally, we do not understand morality perfectly.

So on what grounds can we claim that what they did is wrong?

Any grounds that allow us to do so implicitly require that we put our own morality before that of God, or to put our belief that this person is lying/deluded in front of their insistence otherwise.

It requires us to say God would not do this....which would be in contradiction to where we started, because it would require an understanding of the very things that we started by accepting as being not understood!!!

We can, of course, say that we judge them by Christ's words, for he told us Thou Shalt not Kill.....but what makes Christ's words more important than Gods? What makes faith in Christs words more important than the killer's faith that God spoke to him and told him to kill? What makes faith in Christ's admonition not to kill more important than faith in Christ's words not to judge?

You are looking to undermine, not gain insight. You must start with faith, not the other way round.

If a murderer tells you God told him to kill, will you start with faith rather than disbelief? Will you accept his word and accept that it must have been a moral act as it was carried out under God's instruction?

Remember - you must start with faith, and you cannot understand God's morality. So what possible reason do you have for not accepting the word of the killer?

JimiTime

Guys, you have decided already where your hearts lie. I done my searching, and I found salvation through Christ. I accepted him into my heart. The Way is not reasoned out, to be credited or dis-credited, it is to be accepted through Faith. Only then can any reasoning of anything Godly be reasoned. My intervention on this thread is not to 'justify' or 'reason' on behalf of God, it is to bring to light that you will never gain Godly reason with your hearts in such a condition. All the testimonies and information is there, gain it if you wish. If you don't want it, nothing I'm going to say will make a blind bit of difference. In order to reason things Godly, you must first start with the common ground that you believe in God, otherwise its just ramblings and one-upmanship. So what is your purpose here?

bonkey

JimiTime wrote:

Guys, you have decided already where your hearts lie. I done my searching, and I found salvation through Christ. I accepted him into my heart.

You seem to be saying this because I (and those like me) disagree with you.

Is it not possible that we too have found salvation through Christ, accepted Him into our hearts, but still disagree with your offered reasoning?

There are any number of "flavours" of Christianity, where each has found their own salvation in a different way. I cannot understand how you can be so dismissive of those differing with you, unless you believe that only your particular "flavour" of Christianity is the correct one. Despite your constant lecturing about how we cannot truly understand God, apparently you believe that you can be sure your understanding is the only one that is correct enough to matter.

If that's what you believe, thats what you believe. I am disappointed, however, that you appear to be equating disagreement with your stance with rejection of Christianity.

In order to reason things Godly, you must first start with the common ground that you believe in God, otherwise its just ramblings and one-upmanship.

OK - its not even just a suggestion now. You're flat-out stating that because I disagree with your interpretation of Christianity, I don't believe in God.

So what is your purpose here?

You already have me written off as a non-believer based on no more than my disagreement with one particular interpretation of what Christianity is. Why don't you decide my purpose for yourself, just as you have decided what my beliefs are.

You have an equal lack of information on both, so there is no reason for you not to.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

My intervention on this thread is not to 'justify' or 'reason' on behalf of God, it is to bring to light that you will never gain Godly reason with your hearts in such a condition.

No offense Jimi but I don't think you have the "Godly reason" for these events either, since you don't seem to be able to explain what those reason are, instead just stating that we cannot know them.

There is a difference between understanding something and ignoring it. You appear (and correct me if I'm wrong) to be simply not willing to think about these issues, preferring to ignore them on the faith that your god is always right.

If that is the case that is fine, but it does make your input here a little irrelivent since this is a discussion about what the horrific events in the Bible can be reconsiled with a God of perfect morality. Simply saying we shouldn't ask the question and we wouldn't understand the answers is not good enough.

To quote Wilson

Blind faith, no matter how passionately expressed, will not suffice

JimiTime wrote:

So what is your purpose here?

The purpose here is to show that the Bible states that God regularly carried out acts that are immoral by any measure of reason, godly or otherwise.

Assuming one accepts God does exist (which is kinda a given for arguing points on this forum), this leaves use with 2 conclusions -

1 - God is perfectly happy to carry out immoral acts if it benefits his people

2 - God cannot do immoral acts and therefore was not responsible for these acts, and the Old Testement does not reflect the actions or wishes of God.

If someone believes that the 3rd option, that these events were not immoral because God and God alone did them, and therefore God can carry out these acts and still be perfectly moral, I would like to see a logic or reason to justify that statement. To accept that these acts were not immoral when God does them but immoral when anyone else does them one must believe that morality is independent of the circumstance of the event itself. It is immoral to rape a woman, except if God tells you you can rape that women. Considering that such a difference does not change the circumstances of the event I see no reason to hold this position and so far a reason to support it doesn't seem to be too forthcoming.

Excelsior

mountainyman wrote:

The old testamnet is a collection of myths irrelevant to the new Testament.

What Wicknight or Bonkey have written makes total sense. The idea that the New Testament is disconnected or even in any meaningful sense seperable from the Hebrew Scriptures is preposterous.

The troubling passages of Yahweh's wrath can be disregarded and dismissed but whether you believe the Scriptures have authority from God or not, you cannot claim anything except that Jesus stands as an entirely Jewish figure and the New Testament can't be understood without the Old.

Dades

Wicknight wrote:

If that is the case that is fine, but it does make your input here a little irrelivent since this is a discussion about what the horrific events in the Bible can be reconsiled with a God of perfect morality. Simply saying we shouldn't ask the question and we wouldn't understand the answers is not good enough.

That's a good point. If everyone took the stance that we cannot know what we do not understand we would still be working with stone tools.

The purpose of this thread is to attempt to reconcile the God of the OT with the God of the NT portrayed today. A simple "we cannot know" is somewhat weak.

For me the God of OT has far too many of humanities worst traits to be taken seriously. Perhaps this is what the writers of the NT tried to correct.

JimiTime

bonkey wrote:

You seem to be saying this because I (and those like me) disagree with you.

No, not at all.

Is it not possible that we too have found salvation through Christ, accepted Him into our hearts, but still disagree with your offered reasoning?

The only reasoning i gave was that God is Just and Loving, and that only through faith you will gain understanding. i gave no reasoning to any of the incidents mentioned. I don't see your point

There are any number of "flavours" of Christianity, where each has found their own salvation in a different way. I cannot understand how you can be so dismissive of those differing with you, unless you believe that only your particular "flavour" of Christianity is the correct one. Despite your constant lecturing about how we cannot truly understand God, apparently you believe that you can be sure your understanding is the only one that is correct enough to matter.

Firstly, i never claimed that mine is the only view correct enough to matter, and i don't appreciate the unfounded statement that thats how i feel. Secondly I did not say anything about you must believe things this way or that. I said you must have faith in God and his son Jesus Christ. How you deducted the above is beyond me.

If that's what you believe, thats what you believe. I am disappointed, however, that you appear to be equating disagreement with your stance with rejection of Christianity.

Ehhhh, once again, what are you on about What stance have I taken?

OK - its not even just a suggestion now. You're flat-out stating that because I disagree with your interpretation of Christianity, I don't believe in God.

Ditto What interpretation?

You already have me written off as a non-believer based on no more than my disagreement with one particular interpretation of what Christianity is. Why don't you decide my purpose for yourself, just as you have decided what my beliefs are.

All you need to do is clarify that I mis-interpretted you. I don't see the need for such an attitude?? You seemed to suggest earlier that you disagreed with the point 'everything that God does is just'. This combined with your views on the creation evolution thread led me to a deduction that you were not a believer. As I said, if this was a bad deduction, just say it, there is no need for the attitude.

You have an equal lack of information on both, so there is no reason for you not to.

See above!

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

No offense Jimi but I don't think you have the "Godly reason" for these events either, since you don't seem to be able to explain what those reason are, instead just stating that we cannot know them.

I didn't actually say that. I never said I couldn't explain anything, whatI said was that I wouldn't. I also did not say that we 'couldn't' know. i said 'you' couldn't know without first accepting God and having faith.

There is a difference between understanding something and ignoring it. You appear (and correct me if I'm wrong) to be simply not willing to think about these issues, preferring to ignore them on the faith that your god is always right.

I'm correcting you because you are wrong. I don't think that way. My message was that until 'you' have faith you will not gain understanding, no matter what I say.

If that is the case that is fine, but it does make your input here a little irrelivent since this is a discussion about what the horrific events in the Bible can be reconsiled with a God of perfect morality. Simply saying we shouldn't ask the question and we wouldn't understand the answers is not good enough.

The purpose here is to show that the Bible states that God regularly carried out acts that are immoral by any measure of reason, godly or otherwise.

Assuming one accepts God does exist (which is kinda a given for arguing points on this forum), this leaves use with 2 conclusions -

1 - God is perfectly happy to carry out immoral acts if it benefits his people

2 - God cannot do immoral acts and therefore was not responsible for these acts, and the Old Testement does not reflect the actions or wishes of God.

If someone believes that the 3rd option, that these events were not immoral because God and God alone did them, and therefore God can carry out these acts and still be perfectly moral, I would like to see a logic or reason to justify that statement. To accept that these acts were not immoral when God does them but immoral when anyone else does them one must believe that morality is independent of the circumstance of the event itself. It is immoral to rape a woman, except if God tells you you can rape that women. Considering that such a difference does not change the circumstances of the event I see no reason to hold this position and so far a reason to support it doesn't seem to be too forthcoming.

Padon me if I don't accept the poison chalice. I just tried to give you the basis of Godly reasoning, without it, we'd just be point scoring.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

I didn't actually say that. I never said I couldn't explain anything, whatI said was that I wouldn't. I also did not say that we 'couldn't' know. i said 'you' couldn't know without first accepting God and having faith.

That doesn't make sense. I am always very weary of people who claim to understand something but are unable to explain it to others because they claim that the rest of us just won't be able understand it because they are not on the same spiritual wave length or some such. There was a woman in the athiest forum who claimed that after years of meditation to understand the "truth" about the universe, but she couldn't explain it to us because we have not gone through the same process. I would be more inclined to believe that she just couldn't explain it because she didn't actually understand it herself.

Faith in God would simply effect if I accept your reasoning as valid or not, it will have no bearing on if I can or cannot understand it. I can understand plenty of things I do not accept.

TBH I still don't actually think you are talking about understanding, I think you are talking about acceptance.

You accept the events in the OT as moral not because you understand the specific justifications for these events, but because you accept that God cannot do no wrong, and therefore you feel you don't need to understand the specific justifications of these events.

But as I said before, that isn't an answer.

maitri

JimiTime wrote:

The only reasoning i gave was that God is Just and Loving, and that only through faith you will gain understanding.

Isn't it a possibility for you to believe that "God is Just and Loving", as you say, and therefore he cannot have done those things, like ordering rape of very young virgins who have seen all their family killed by the rapist(s) (Numbers 31:7-18), and killings of non-combatant women, children and even sucklings (1. Samuel15:3).

Does the Old Testament have to be totally infallible in your view?

Isn't there a possibility that instead of telling the literal Absolute Truth about God, the Old Testament is just given us a report on human beliefs, experiences and views about God through the history of the Jewish people? And humans, as we know, are not infallible at all.

Or is the problem that if God is omnipotent and omniscient, he somehow must have the final responsibility for all the suffering and pain in the world (as well as in the old testament), anyway? Like Isaiah says:

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.(Isaiah 45:7, King James)

"I form light and create darkness,
I make well-being and create calamity,
I am the LORD, who does all these things." (Isaiah 45:7, English Standard Version)

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

That doesn't make sense. I am always very weary of people who claim to understand something but are unable to explain it to others because they claim that the rest of us just won't be able understand it because they are not on the same spiritual wave length or some such. There was a woman in the athiest forum who claimed that after years of meditation to understand the "truth" about the universe, but she couldn't explain it to us because we have not gone through the same process. I would be more inclined to believe that she just couldn't explain it because she didn't actually understand it herself.

Faith in God would simply effect if I accept your reasoning as valid or not, it will have no bearing on if I can or cannot understand it. I can understand plenty of things I do not accept.

TBH I still don't actually think you are talking about understanding, I think you are talking about acceptance.

You accept the events in the OT as moral not because you understand the specific justifications for these events, but because you accept that God cannot do no wrong, and therefore you feel you don't need to understand the specific justifications of these events.

But as I said before, that isn't an answer.

All of the above is assuming the answers are not there because I didn't give any. What I actually said was that the answers are there, but they are are only attainable through faith and prayer. It is of no benefit to 'defend' God to someone who doesn't 'accept' him. I never claimed to be answering. I only informed how you would get an answer. Not by me 'trying' to give you one, but by accepting God and having faith. There is no benefit giving you a fish. I tried to show you how to catch the fish. You deduct that I don't know, thats a fair enough deduction, I can't argue with it, I know its wrong, but I understand you thinking that. I suppose you'll have your opinions, maybe one day though:)

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote:

All of the above is assuming the answers are not there because I didn't give any. What I actually said was that the answers are there, but they are are only attainable through faith and prayer. It is of no benefit to 'defend' God to someone who doesn't 'accept' him. I never claimed to be answering. I only informed how you would get an answer. Not by me 'trying' to give you one, but by accepting God and having faith. There is no benefit giving you a fish. I tried to show you how to catch the fish. You deduct that I don't know, thats a fair enough deduction, I can't argue with it, I know its wrong, but I understand you thinking that. I suppose you'll have your opinions, maybe one day though:)

If I ask "how can anyone have faith in such a God - he appears monstrous to me?", it is actually no surprise to me to receive an answer like "have faith in Him and you will see".

Unfortunately, it would apply equally well to "how can you serve such a monstrous dictator?" - where the answer is "serve him and you will see". It does not change the monstrousness of the dictator - he may still be killing millions, or torturing thousands - it simply means that in his service, these things will seem acceptable, because you have faith in him.

Nazi party officials may have personally found the Final Solution repugnant, but they accepted it, because they had faith in Hitler. No-one would now claim that such faith in Hitler was a good thing, though, would they, however good it may have seemed at the time?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

All of the above is assuming the answers are not there because I didn't give any.

Yes, it is.

JimiTime wrote:

What I actually said was that the answers are there, but they are are only attainable through faith and prayer.

Then they aren't answers. As I said there is a difference between understanding something and accepting it.

I'm pretty sure that faith and prayer can get someone to the stage where they do not wish to question God's motivation for doing the things in the Old Testament as they believe that God can only do good and therefore they accept that what ever the reasons they must have been moral. But that isn't understanding, that is acceptance. And rather blind acceptance at that. And personally I don't think that is good enough to base a system of morality on.

JimiTime wrote:

I only informed how you would get an answer.

I seriously doubt it would give me the answer, though it might make me stop asking the question.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

Yes, it is.



Then they aren't answers. As I said there is a difference between understanding something and accepting it.

I'm pretty sure that faith and prayer can get someone to the stage where they do not wish to question God's motivation for doing the things in the Old Testament as they believe that God can only do good and therefore they accept that what ever the reasons they must have been moral. But that isn't understanding, that is acceptance. And rather blind acceptance at that. And personally I don't think that is good enough to base a system of morality on.


I seriously doubt it would give me the answer, though it might make me stop asking the question.

Again, only one way to find out. Or you could remain a sceptic. I can tell you though, the most valuable question is Why? So to assume that in faith you'll just ignore what you don't want to reason, is neither spiritually healthy or necessary.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

Again, only one way to find out.

Find out what exactly? And how would I find out? Is God going to tell me?

At what point does the actual information available increase?

JimiTime wrote:

Or you could remain a sceptic.

I would always remain a sceptic, even if God Himself appeared in front of me and went through the Bible line by line pointing out why He did each of these events.

But then I don't think that would happen, even if I gave myself up to Jesus right now.

JimiTime wrote:

I can tell you though, the most valuable question is Why?

And what is the answer....?

JimiTime wrote:

So to assume that in faith you'll just ignore what you don't want to reason, is neither spiritually healthy or necessary.

From where I'm sitting that is all your faith seems to provide.

You would no doubt tell me it doesn't, it provides you with answers. But since you don't seem to be able to explain what those answers are I can only assume that they aren't actually answers, what you have instead acceptance, and rather blind acceptance at that. Which is not the same thing as answers, as we have said.

But anyway, this is going no where fast. From my position you having the answers and not telling me looks pretty much the same as you simply not having the answers, so the contribution to my understanding is relatively small, as is the contribution to the thread by us going back and forth over this.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

You would no doubt tell me it doesn't, it provides you with answers. But since you don't seem to be able to explain what those answers are I can only assume that they aren't actually answers, what you have instead acceptance, and rather blind acceptance at that. Which is not the same thing as answers, as we have said.

You assume too much, but I can see why you do.
I can see where you are coming from, acceptance is the first thing that happens. Its usually triggered by a wanting, sometimes brought on by an event, like a death etc. So I accept that one 'wants' to believe. If I may give you a witness: God 'is' Love, but you will 'never' know this unless you accept him first. If you 'can't' accept him, then you will remain in the dark, albeit perceiving it as light. You may think that its me who's in the dark, but there you go. You accept your own morality and judgement, so I'm certainly not going to ague with you.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

I can see where you are coming from, acceptance is the first thing that happens.

What is the second thing?

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

What is the second thing?

You begin to forge a relationship with him. Then its an individual experience. Your experiences in life may still be with you, so you may still have your skepticism. So your great strength may be in the little details, straining out the gnat as it may. Or your acceptance may have opened your heart fully, that you see spending time on the detail as something not too important, but rather giving other people the good news, i.e. sharing your experience with them, and trying to show them. As I said, its an individual journey.

stevejazzx

Ah the God of the OT. Maitri has covered all this. Human experience, human record..ancient times, so a thunderstorm was act of God like everything else they couldn't possibly understand. Primitive people thousands of years ago trying to make sense of such vastness like the Galaxy...why would they of abandoned age old stories of Gods in the abscnce of any science whatsoever? They wouldn't, there simply was no other explanation, not even the kind of hypothetical ones great physcists can offer now...nothing except vastness and therefore a creator and every tragedy his will.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

You begin to forge a relationship with him. Then its an individual experience. Your experiences in life may still be with you, so you may still have your skepticism. So your great strength may be in the little details, straining out the gnat as it may. Or your acceptance may have opened your heart fully, that you see spending time on the detail as something not too important, but rather giving other people the good news, i.e. sharing your experience with them, and trying to show them. As I said, its an individual journey.

Ok, when do you get to the part where God explains why he gave up men to be butchered, women to be raped and children to be enslaved?

And if this has already happened to you, why can you not just tell me what He said?

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

Ok, when do you get to the part where God explains why he gave up men to be butchered, women to be raped and children to be enslaved?

And if this has already happened to you, why can you not just tell me what He said?

In the little wisdom I have, it would be of no benefit to tackle these questions. As I said before, I've told you how to fish. To directly answer the questions would do no good for either of us, or God. Sorry if this sounds evasive, I can only hope that you believe me when I say, It would be of no good for me to debate the above.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

In the little wisdom I have, it would be of no benefit to tackle these questions

That would imply though that you don't have understanding, simply acceptance, which was kinda my original point.

We seem to be going around in circles here Jimi, and to be honest the more we discuss this the more I'm convinced you don't have answers, or at least understanding of these answers, to the questions put forward originally as to the God of the Old Testement.

JimiTime wrote:

To directly answer the questions would do no good for either of us, or God.

Actually it would, since it was the point of this discussion.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

That would imply though that you don't have understanding, simply acceptance, which was kinda my original point.

So be it.

We seem to be going around in circles here Jimi, and to be honest the more we discuss this the more I'm convinced you don't have answers, or at least understanding of these answers, to the questions put forward originally as to the God of the Old Testement.

So be it. I am not willing to talk like you want me to talk about these, draw your conclusions if you wish.

Actually it would, since it was the point of this discussion.

Actually, to do so would be very short sighted of me. Like you said, we are going in circles, you want me to give you a fish, I want to show you how to fish for yourself, neither of us will budge, end of discussion I suppose. Again, maybe someday:)

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

So be it. I am not willing to talk like you want me to talk about these, draw your conclusions if you wish.

I have no idea that that means Jimi.

"Not willing?" Why are you not willing, what happens if you do?

And if you aren't willing then why post on this thread if you can't, or are unwilling, to talk about the subject?

JimiTime wrote:

Actually, to do so would be very short sighted of me. Like you said, we are going in circles, you want me to give you a fish, I want to show you how to fish for yourself

But you aren't teaching me to fish Jimi, since I don't think you have the answers either (ie no fish).

Using the fish analogy I'm asking for fish, you claim you can't give me fish but you want to teach me to fish (why you can't give me fish I've no idea), but when it comes down to it, it seems the solution you suggest is more like learning to eat something else instead so you won't want fish in the first place.

Can you honestly tell me you know and understand the reason why the God of the Old Testament gave the women and children of the Midianites up to be raped tortured and murdered (this is just one of countless examples) and these reasons seem fair and just to you?

I don't just mean you accept that what ever the reason it must have been just, but that you actually know and understand the reasons given and you think they were fine?

BrianCalgary

maitri wrote:

And murder, rape and pillage of the Midianites, in Numbers 31:7-18:

They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.(Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)

I don't see rape happening here. The young girls are to be kept for the tribe. To be courted and married and to become wives. Where does it say 'rape'?

maitri wrote:

And more Murder Rape and Pillage in Deuteronomy 20:10-14

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

No rape happening here either. In the times and culture women, children, and animals were considered to be possesions. So a good Hebrew would not commit adultery, or violence or covet his neighbours goods or wife and would treat the women with the proper etiquette regarding sexuality.

maitri wrote:

Or the law about Sex Slaves in Exodus 21:7-11

7 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, [a] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

Where do you get the 'sex slaves' bit?

maitri wrote:

God Assists Rape and Plunder in Zechariah 14:1-2?:

1 A day of the LORD is coming when your plunder will be divided among you.
2 I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city.

God is not assisting in rape here either. The message is that rape will happen. I can tell you that right now in our depraved society some child is being abused and tonight in my city there will be quite a number of girls who are being forced to sleep with Daddy.

I am not condoning it, nor participating, just understanding that it is a problem.

maitri wrote:

Could these things really be ordered by the God you believe in?

Maitri, you have read a lot into these passages regarding sex. The only place sex is mentioned in any of your passages is the last one which is an admission of something taht will happen, not an ordering of it nor a condoning of it.

That is a huge error in biblical hermeneutics.

My take on God's actions in the OT is thus. Man was in it's infancey as a creation. Their is a battle going on for the souls of man, as there is today, between God and Satan. Man chose to worship other gods and their societies were punished for such activity.

Now that Christ has come, the onus is on us to make a choice of who we follow. The OT is quite clear that when God decides it is time to intervene, He does with dire consequences for those who oppose Him.

To add to it, even though mankind is wicked, God offered grace to people. If anyone chose to come to Him and make Him their God, there would be no issues. The grace that we don't deserve but have the opportunity to have.

In the NT that grace is offered through Christ, God with us, and again comes down to our choice. In OT times it grace was understood from a communal standpoint. Today we understand it as an individual choice.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

Maitri, you have read a lot into these passages regarding sex. The only place sex is mentioned in any of your passages is the last one which is an admission of something taht will happen, not an ordering of it nor a condoning of it.

Possibly, just possibly, the killing might be a problem? No?

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

Possibly, just possibly, the killing might be a problem? No?

Scofflaw

And I do have difficulty reconciling God's actions. However when I see what He has done in coming to earth himself and putting Himself through what He did in order to offer us salvation.

I trust that He had His reasons for doing what He did and when I get to Heaven I will find out what those reasons were.

Fo now all I have is conjecture that result in my statemnt above regarding a parent spanking hi snaughty children. It is just too bad that death had to be involved, but maybe God's enemies didn't respond to the spank on the bum.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

I don't see rape happening here. The young girls are to be kept for the tribe. To be courted and married and to become wives. Where does it say 'rape'?

You do know that one can rape their wife.

I would imagine that is particular common event if you genocide her people, kill her parents and sibling and then give her to a Hebrew soldier as spoils of war. Just because they get married ain't going to change much.

BTW that is a funny definition of "courting" ... admittedly the bash-her-over-the-head-and-drag-her-back-to-the-cave style of courting is easier, but some what frowned upon these days .. bloody feminists

BrianCalgary wrote:

So a good Hebrew would not commit adultery, or violence or covet his neighbours goods or wife and would treat the women with the proper etiquette regarding sexuality.

I'm pretty sure they are all legally married, signed and delivered in front of God, before the raping started

BrianCalgary wrote:

Where do you get the 'sex slaves' bit?

What exactly do you think these women were sold for? Their cooking?

BrianCalgary wrote:

Maitri, you have read a lot into these passages regarding sex.

I think BC you are being incredibility naive if you think that these women gave themselves happily and freely to the men who had just butchered their fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters after a few flowers and a trip to the cinema.

Like I said, just because they were married that doesn't mean they can't be raped. Just because they were married doesn't mean they weren't used as sex slaves.

These women were "given" to the soldiers as wives. They had no choice in the matter.

The men of the defeated land were genocided. The women of the defeated land were genocided. The boys of the defeated land were genocided. The girls who had not yet had sex (notice it is not those who were not married yet) were given to the Hebrew soldiers. I would imagine that they were all legally married off pretty quickly before the raping and slavery began. That doesn't mean it wasn't rape, or sex slavery. These women were given as reward to the men as slaves, with the full approval of God. In fact the Bible makes it out that it was His idea.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Man chose to worship other gods and their societies were punished for such activity.

Being raped over and over for the rest of your natural life (which thankfully probably was not very long for these poor girls) is a just punishment for worshipping a foreign god (of which you probably had no idea was foreign, or even aware there were other religions out there)?

BrianCalgary wrote:

To add to it, even though mankind is wicked, God offered grace to people

Define "wicked" ... murder? rape? these would be pretty wicked things no?

So why is man wicked, when the children of God, and in fact God himself, activity encouraged and supported these actions?

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

And I do have difficulty reconciling God's actions. However when I see what He has done in coming to earth himself and putting Himself through what He did in order to offer us salvation.

I would imagine if you asked one of the women given to a Israelite soldier as plunder of war, who was forced into marriage to "serve" her husband for the rest of her life, most likely raped and abused for years on end until she died, if Jesus dying on a crucifix over a 24 hour period was that big a whoop she would probably beg to trade places.

BrianCalgary wrote:

I trust that He had His reasons for doing what He did and when I get to Heaven I will find out what those reasons were.

Well you see that is part of the problem. Its down here on Earth that the suffering was taking place.

BrianCalgary wrote:

It is just too bad that death had to be involved

Its not "too bad" ... Death didn't have to be involved, God actively sought it out. In one passage he sends hornets after survivors and chases them down until they are all dead. In another passage Moses gives out a stink that the Israelite army actually left some boys alive.

BrianCalgary wrote:

but maybe God's enemies didn't respond to the spank on the bum.

Well I'm pretty sure the raping and mass murder got their attention .... but then you kinda have to wonder what the purpose was. Worship God or I will send my army to kill you and rape your sisters and daughters?

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

I have no idea that that means Jimi.

"Not willing?" Why are you not willing, what happens if you do?

And if you aren't willing then why post on this thread if you can't, or are unwilling, to talk about the subject?

I'm not willing because the information is already there, yet you have already said what your understanding of it is. I don't want to enter into discussion whereby you're just looking for ways to deride my heavenly Father. The reason I posted on the thread was because I advised on how to gain insight, thats all. You are just trying to coax me into giving you a straight answer, when it will serve no good purpose, for you are not accepting of God.

But you aren't teaching me to fish Jimi, since I don't think you have the answers either (ie no fish).

Ok, assume I have no fish. I told you where the lake is.

Using the fish analogy I'm asking for fish, you claim you can't give me fish but you want to teach me to fish (why you can't give me fish I've no idea), but when it comes down to it, it seems the solution you suggest is more like learning to eat something else instead so you won't want fish in the first place.

Mmmmm, Fiiisshh.:) Seriously though, I'm trying to provoke thought in you thats all. Instead of giving answers to questions, I'm trying to get you to find the answers yourself.

Can you honestly tell me you know and understand the reason why the God of the Old Testament gave the women and children of the Midianites up to be raped tortured and murdered (this is just one of countless examples) and these reasons seem fair and just to you?

You know where the information is, and I've told you how to attain it.

I don't just mean you accept that what ever the reason it must have been just, but that you actually know and understand the reasons given and you think they were fine?

As I said earlier, Why? is a very important question, it lets you know someone so that you don't follow blindly. asking why gets to the heart of the matter. Yes, i accept all God does is just, and if at some stage I don't understand something, which happens alot, yes i still know God is love and he is Just. Then however, I ask for guidance, and reasons why? something was done. This then gives more insight into our creator. I do start with the conclusion that God is both Just and Loving, the answers come with time and prayer.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

And I do have difficulty reconciling God's actions. However when I see what He has done in coming to earth himself and putting Himself through what He did in order to offer us salvation.

I trust that He had His reasons for doing what He did and when I get to Heaven I will find out what those reasons were.

Fo now all I have is conjecture that result in my statemnt above regarding a parent spanking hi snaughty children. It is just too bad that death had to be involved, but maybe God's enemies didn't respond to the spank on the bum.

They are endlessly naughty. I believe the current Israelis have the same problem. Neither Hamas nor Hezbollah seem to respond to the spank on the bum either...

Scofflaw

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

Seriously though, I'm trying to provoke thought in you thats all. Instead of giving answers to questions, I'm trying to get you to find the answers yourself.

I have found the answer. The answer is that such acts described in the Old Testament were immoral. In fact they were crimes of horrific degrees.

The problem with that is that one of the basis of your faith is that God cannot do wrong, because if He could then why worship him.

So you have the inner conflict of the two contrasting views. On the one hand God gives up virgins as sex slaves to his conquering army, and on the other hand you have this idea that God cannot do wrong or immoral acts.

So naturally I imagine you have figured out some way to get around this. But I would also imagine that that way is to ignore the issues at hand, rather than address them. Which is fine, to each there own, but that is not an answer.

JimiTime wrote:

Then however, I ask for guidance, and reasons why? something was done. This then gives more insight into our creator. I do start with the conclusion that God is both Just and Loving, the answers come with time and prayer.

And, as I've asked a few times, what was the reason given to you for the events described in the Old Testament?

In fact, never mind. I'm sure I can imagine what they are. These people turned away from God, they were sinners, they were wicked, etc etc.

BrianCalgary

Here is nice little essay on the topic.


http://www.thewhyman.jesusanswers.com/contact.html

robindch

> You are just trying to coax me into giving you a straight answer

Is there something wrong with giving a straight answer to a straight question?

Scofflaw

I do start with the conclusion that God is both Just and Loving, the answers come with time and prayer.

I think I'm just going to enjoy that sentence for a bit. Mmmm. "I do start with the conclusion....". Splendid.

appalled, but not surprised,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

I had meant to get around to entering this fray, but time has run out. I do hope it or something like it is around when I get back in the holidays.

Wicknight has posed crucial objections; Jimi has provided some perspective; Brian has given the opening defense. Let me just leave you with this point: all the disaster that came on the Canaanites was a result of their sin. God was delivering them to utter destruction. All our lives are in His hands and none of us deserve anything less that immediate and eternal hellfire. In His mercy He spares most of us, giving lots of time to repent and be saved. But His patience is not forever. Neglect of His mercy eventually brings our just deserts.

His mercy in the O.T. is seen especially in His saving some from the notoriously wicked nations He was destroying: Rahab the Canaanite became an ancestor of Christ, as did Ruth the Moabitess.

The famous Baptist pastor, C.H. Spurgeon, said that God was infinitely just if he sent men to hell! that he was infinitely merciful if he saved any.

Sinners have a bias in their heart against the Just Judge and a bias that excuses the wickedness of man, for both God's nature and man's are a witness to our personal guilt and condemnation.

wolfsbane

wolfsbane wrote:

none of us deserve anything less that immediate and eternal hellfire.

Why? For existing?
This constant self-loathing thing really does wear one out...

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Let me just leave you with this point: all the disaster that came on the Canaanites was a result of their sin. God was delivering them to utter destruction.

Given that the nation of Israel was equally sinful (a point made many times in the OT), it's hard to see your rationale for believing this, other than wishfulness.

wolfsbane wrote:

All our lives are in His hands and none of us deserve anything less that immediate and eternal hellfire. In His mercy He spares most of us, giving lots of time to repent and be saved. But His patience is not forever. Neglect of His mercy eventually brings our just deserts.

I've said it before, but obviously it needs repeating...God created everything, with foreknowledge. I was going to choose atheism over Christianity from the moment of Creation, and the eternal fire over heaven likewise. Given that, I fail to understand the point of your rather bizarre self-abasement.

wolfsbane wrote:

His mercy in the O.T. is seen especially in His saving some from the notoriously wicked nations He was destroying: Rahab the Canaanite became an ancestor of Christ, as did Ruth the Moabitess.

Gosh. You're sure it wasn't just inefficiency on the part of the Israelites?

wolfsbane wrote:

The famous Baptist pastor, C.H. Spurgeon, said that God was infinitely just if he sent men to hell! that he was infinitely merciful if he saved any.

And he was wrong, too.

wolfsbane wrote:

Sinners have a bias in their heart against the Just Judge and a bias that excuses the wickedness of man, for both God's nature and man's are a witness to our personal guilt and condemnation.

Not at all. I have a bias against a tyrant who creates only to punish. Your God is a filthy, wicked, vile, tyrant, and you are his willing slave - your self-abasement the hopeful squirming of a loyal dog.

Also, of course, hope the Christmas season goes well for you!

hating the sin,
Scofflaw

I wonder if the self-abasement is like the totally lacking selfesteem condition some people have that leads them to abusive relationships, and keep insisting that it's a loving relationship...

Excelsior

I think that is a fairly cowardly form of argumentation Bluewolf. You are careful not to suggest that Wolfsbane actually suffers from the kind of delusion you are pondering but the inference must be drawn nonetheless. Thus, you get the dig in but don't have to ever back out because you can't be challenged.

In reality, the presence of sin in every person's life, is as the great Catholic contemporary of Spurgeon, GK Chesterton said, the only empirically provable tenet of theology. You can feel free to disagree with the Christian worldview that says we have all fallen short of the glory of God, but don't play such low games as to suggest that Christians as a group are somehow traumatised into or by their belief.

The argument that Wolfsbane has proposed is far more coherent than people are giving it credit for. Of course, the coherency relies on an agreement with unstated first principles but in that situation Wolfsbane and the impeccably reasonably Scofflaw share the same vice:

Scofflaw wrote:

And he was wrong, too.

robindch

> I wonder if the self-abasement is like the totally lacking self esteem condition
> some people have that leads them to abusive relationships, and keep insisting
> that it's a loving relationship...

It seems like just another form of Stockholm Syndrome...

robindch

> don't play such low games as to suggest that Christians as a group are
> somehow traumatised into or by their belief.

Why not? Especially, if it seems to be true in some cases?