Challenge to detractors

[Elijah John]

This is a quote from another thread which I think will make an excellent topic:

rikuoamero wrote:

[Replying to post 4 by Elijah John]

Elijah, out of curiosity, can you give me an OT quote where God commands something good and positive? Indulge me please? Chapter and verse, quote it in full please."

Challenge:

To defenders of the God of the Bible: Please follow suit and provide positive commands from the Old Tesatment, as rikuo requested.

To detractors, please provide same. Or explain how the examples we will provide are NOT intrinsically positive.

I'll start: Micah 6:8 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

8 He has told you, O mortal, what is good;
and what does the Lord require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?

[Elijah John]

Just had a chance to glance quickly at your three posts here, Rikuo, and will answer briefly now, more in detail later.

The Bible is not my sole piece of evidence for God, the Deist in me looks to the book of Creation as well. But unlike Deists like Thomas Paine, I accept more of the Bible than he does. (I think Psalm 19 and the Book of Job are it for him)

All Bible supporters myself included, are selective in their approach to the Bible, all do cherry pick, not all admit it. I admit it. There is bad and nasty stuff in the Bible. The context is historically and culturally, it was a bad and nasty time. What is amazing to us believers, is the amount of good, truth and beauty the Bible does contain in spite of this harsh historical context.

It is this good, true and beautiful that survives today...and on these Biblical things religions are founded, not on the bad and nasty. Modern believers ignore the bad stuff, and are inspired by the good stuff.

If one considers this approach intellectually dishonest, I can just as easily counter that an "all or nothing" approach is simplistic. Fundamentalism is simplistic, and hard atheism is simplistic as well. They are two sides of the same dogmatic coin, imo.

The hard work is sifting through it all, to determine what works for oneself, and what does not, what one thinks is true, and what one thinks is false. No one is obligated to undertake that challenge, but folks should not be denegrated for doing so either. Neither should they be called "intellectually dishonest". From my Theistic point of view, I attempt this as best as I can with the God-given gifts of reason and discernment.

As to why Jehovah and not other god's or religions? The Ten Commandments. Ethical Monotheism at the core, which survives all distorting myth attached to His name.

And evidence that Jehovah is the real Living God is the 3rd Commandment, the prophibition of graven images, idols. Remarkable insight for such a primitive people, a people that emerged from a polytheistic, image laden culture.

Rikuo, I tend not to attempt to convince non-Theists...for that I would have to engage in debates about God's existance. I'd rather not. I ususally like to focus on debates as to which Theistic position is a) more reasonable, b) more Biblical. Or c) to explain or defend my approach.

But if one rejects the premise that a good God does exist, very few of my arguments will make sense. If one does accept the premise that a good God exists, it is not an unreasonable leap to assert that the real God, the Living God is at the core of the Bible myths. That the ancient Hebrews had a profound encounter with the Divine, and wrote about it...but with that writing they brought with them their own cultural and historical biases.

Ethical monotheism works for me, polytheism does not. So what is a Theist to do? Neither Atheism or Fundamentalism are appealing choices, for me anyway.

In closing, as per the OP, here is another verse that reflects the glory and goodness of God, as portrayed in the Bible:

"May the LORD bless you and keep you, may the LORD make his face shine upon you and be gracious to you; may the LORD life up his countenance on you and give you peace" Numbers 6.24-26

[marco]

[quote="Elijah John"]

Perhaps the Bible serves as a mirror for our hopes and our optimism or our despondency.
I don't know why God would concentrate on a stretch of Middle Eastern land and a period of time when people were less advanced. There are Sodoms that need his attention today and his own people were in a worse captivity than that of Egypt, during WW2, but no Red Sea parted for them.

I don't know why we want to enter the tents of semi-savage nomads and extract from them messages they are ill equipped to provide. But I suppose our search for God need not be in high places or in cathedrals. For me, the many passages in the OT where what is said by Yahweh is just wicked, rules him out as a mentor, far less a God. Maybe the best place to look for deity is in other people, not in Holy Books, for Holy Books have a habit of producing the worst qualities in people: instance the Koran and ISIS today. And is the Koran any worse than the OT, from which it is copied?

[Elijah John]

Perhaps the Bible serves as a mirror for our hopes and our optimism or our despondency.
I don't know why God would concentrate on a stretch of Middle Eastern land and a period of time when people were less advanced. There are Sodoms that need his attention today and his own people were in a worse captivity than that of Egypt, during WW2, but no Red Sea parted for them.

I don't know why we want to enter the tents of semi-savage nomads and extract from them messages they are ill equipped to provide. But I suppose our search for God need not be in high places or in cathedrals. For me, the many passages in the OT where what is said by Yahweh is just wicked, rules him out as a mentor, far less a God. Maybe the best place to look for deity is in other people, not in Holy Books, for Holy Books have a habit of producing the worst qualities in people: instance the Koran and ISIS today. And is the Koran any worse than the OT, from which it is copied?

Your eloquent first paragraph leaves me speechless, and I do not know how to answer. Very tough questions that call for speculation I am not prepared to offer.

Regarding your second paragraph, I think Jesus would agree that God is in others, the Kingdom of God is within you. Paul would too, in that the body is a Temple.

To suggest that religions of the Book lead inevitably, or invariably (are you?) to abominations like ISIS is demonstrably false. Millions more Muslims and Christians and Jews for that matter, are peacable and humane.

Secular humanists do not have a monopoly on the humane, the comppassionate. But admittedly, neither do the religious.

But neither do the religous have a monopoly on the atrocious. Unless of course, one makes a religion out of the State, or goes too far with other, non-Theistic idealologies. "Goes too far" is the key phrase here, with Theist and non-Theist alike.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 33 by Elijah John]

It can be argued that the US and the Allies were God's instruments in defeating Nazism, (and this is a note to the "war never solves anything crowd" it certainly made peacable nations out of Germany and Japan!) But granted, not in time to save millions.

[marco]

To suggest that religions of the Book lead inevitably, or invariably (are you?) to abominations like ISIS is demonstrably false. Millions more Muslims and Christians and Jews for that matter, are peacable and humane.

Secular humanists do not have a monopoly on the humane, the comppassionate. But admittedly, neither do the religious.

But neither do the religous have a monopoly on the atrocious. Unless of course, one makes a religion out of the State, or goes too far with other, non-Theistic idealologies. "Goes too far" is the key phrase here, with Theist and non-Theist alike.

You are right to pick me up on this generalisation. Goodness is evident in people of every persuasion; that I don't contest.
What I was inelegantly trying to say was that the BAD in the OT inspires people to act in a bad way - or they can choose to ignore such instructions. If we act on the stoning commands, we act wickedly and people in the past have done that. Now we don't by NOT FOLLOWING. Same applies to the witch injunctions. Follow and we go into wickedness; but we choose NOT to follow today.

If you read the Koran you will find instructions that would make people recoil. If people DO follow them, they act wickedly. (See the Surah of Light, for instance, where husbands are told to BEAT their wives. One Imam in Britain today is advising Muslims to follow this instruction.)
Your comment that most Muslims live peaceably can be taken to mean they do not follow everything that is in their book.
ISIS takes its horror from the sections in the Koran that say enemies of Allah have to be beheaded.

I explained myself badly. Homer nods, Elijah.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 34 by Elijah John]

It can be argued that the US and the Allies were God's instruments in defeating Nazism, (and this is a note to the "war never solves anything crowd" it certainly made peacable nations out of Germany and Japan!) But granted, not in time to save millions.

If true, this raises questions such as what does God need with a starship...I mean, what does God need with a human military? If Nazism was what God was against, why would he need to use a human military to combat it and defeat it? The Old Testament is abound with stories of God getting directly involved with the Hebrew conquests. There's stories of the Hebrews using magic trumpets to blow down city walls for example.
This also raises the question - if your premise here is true, then this means God is in favour of nuclear weapons and their usage. It was the dropping of two atomic bombs that forced Japan to surrender.

It is this good, true and beautiful that survives today...and on these Biblical things religions are founded, not on the bad and nasty.

Uhh...*looks at ISIS*. You sure that it's only the good and the beautiful that creates religions?

If one considers this approach intellectually dishonest, I can just as easily counter that an "all or nothing" approach is simplistic. Fundamentalism is simplistic, and hard atheism is simplistic as well. They are two sides of the same dogmatic coin, imo.

I disagree of course, but that is your position. Fair enough.

As to why Jehovah and not other god's or religions? The Ten Commandments. Ethical Monotheism at the core, which survives all distorting myth attached to His name.

This is what separates Jehovah and allows Jehovah to survive the human sacrifice challenge that other gods in your eyes have failed? A list of ethical guidelines (in my opinion, the 10 C's are not ethical, I can find all sorts of things wrong with them but that is a topic for another thread). Other religions have lists of teachings that they promote as being ethical, yet for some reason these other religions and their gods don't pass your test.
I must also point out that even if the 10 C's were the most ethical teachings imaginable, that doesn't do anything to solve the problem of Jehovah and the human sacrifices and the killings commanded by him, according to the OT. Sure, there are commandments against murder and theft...but then this god is depicted as also commanding the destruction of entire cities and the enslavement of entire peoples (funny that there is no commandment against enslavement or rape).

And evidence that Jehovah is the real Living God is the 3rd Commandment, the prophibition of graven images, idols.

...that's your standard? The Sikh religion also forbids idolatry. Do you then believe that the Sikh God is real?
I would also argue against the 3rd having any real wisdom in it at all, in that what exactly does it mean? When does it count as someone committing idolatry and not simply using an object as a visual representation? (rhetorical question). Look at what Islam does - they prohibit even the drawing of pictures of Muhammed, with many Muslims being willing to kill if someone does so.

Rikuo, I tend not to attempt to convince non-Theists...for that I would have to engage in debates about God's existance. I'd rather not. I ususally like to focus on debates as to which Theistic position is a) more reasonable, b) more Biblical. Or c) to explain or defend my approach.

Fair enough. I'll leave myself a note that that is where your interests lie.

If one does accept the premise that a good God exists, it is not an unreasonable leap to assert that the real God, the Living God is at the core of the Bible myths.

I disagree of course. I've got problems with the things you point to as being ethical and good about Jehovah. I imagine a hypothetical theistic version of myself having no real onus to move beyond a generic good God, to that good God being Jehovah as described in the Bible.

May the LORD bless you and keep you, may the LORD make his face shine upon you and be gracious to you; may the LORD life up his countenance on you and give you peace"

...I seem to remember at least one Bible quote where God's face can't be shown to humans, otherwise they die. Then again, I remember Bible verses where God talks face to face with humans and nothing happens.

[Elijah John]

-I have to speculate here, as to why God didn't just intervene supernaturally. I think he could have, but I do believe he chooses humans to stand with Him in the fight against evil. God uses human instruments, in this case the Allies (you do agree that good, if not God, was on the side of the Allies, don't you? And that evil in the form of Nazisim was defeated.)

Not going to defend every warlike command that the Jehovah of the Bible is said to have made, but I will say this. War is different than human sacrifiice. The two should not be conflated.

Other religions? I have great respect for Islam and Sikhism and Ba'hai as well, and see them as worshiping the same true and ethical God as do Jews and Christians. Jehovah under different names.

Hope that clarifies my position.

Oh, just want to say, to you and Marco who cite ISIS as an example of the failure of religion in general. They are not good Muslims, they blaspheme God by their actions. Most Muslims hate them, but are intimidated by them.

They no more represent Islam than the Westboro Baptist Church represents Christianity.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 37 by Elijah John]

God uses human instruments, in this case the Allies

When it comes to WWII, I go with Occam's Razor. As an explanation (God intervened), it raises far too many questions and pitfalls.

you do agree that good, if not God, was on the side of the Allies, don't you? And that evil in the form of Nazisim was defeated.)

Yes, in a general sense. However, I don't believe that the Allies were pure good. The Nazis were about as bad as a regime could possibly get, in my opinion, but the Allies weren't all sunshine and rainbows. They were the ones who built and used two atomic weapons, after all.

Not going to defend every warlike command that the Jehovah of the Bible is said to have made, but I will say this. War is different than human sacrifiice. The two should not be conflated.

I'm going to make a different thread for this, where this can be discussed. Check the apologetics index.

Other religions? I have great respect for Islam and Sikhism and Ba'hai as well, and see them as worshiping the same true and ethical God as do Jews and Christians. Jehovah under different names.

According to Sikh teachings, souls go through a process of reincarnation. There is no such thing according to Christian teachings. So in my eyes, it is false to say that Sikh God = Christian God (Jehovah), unless you want to say that Jehovah taught two mutually exclusive teachings.

Oh, just want to say, to you and Marco who cite ISIS as an example of the failure of religion in general. They are not good Muslims, they blaspheme God by their actions. Most Muslims hate them, but are intimidated by them.

They no more represent Islam than the Westboro Baptist Church represents Christianity.

This is No True Scotsman territory. In my eyes, ISIS do represent Islam, as do those neighbours of yours who live peacefully down the street who are Muslim. Same with WBC - they do represent Christianity in my eyes, just as do the kind old lady who goes to Sunday Mass.

[oldbadger]

Challenge:

To defenders of the God of the Bible: Please follow suit and provide positive commands from the Old Tesatment, as rikuo requested.

Oh that's easy!

Most of the 600+ OT laws are(were) good and positive (in their time). Obviously cynics would rush to pick a difficult example for me, rather than pick one fairly, t random, but if I stick a pin in somewhere, and come up with, say, the 'Do not eat Shellfish' law, that one is(was) massively good and positive in it's time.

You see, mostly every law kept the tribes as healthy and as strong as possible.

Easy......... easy.......

[Zzyzx]

.

Most of the 600+ OT laws are(were) good and positive (in their time). Obviously cynics would rush to pick a difficult example for me, rather than pick one fairly, t random, but if I stick a pin in somewhere, and come up with, say, the 'Do not eat Shellfish' law, that one is(was) massively good and positive in it's time.

You see, mostly every law kept the tribes as healthy and as strong as possible.

Easy......... easy.......

Perhaps you refer to Leviticus 11:9-12 ESV “These you may eat, of all that are in the waters. Everything in the waters that has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers, you may eat. But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you. You shall regard them as detestable; you shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall detest their carcasses. Everything in the waters that has not fins and scales is detestable to you.

Aquatic animals without fins and scales include lobster, crabs, shrimp, squid, crawdads, catfish, eels, sturgeon, etc.

First, let us name the commonly known unclean fish -- these are scaleless fish -- which are not fit for food: catfish, eels, paddlefish, sculpins, sticklebacks, sturgeons, and swordfish. These fish do not have true scales. Together with these creatures are other forms of sea life unfit for human consumption: abalone, clams, crabs, lobsters, oysters, scallops, shrimp, whale. http://www.giveshare.org/Health/cleanunclean.html

Kindly explain to us (easy, easy of course) WHY a law against eating such things "is (was) massively good and positive in its time".

AND explain why prohibition against eating such things is not (or is) applicable now.