|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,794 Year: 4,051/9,624 Month: 922/974 Week: 249/286 Day: 10/46 Hour: 1/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 6101 days) Posts: 65 From: Los Angeles, California Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The God of the Bible is Evil | |||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
We covered all that at the beginning of this thread, but you didn't provide anymore info to on.
In Message 23, I explained that in the context of the whole story God was repaying in like kind for what Egypt did to the Hebrews. In Message 33 using the Documentary Hypothesis, I showed that the J author implies wonders and not disasters. You stated in Message 129 that: What I am asserting is that the God as depicted cannot be a realistic model by modern standards. I still need to know realistic model of what? "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Do Christians use the Exodus story to show that God is good?
"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Have you seen the good guys and bad guys in the movies and books? It's Good to be Bad That's why you need to be more specific as to what verses are being used to present God as good. We can see if they are misrepresenting what the verses mean. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Since a debate has two sides, the opposite of your position is that God is good or God is not evil. What ICANT shared in general in Message 140 is a very good point.
ICANT writes: Therefore if God being a just God and requiring that sin be paid for by imposing His sentence is deemed evil by some, does this make God evil? Is the judge that passes sentence on the person found guilty of murder by a jury evil? Is the system evil for carrying out that sentence. Or is the law against murder evil? God made the laws.God is judge, jury, and executioner. Does that make God evil? The God of the OT is presented as the ruler of the Hebrews. He has all the power of a ruler. Laws, judgment, war, peace, etc. Same for the NT. God dealt with rule breakers the same way the human rulers did. Now if we grew up in a country where rulers can kill or have people (any age) killed and where criminals are thrown into a firey pit after death; then it is not out of the norm for their God to do the same thing. That's how justice works in that country or time. Since the Christian Holy Book stops at the NT, the religion got stuck IMO. Now Christians are trying to present God in the same light as we expect our (USA) leaders to act today. Unfortunately since they feel the Bible is the last word, they are stuck by trying to prove their point with outdated material. It's the same thing you are doing. You also are trying to make your point with outdated material. That's why I said it is better to attack the teaching rather than the scripture. I'm not the same as I was in my 20's (on many levels). I'm not even the same as I was when I first joined this forum. The view of God changes as mankind changes. As I said before, there is also a difference between what God does on a national level and what God does on an individual level. The OT is on a national level. The NT is on an individual level. I haven't done research, but I don't think they were worried about prisoner rights in the age of the NT.God's form of punishment for the individual in the NT will be in line with the punishment of the time. Understanding is better than fear, IMO. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
I reread some of Friedman's comments on the Documentary Hypothesis. (Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Elliott Friedman)
I agree that Christianity needs to be careful how they teach. It would be like showing young recruits today, clips from when I went through boot camp. They are interesting, but they won't help them understand what to expect when they get to the base. Much has changed. Bible scholars found three distinct periods reflected in the writings and three stages of development in the religion of Israel. The J&E authors reflected the nature/fertility stage, the D (Deuteronomy) author reflected the spiritual/ethical stage, and the P (Priestly) author reflected the priestly/legal stage. The Exodus story comes from the J&E authors with later Priestly portions inserted. In Deuteronomy 20, we see laws of war that reflect a "softer" side. I mean it is war after all.
10-15 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. ... If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, and the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. ... Deuteronomy 20:16-18 gets into why they should completely destroy anything living when battling the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. I haven't had time to research, but I think it would be interesting to note whether these groups were essentially gone by the time Deuteronomy was written or not. Easy to say kill everything when they are already gone. Just some more to think about. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Important to what? I'm not comparing now with then. I'm showing a progression forward. Improvement. Enslavement is a step up from killing everybody. quote:If you are going to compare, then compare like kind. The God of the OT is not a person. Alexander the Great is. Either compare writings of the same time period that show what other gods commanded or compare leaders from the same time period and what they actually did. I showed in Message 125 that even within the Bible writings, what was said and what was done aren't always the same.
quote:Exactly and like any other story, they need to be understood correctly in the context of their intended audience and what actually happened. In Message 145 I wrote: The God of the OT is presented as the ruler of the Hebrews. He has all the power of a ruler. Laws, judgment, war, peace, etc. Same for the NT. God dealt with rule breakers the same way the human rulers did. Now if we grew up in a country where rulers can kill or have people (any age) killed and where criminals are thrown into a firey pit after death; then it is not out of the norm for their God to do the same thing. That's how justice works in that country or time. Since the Christian Holy Book stops at the NT, the religion got stuck IMO. Now Christians are trying to present God in the same light as we expect our (USA) leaders to act today. Unfortunately since they feel the Bible is the last word, they are stuck by trying to prove their point with outdated material. The NT also presented a father image for the individual, granted a harsher father than what we would expect today, but those were harsher times. Again, the image changes with time. Isn't understanding better than superficially condemning? "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Alexander the Great (356 bce-323 bce) J & E Writings (922 bce-722 bce) Combined JE and the Deuteronomy and Priestly writings (722 bce - 539 bce) Combined JEPD (539 bce - 400 bce) Alexander is still in a different timeframe than the writings. Mankind should show growth. Enslavement instead of death is still growth. So did mankind grow or was Alexander exceptional? Did his example prevail? The cruel treatment of the Jews by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (215 bce - 164 bce), who was part of the Seleucid Empire that succeeded Alexander's reign, lead to the Jewish revolt lead by the Maccabees. The Book of the Maccabees gives the Jewish view of the events.
1 Maccabees 7: And after Alexander had reigned twelve years, he died. 8: Then his officers began to rule, each in his own place. 9: They all put on crowns after his death, and so did their sons after them for many years; and they caused many evils on the earth. ... 30: Deceitfully he spoke peaceable words to them, and they believed him; but he suddenly fell upon the city, dealt it a severe blow, and destroyed many people of Israel.31: He plundered the city, burned it with fire, and tore down its houses and its surrounding walls. 32: And they took captive the women and children, and seized the cattle. ... 60: According to the decree, they put to death the women who had their children circumcised,61: and their families and those who circumcised them; and they hung the infants from their mothers' necks. Times were still dark. Revolts and war are not pretty, no matter when it happens.
quote:But stating that the God of the OT is evil sheds no more understanding on the reality behind the writings. IMO, understanding that rules of war are different than civil laws. IOW, How I deal with my neighbor on a day to day basis is different than how I or a country deal with a life threatening invader. Understanding is necessary to battle illogical claims from either side. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Which is essentially what I've been saying. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
I've heard businessmen who are Christians state that business is business and church is church. One doesn't apply to the other.
My husband sat in a meeting and listened to his Christian Business Associates agree to send faulty material to a customer. There are a few rules gleaned from the OT concerning business. (613 Mitzvot)Given the financial rules today, should a Christian or Jew be in banking? (rhetorical) "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Did you mean scrap of good or actually scrap of god? quote:Exactly! "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
I'm assuming you aren't actually responding to anything I've posted since your post doesn't seem to address anything I've posted.
This topic deals with how the OT God is characterized. I don't see that your post is addressing the topic, so I can't really respond with more than what I've already posted earlier. See Message 1 for topic opener. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I agree that the OT writings come from the mind of man and describe the evolution of culture, but since the character of God comes from the mind of man; what is the mind of God? While I think we are on the same page as far as the reality of the Bible, I think we differ in our view of what the ancient Gods were. I think this excerpt from Schweitzer's 1936 article concerning "The Ethics of Reverence for Life" closely follows along my lines of thinking.
When one has seen whole populations annihilated by sleeping sickness, as I have, one ceases to imagine that human life is nature’s goal. In fact, the Creative Force does not concern itself about preserving life. It simultaneously creates and destroys. Therefore, the will-to-live is not to be understood within the circle of Creative Force. Philosophy and religion have repeatedly sought the solution by this road; they have projected our will to perfection into nature at large, expecting to see its counterpart there. But in all honesty we must confess that to cling to such a belief is to delude ourselves. quote:Also just because one can envision alien life or environments, doesn't mean that aliens actually exist for us to understand. Mankind has a vivid imagination and many fictional characters exist only in our literature but have become part of our culture. In Job (fiction), Satan was a personification of the adversary. That doesn't make Satan a real being to understand outside of the story. quote:Albert Schweitzer's article on "Reverence for Life" is very interesting although I'm not sure which version you pulled your excerpt from. Albert Schweitzer writes: Therefore, I see that evil is what annihilates, hampers, or hinders life. And this holds good whether I regard it physically or spiritually. Goodness, by the same token, is the saving or helping of life, the enabling of whatever life I can to attain its highest development. In the 1936 article your excerpt is preceded by these words, which explains why he comes to conclusion you quoted.
What shall be my attitude toward this other life? It can only be of a piece with my attitude towards my own life. If I am a thinking being, I must regard other life than my own with equal reverence. For I shall know that it longs for fulness and development as deeply as I do myself. Even Schweitzer acknowledged in this article that in reality at times we are forced to choose who or what lives.
True, in practice we are forced to choose. At times we have to decide arbitrarily which forms of life, and even which particular individuals, we shall save, and which we shall destroy. But the principle of reverence for life is none the less universal. In this article Schweitzer differentiated between ordinary ethics and the absolute ethic of reverence for life.
Ordinary ethics seeks to find limits within the sphere of human life and relationships. But the absolute ethics of the will-to-live must reverence every form of life, seeking so far as possible to refrain from destroying any life, regardless of its particular type. In this sense, reverence for life is an absolute ethic. It does not lay down specific rules for each possible situation. It simply tells us that we are responsible for the lives about us. It does not set either maximum or minimum limits to what we must do. Schweitzer's definition of evil is based on what he deems an absolute ethic and by that definition we are evil even if we kill a fly or kill a flower by stepping on it. A tree is evil if it falls and kills a rodent. So while all this thinking is fascinating, in reality mankind has to determine when death or destruction is necessary. So humans tend to consider wanton death or destruction evil. Given what has been written in both of these articles which is pertaining to actual life, how does that absolute ethic apply to literature? I write: The old cat in my basement died of starvation. Although the statement now exists, no old cat died in my basement of starvation or anything else. So nothing unethical or evil actually happened. Just as in the story of Job. It is a fictional story so no one died. So what deems an entire work of literature evil?Are characters within a work of literature to be judged good or evil by the context of the story and the intended audience? I don't feel that literature would fall under Schweitzer's definition of evil. I feel he intends it to pertain to reality. Edited by purpledawn, : Subtitle Change "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:In the story, God did not tell Lot to give his daughters. As we continue in the story we see that the messengers of God actually struck the men outside the door with blindness so they couldn't find the door to break it down. They protected Lot and his family. Genesis 19:10-11 But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. They struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves trying to find the doorway. Nothing actually happened to the daughters in the story. My take on the incident is that the author was showing that Lot was willing to give his daughters to protect God's messengers. I don't feel that Lot's offer is a reflection on God. I don't recall this passage ever being used to teach anything other than how wicked Sodom was. In Message 11 you stated:
Jon Paine writes: What you say may well be true, that they "stories" are intended to be allegorical, not taken literally. Still this is not the kind of thing that I want to be teaching my children. If God is not good, then he is not God (if God exists). In the stories, movies, shows, etc. today that we use to teach our children or just allow them to watch, are all the "good guys" absolutely good, no flaws? They break no rules whatsoever? It still boils down to how the various stories are used in Christian teachings. Are they using the stories incorrectly? "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Going with the documentary hypothesis again, that portion is from the priestly version of the Exodus and considered to have been written between 722-587bce possibly in the time of King Hezekiah (715-686bce) by a priest in his court.
In your searching for evil, did you notice that that verse was countered by Jeremiah (626-585bce) and Ezekiel (593-571)?
Jeremiah 31:29-30 "In those days they will not say again, 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, And the children's teeth are set on edge.' "But everyone will die for his own iniquity; each man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge. Ezekiel 18 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying, "What do you mean by using this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, 'The fathers eat the sour grapes, But the children's teeth are set on edge'? "As I live," declares the Lord GOD, "you are surely not going to use this proverb in Israel anymore. "Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die. So two prophets who supposedly speak for God did not agree with that sentiment. According to the Documentary Hypothesis the J, E, P, and D texts weren't merged until about the time of Ezra. So when we look at the reality of the situation, it doesn't sound like the prophets considered the priestly comments to be accurate. If you look at the Exodus 20 verse you will also see it was aimed at those who hate God, so again in the context of the story was this an actual threat that would be followed through or an exaggerated threat to scare? Any evidence it came true in real life? "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024