Abhorrent old testament material

[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.

[KenRU]

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

Antipathy for someone not met might be easily remedied, if that person were actually met.

God's characteristics are only derived from the bible. A book that provides logical contradictions, that can only be remedied by ignoring context, stretching credulity and circular reasoning.

So, how do we determine who is right?

-all the best


Some Christians may believe impossible contradictions but that does not prove that reality has impossible contradictions or that the idea of GOD is impossible.[/quote]

[theophile]

[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.

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.)

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)...

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.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 168 by KenRU]

I'm not speaking for Marco, but what I took from his statement was that god has the final say, and if we don't comply, we get wiped off the face of the earth.

In essence, we dance to his music, or else. We do as he commands, or else. In essence, we must act like his puppets, or face the consequences of an unjust punishment like a global flood - where all life suffers.

Perhaps I am wrong, but that is what I took from his comment.

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.

The opposite, in fact. Since the most "non-puppet" events are those where freedom to act is demonstrated in defiance of such guaranteed, ultimate consequences.

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.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 172 by theophile]

And since freewill is not contained within the Bible, but is only a late Apologetic add, then you must agree that Gods determinism is as abhorrent as the rest of his directed acts.

Well said, subtle yet well said!

[theophile]

[Replying to Willum]

Pretty sure the bible has concepts that give importance to something like freedom. Why else would God be so upset at Israel's bondage in Egypt?

There is also what I figured you of all people would appreciate: the preservation of Babylonian Tiamat from the Enuma Elish (the chaotic deep).

Where this chaotic primordial ocean is slain in the Enuma Elish by Marduk, tehom survives Genesis and is, I would argue, part of Elohim ("Let us...") and a critical, enduring element of biblical creation.

In other words, there is a bit of chaos in us all. Unpredictability. Spontaneity. What else is that but something akin to freedom? ...

[Willum]

[Replying to post 174 by theophile]

And I would have to reply - if you have to invoke someone else's Bible for your own "freewill premise," then your Bible doesn't have one.

In fact, casual inspect reveals the Bible, it's verses, are anti-free will.
If you don't belive in him, you don't get eternal life...

Here's a snippet:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_ ... _will.html

But there are also bits about evil people's paths being chosen by God, and so on.
And no verses in favor...

This seems to go against what you said before supporting how abhorrent OT material is...

[theophile]

[Replying to Willum]

And I would have to reply - if you have to invoke someone else's Bible for your own "freewill premise," then your Bible doesn't have one.

Umm, no. I invoked tehom, which is the biblical parallel of tiamat. So, again, chaos is present.

In fact, casual inspect reveals the Bible, it's verses, are anti-free will.
If you don't belive in him, you don't get eternal life...

What does this have to do with what I'm saying? You're in the same trap as Marco. You can still have freedom within a highly constrained system.

It doesn't matter if a certain path of faithfulness guarantees eternal life. Even if that was the case, and that path existed, it wouldn't annul our freedom. It wouldn't change the fact that we may go one way or another, and that there is something like choice on our part in which way we go.

Totally irrelevant to the question.

We know for sure that you jumping off a high rise will end in your death. Does that fact in any way annul your freedom? Absolutely not. Please provide a real argument for your case.

But there are also bits about evil people's paths being chosen by God, and so on.
And no verses in favor...

Care to provide some references so we can dig into these verses vs. just assume your interpretation of them?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 176 by theophile]

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...

[ttruscott]

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

Freewill is a modern Apologetic thing...

Free will is a logical necessity from the Bible's pov that we are truly guilty for the sins we do which is not true if we have no free will

and the Bible's pov that GOD is righteous with no wickedness in HIM and light with no darkness in HIM cannot be true if HE created us to do evil and be evil without our free will decision to be evil.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 178 by ttruscott]

Perhaps, but it is denied by the Bible.
So if it is necessity, you know the Bible is wrong.

Good observation, TS!