Abhorrent old testament material

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
agnosticatheist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:47 pm

Abhorrent old testament material

Post #1

Post by agnosticatheist »

Regardless of whether some, all, or none of the old testament commands apply to Christians today, the fact is, according to the bible, at some point in the past, the SAME god they submit to and worship was ok with the abhorrent garbage in the old testament.

Examples of abhorrent garbage in the old testament:

1. Slavery

2. Stoning people to death (even their own children........)

3. Killing everyone but the virgin girls (whom they "keep for themselves".....gee i wonder what the implication of THAT is, and i wonder how they determined which of the girls were virgins?.....would you be ok with your daughter being subjected to that? if not, then why was it ok for the daughters of a people group back then to be subjected to that? that is the height of hypocrisy. if you want to try to argue the method that they used to determine which girls were virgins was not invasive, like some type of cultural ornamentation, clothing, etc, that method is not foolproof, and you want the method that you are using to determine who gets to live and who dies to be foolproof. ultimately, the text does not tell us how they went about determining who was a virgin, so any suggestion is mere speculation)

4. Pillaging cities

5. Cutting a woman's hand off

6. Putting whole towns to death. Men, women, children, and animals

7. Subjecting a woman to drinking water that contains dust from the floor of the tabernacle and having her hair unbraided by some creepy old priest, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SHE IS GUILTY OF ADULTERY OR NOT. Then, if she turns out to be guilty, her womb swells and her "thigh falls away (Metaphor for her womb shriveling up? it would seem so considering later on it says that if the woman is shown to be innocent, she shall conceive children). Seriously, what kind of man subjects his wife to that??? What if the wife is jealous? Is there recourse like this for her? Can she take her husband to the priest and have him subjected to a test, whereby if he is guilty of adultery, his testicles swell, and then his testicles cease to produce sperm? NOPE. Only the husband gets to subject his wife to this garbage.

What kind of god hands this down to humans?

I ask you Christians: How is this ok? How? Where is your god? Where is your integrity?

On this one issue alone, you should at minimum toss inerrancy out the window, and really, you should toss it all out. But nope, despite what I have presented here, some of you are too stubborn to REJECT THIS EVIL GARBAGE and stand for what is ACTUALLY GOOD. Some of you are too scared of your god sending you to hell for rejecting it. Some of you are flat out evil, you know it's evil, you enjoy it, and so you have no problem with it. For some of you, and you are the one's i feel sorry for, your current belief system is a "security blanket" that helps you keep going, helps you cope with your past, helps you cope with your present, and gives you hope for your future. I encourage you to discard that security blanket, and step out into the light. Reject this evil. You can do it!

If any of you doubt me on what i listed here, i will be glad to cite verses for you.

If anyone besides the Israelites were to treat people the way the Israelites did, Christians would be having a fit, calling it inhumane, evil, etc (they already do this with islam; at least the muslims behead people, which is more merciful and less painful than stoning people to death.......). They give the Isrealites and their god a free pass on this garbage because to take issue with it would mean at least the collapse of their precious doctrine of biblical inerrancy, and perhaps even the total collapse of their security blanket (or, for some, their control mechanism, means of acquiring wealth, influence, perks, etc).

Christians, if your god was actually ok with this stuff and commanded it, I reject your god and refuse to submit. Send me to hell, i'll go down swinging. I'd fight your god if I could, even if it meant certain death. I refuse to submit to this evil bullcrap.

Game over, Biblical Inerrantists. You now have to either stand by the garbage i mentioned, and reveal yourself to be a selfish, deplorable person, or reject the garbage i mentioned, and toss biblical inerrancy out the window. There is NO escape here.
If it turns out there are one or more gods, then so be it.

If it turns out there are no gods, then thank reality that no one is going to suffer forever.

Kenisaw
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:41 pm
Location: St Louis, MO, USA
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 61 times

Post #181

Post by Kenisaw »

ttruscott wrote:
Kenisaw wrote:No, the Bible story does not hold with logic. The Bible gives the god creature characteristics that, when added up together, create impossible contradictions.
The illogic of impossible contradictions arise only when the interpretations of the stories, verses or words are skewed by antipathy to HIM and HIS characteristics OR by a misunderstanding of our reality that forces apologists to accept them...as I have shown many times.

Some Christians may believe impossible contradictions but that does not prove that reality has impossible contradictions or that the idea of GOD is impossible.
Refreshing. Usually you start off this conversation by claiming atheists are using the wrong modern interpretation of words that describe the god creature's onmi-abilities.

It has nothing to do with antipathy toward your god being. I noticed the whole barrel of nonsensical contradictions of the god being's characteristics when I was still a believer. That's one of the reasons I stopped believing.

If there are impossible contradictions (and there are) for the Bible god, then there is no reason to state that it could possibly exist. I'm not saying that some kind of god is impossible, but the Christian one is full on make believe fantasy.

Kenisaw
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:41 pm
Location: St Louis, MO, USA
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 61 times

Post #182

Post by Kenisaw »

theophile wrote: [Replying to Kenisaw]
Since 1 and 2 like to oppose each other pretty much all the time, I'd think 100% of #2 is the better way to go.

Yes I see you brought QM into the conversation...after I made comments of a QM nature. But you can have the cred for that. It's just good to be having conversations about stuff, that's why we are all here.
You made comments regarding a deterministic reality, which is the opposite of QM. So you only made comments of a QM nature if up is down and black is white. But okay. Irrelevant to the main argument...

As to 1 and 2 being opposed, again, that's probably because your reading is way too literal. Of course the bible is false if we take it as literally having occurred or providing scientific fact.

It's not as history or science that the bible has meaning or value.
Well we definitely agree that a literal reading of the Bible is useless since it can't stand up to logical scrutiny. But even taking it the other way - figurative - leads to issues, doesn't it?
Tell you what, I'll let go of the literal when you can show why anything as it relates to the Bible wasn't meant to be taken literally.

Meanwhile, why not take the words of Nietzsche about chaos. Or use the Greek god Khaos, it's as clear as day in Greek mythology.
We're talking about the bible here. This is a site on the defense of Christianity (which for me is above all a defense of the bible, its principal text). So I would only bring in Nietzsche or other sources if they are relevant or helpful in that defense.

The question, again, is 1) what is biblical teaching, and 2) does it conform to reality.

We can't do 2, which you are so quick to jump to, until we've gotten somewhere with 1.

As to showing why the bible shouldn't be taken literally, it's a matter of common sense.

Things like talking snakes should make that highly evident. Not to mention the poetic nature of many parts of it (Psalms) or proverbial nature (Proverbs) or parables. These are purely literary in nature and like any, say, poem or parable, are rich in metaphor and decidedly not to be taken "literally". Furthermore, this "figurative" nature of these texts does not diminish their didactic value. Same holds if we extend this to other parts of the bible, i.e., the narratives. Taking them figuratively helps us avoid the trap of historicism (which is a distraction in my view)* and focus on the pure meaning of them. *Focusing on historical reality actually distracts us from this. For example, endlessly debating if the resurrection actually happened distracts us from the true meaning of the resurrection, and thinking and debating this. The figurative meaning of it, which is the important thing, is lost.

To bring in Greek myth to support this, I'm pretty sure Hesiod, Homer, Plato, etc., whenever they wrote a creation narrative or myth, did not mean it in a literal way. This is clearly true of Plato (pretty sure he says as much somewhere - would have to look for citation, probably in the Timaeus) and he's building off this tradition.

The Greeks personified concepts as gods, not because they actually thought these concepts had such reality, but because personification is a useful literary device and results in a text that is far more relatable and engaging. People tend to prefer stories with rich characters and interactions over philosophical texts. (See again the talking snake of Genesis 3.)

Thus we see in the genealogy of Hesiod's Theogony, for example, that Chaos comes first and that out of Chaos all things come. This is less a point that there is some god-like being out there named Chaos who actually sired other gods, and more a point about Chaos (as a concept) as the fundamental origin of all things. (The bible, I think, agrees with Hesiod on this point 100%, or at least sees chaos at the beginning and as key to the ongoing genealogy of things.)
Well stated. So please explain how you think you find the true meaning in something rich in metaphor and meant to be taken figuratively.
Think about Jesus' old man (the OT god, not Joseph) who actually is also Jesus and NOT Jesus (smacks of schizophrenia), and how he used to say that it was OK to take and have slaves. In fact he pretty much commanded it when they won in battle. Think about what it means for you to ignore that part of the Bible entirely and act like it never happened, and how you ignore that part of the Bible being used to justify slavery even in modern times...
No ignorance on my part. Again, we are all called to be slaves in the bible. To serve others. The question is how that call is (mis)interpreted by human beings in the biblical drama. Did a figure like Joshua hear it as a call to take slaves and force slavery? And as such misinterpret it? I think so.

But look, I can understand that error, and it strikes me that Joshua provides a clear foil for Jesus in making that error. Note that Joshua and Jesus have the same name, which is significant, and begs us to compare and contrast the characters. When we do so, we see among other things that where Joshua heard the call that we "be" slaves as we should "take" slaves, Jesus heard something else: that the path to life is through service to each other, and that the greatest among us are those who serve the lowest.

My point, if you think about it, is that the greatness of God should be measured in this way, not in the way that you and others have construed it. God's greatness is not through power and perfect control of the cosmos. Rather, God is greatest because God is a servant to all..

That is what we see personified above all in Jesus, and why Jesus is God. He is a servant to all. Again, the entire hierarchy turns upside down. Kings wash the feet of the sick. The rich give away all their wealth to the poor. This is the path to life: when we all take up this way of service to others. So if we hear a call to slavery in the bible, we need to hear that call for what it is: a call that truly applies to all, and that removes from the word 'slave' what you are so quick to assume: ownership, control, subjugation (as Joshua heard it as well).

It is more precisely about service to each other. Voluntary service. And demonstrating greatness through that. It is a call to slavery without slavery, so to speak, to use postmodern language (Derrida). It is something we see God exemplify in Genesis 1 when God works in service of all by shaping a world where life can flourish. Where God does not rule over everything with an iron fist but rather calls for cooperation and followership: "Let us..." Where we are called to image that way of ruling (a way of ruling that Jesus reorients us to)...
I'll stick with my question above for now if that is OK.
Actually my question is why it's even debatable in people's mind that magical gardens and talking serpents are not realistic.
It's not debatable in my mind, so not sure why we are debating it. It should be clear by now that I have no interest in defending such a highly literal reading of the bible. That said, there is important meaning in these things that you bring up. If you want to debate that meaning, that's what I'm here for.

Again, the serpent is a sign of our chaotic origins. It is a sign of freedom and unpredictability within the created order. It shows that God is not the God you all think: one in complete control or power over the cosmos. It shows that creation will require the "subduing" of its chaotic elements (see Gen 1), by which I don't mean striking at their head (as the fall in Genesis 3 so quickly leads us to do), or subjecting this chaos through other means (e.g., Joshua's enslavement of it), but rather by enlisting each unique expression that chaos alone can generate in the service of others. Through followership, just we are called to image God / follow Jesus. We all need to take up our cross and follow Him (becoming servants to all, fostering the conditions for life in this world). That is the path to life.

Our chaotic core must never be suppressed, but must also be brought into the service of all, i.e., "subdued." This is the not-impossible paradox that so easily leads to confusion about biblical slavery but is the path to life (not just confusing you, but like I said, Joshua and other esteemed biblical figures who also fail to grasp it).

Jesus reorients us to this truth that has been there from the beginning. From Genesis 1. So no ignorance on my part of the OT. And also no contradiction, I don't think, with any modern science, in anything that I say.
I already pointed out that the idea of chaos at the beginning of the universe isn't actually accurate. It does conflict with modern science.

User avatar
theophile
Guru
Posts: 1581
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:09 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: Abhorrent old testament material

Post #183

Post by theophile »

[Replying to Willum]
Why is it that religionists are always trying to get the non-religionists to prove their Bible?
Good grief, you can google all the verses the deny freewill, indeed since the link above did not satisfy you with verses aplenty.

The OP is not about freewill, and there are many topics that are, I simply thought you were using the fact that there was no real freewill in the Bible to demonstrate how abhorrent the God of the Bible was.

It is on you to demonstrate freewill, I suppose.
But you can't...

Freewill is a modern Apologetic thing...
Prove the bible? What? I expect you to provide an argument for your case if you say I'm wrong.

I provided an argument which you have said nothing of substance against. You did nothing at all but provide a link as if that accomplished something. So please debate, like the site says. I'm not asking you to prove the bible but to do what the site says if you want to participate.

Again, show me that Genesis 1 isn't explicit on chaos being present from the beginning. (It is.)
Or show me that this chaos is destroyed by God (as in the Enuma Elish). (It isn't.)
Or show me that in ancient cultures the sea (e.g., Tiamat in Babylon, Tehom in Hebrew) isn't a sign of chaos. (It is.)
Or show me that this preserved chaos in the the bible, like the sea, means that creation isn't inherently uncontrollable. Spontaneous. Essentially, free. (It is.)

Do I care to use the phrase 'free will'? No. I use it because others do. But the bible has at its heart this critical idea that there is chaos in us all. That the stuff we are made of is inherently uncontrollable.

i.e., Free. Just like the sea.

Does this mean no constraints? No.
No rules? No.
No promises of what will happen if we're good or bad? No.

None of this stuff changes anything about the point I'm making.

User avatar
theophile
Guru
Posts: 1581
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:09 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Post #184

Post by theophile »

[Replying to Kenisaw]
Well stated. So please explain how you think you find the true meaning in something rich in metaphor and meant to be taken figuratively.
Through careful, close and considerate reading. Through seeking to understand the source language and the semantic range that it affords. Through identification and evaluation of viable interpretations of the texts. Through comparison of those viable interpretations with other texts in the tradition since there is so much interplay and cross-reference between texts (and consistency). Through discussion with like-minded individuals in the sense of individuals who approach the text in the same way. By not making unfounded assumptions about the text (i.e., what thousands of years of Christian tradition may say) but relying solely on the context and evidence that the text and its surrounding narrative provides.

In other words, the same way we would approach the true meaning of Plato, or Proust, or...
I already pointed out that the idea of chaos at the beginning of the universe isn't actually accurate. It does conflict with modern science.
I must have missed that. How does the idea of chaos at the beginning of the universe conflict with modern science? Do you (or anyone else) know what generated the big bang? Was it not, in all likelihood, a quantum event of sorts? The random chance of something coming from nothing? Randomness and chaos are not far apart.

Also, to be clear, I don't think Genesis 1 is the beginning of the universe. Again, the deep / sea / chaos (tehom) was already there when the ruach Elohim (breath / wind of God) came on the scene. So was the earth: it was just "formless and void" (tohu wa-bohu).

Thus, if we read the text in the way I described above, we would not see this as the "beginning of the universe." More precisely we would see it as the beginning of an effort to shape the elements that were already there into a life-sustaining world and to then fill the "void" with life.

This is precisely what the rest of the Genesis 1 narrative goes on to describe.

(The figurative meaning being that this is God's mission and, more importantly, our mission as human beings. To shape the world so that it can support life and to foster life of every kind in the world. That is the prime directive of the bible should we choose to accept it and what everything else follows from and must be understood in the context of.)

User avatar
marco
Savant
Posts: 12314
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:15 pm
Location: Scotland
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Abhorrent old testament material

Post #185

Post by marco »

theophile wrote:
I got the point. I don't agree with Marco's understanding of the bible / God, but even accepting it, my point was that this still doesn't make us puppets.

Let's take a modern pop culture reference: Braveheart. Was freedom not at its crescendo in his final cry under the executioner's axe? Yes, I think it was. That man was no puppet, I don't think. Especially not under such circumstances. He was the farthest thing from.

This is an inexplicably irrelevant example. Braveheart rebelled against Edward 1, but Edward was not his creator, with the power to destroy him when he chose. They were both humans, one opposing the other, and "puppet" has no application here. Pinocchio, made by Geppetto, is a puppet, subject to his maker's whim. So is man under Yahweh. I am surprised you find this hard to accept.

User avatar
marco
Savant
Posts: 12314
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:15 pm
Location: Scotland
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #186

Post by marco »

theophile wrote:

In other words, the same way we would approach the true meaning of Plato, or Proust, or...

Students invariably rely on university tutors to direct them towards a meaning in Proust, say. This may not be "the true meaning", whatever that is. People extract an interpretation from the text that affords weeks of conversation and scope for a few good essays.

Similarly people approach the OT and often extract very clever interpretations, seeing in Adam or in Isaac something of Christ. Thus God grows in sophistication in direct proportion to the erudition of his exegetes. These "scholars" pass on their wisdom to plebeian sources and God reigns supreme. Muslim clerics likewise examine the Koran and find subterranean meanings that suggest the book is a veritable repository of modern science. These singers sing a lovely, and sometimes terrifying, song. À la recherche du temps perdu is just as beautiful.

Post Reply