God of the Bible as Flawed Human

In another thread, Iano was explaining his take on God's (conditional, threat-filled) love for me and an interesting exchange occurred which culminated in the following message by me: message 36 in the "Why Theists do Believe" thread

quote:

---

Ever a victim of unrequited love Schraf? Excruciating that. That's what he goes through at this moment.

​

/snip/

​

Love, justice, wrath. All must be expressed. If you reject his Love wanting and reaching to you then fair enough. You will send yourself there.

---

There was no further response from any theist in that thread.I was wondering if we might have a discussion about the different "characters", all called God, which appear in the Bible, and how Biblical literalists might reconcile the different portrayals.My impression is that the God of the OT is framed as a Zeus sort of figure; in possession of very human frailties of thought and emotion and reason; he feels love, he makes mistakes, has regrets, indulges in petty emotions such as jealosy, has fits of pique and temper and goes on murderous rampages. He also seems to walk around on Earth and even eats with people.Why is it that we never hear much from the Fundamentalists about this God?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

If there is anything about your post which fills me with pleasure it is this. You describe a personal God. A personal God has attributes which a person made in his image and likeness could expect him to have. We would be able to relate to a personal God This is because your impression, although globally correct (he has the attributes of a person - or more correctly; persons have some of his attributes) falls completely assunder when it comes to the detail.Love is not always a frailty. Love is very often a thing of strengthMistakes are a frailty: you could point out a few of his and we might look at themRegret is not always a frailty. One can regret putting a beloved pet down - the decision to do so took strength - not frailtyJealousy is not always a petty emotion. One could, as my Ox Eng dictionary points out, be "jealous of their honour". Jealously in that case is seen as 'vigilance' - which is not exactly a frailtyPique - again you would need to make a caseTemper - do you mean anger? Anger is not always a frailty eitherMurder - is not the same as killing. Murder is unrighteous taking of life. Taking life against the lawWalking and eating - frailties?Edited by iano, : typo

Because we'd then all twig that a few iron chariots can see him off?

quote:

---

Then Judah joined with Simeon to fight against the Canaanites living in Zephath, and they completely destroyed the town. So the town was named Hormah. In addition, Judah captured the cities of Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron, along with their surrounding territories. The LORD was with the people of Judah, and they took possession of the hill country. But they failed to drive out the people living in the plains because the people there had iron chariots. The city of Hebron was given to Caleb as Moses had promised. And Caleb drove out the people living there, who were descendants of the three sons of Anak. (Judges 1:17-20 NLT)

---

Yeah he's very Zeus like in lots of ways - always quick to anger and I think he using lightening a few times (Job?)

i always pictured this particular story with lightning.

quote:

---

1Ch 13:10 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzza, and he smote him, because he put his hand to the ark: and there he died before God.

---

---

i'll avoid the obvious reference to creation itself (for those who get the title).

quote:

---

Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

​

Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

---

this is not "i regret that i have to do something." it's "i regret that i did something." meaning god thinks, in this passage, that he should not have made man. god seeks to correct his error, by killing all of mankind (as well as animals).i know you won't agree with this very obvious point, as you do not agree that god is telling the truth when he says "i create evil." but here's a less obvious addition:

quote:

---

Gen 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

---

god's reaction after the flood is "i won't do that again." this indicates that god thinks it is not right to kill every living thing on the face of the planet. meaning, it wasn't right when just did it.Edited by arachnophilia, : broken tagEdited by arachnophilia, : added iano quote.

---

I'm sure there is another story - where god is about to strike out in anger and then stops and realises that he's done the wrong thing?

sure, here's one i used in the other thread:

quote:

---

Exd 32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

---

in exodus 32, aaron has made a golden calf at the behest of the "stiffnecked" israelites, and god is super-pissed at them. i'm sure iano will argue "justly so." but that's actually irrelevent to this debate. (and the other one -- it's still "evil" according to god) anyways. god is going to kill the lot of them, and make a great nation out of moses alone.moses says "no don't do that, the egyptians will laugh at you." and convinces god that his actions would have been a mistake. god agrees.the surious bit about this story is that it leads me to my second greatest mistake, "the 20 commandments." i'll avoid quoting the first ten (well, 14, really) because everybody knows them. not so many people know the second ten, or even that there IS a second set. in the next chapter from the pervious incident, moses gets super-pissed at the israelites, and breaks the tablets of the first ten. god says,

quote:

---

Exd 34:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.

---

these are the "ten commandments" which god wrote:

quote:

---

1. Worship no other god than Yahweh: Make no covenant with the inhabitants of other lands to which you go, do not intermarry with them, and destroy their places of worship.
2. Do not make molten idols.
3. Observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread for seven days in the month of Abib.
4. Sacrifice firstborn male animals to Yahweh. The firstborn of a donkey may be redeemed; redeem firstborn sons.
5. Do no work or even kindle a fire on the seventh day. Anyone who does so will be put to death.
6. Observe the Feast of First Fruits and the Feast of Ingathering: All males are therefore to appear before Yahweh three times each year.
7. Do not mix sacrificial blood with leavened bread.
8. Do not let the fat of offerings remain until the morning.
9. Bring the choicest first fruits of the harvest to the Temple of Yahweh.
10. Do not cook a goat in its mother's milk.

​

{quoted from wikipedia for clarity. these commandments are found in exodus 34}

---

the words god wrote were NOT the words that appeared on the first set of tablets, as god said. either god lied, or he made an error.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

quote:

---

You describe a personal God.

---

No, I describe a human with superpowers.Not a perfect being with perfect knowledge, nor perfect behavior.Clearly, not all-powerful and very, very flawed.

well, we get varying degrees of physicality and personality in the bible. for instance, the god in genesis 32 wrestles with jacob in the desert. but the god in exodus has to keep israel at the foot of the mountain, lest they be consumed.sometimes he's concerned with rather petty and small affairs like making sure no one builds a tower too tall, and sometimes he's off creating good and evil. but who are we to judge god's actions? seems kind of backwards, to me. rather, i prefer to look at god's actions as god himself describes them. unfortunately for the fundamentalists, he sometimes describes his own actions as mistakes, and says he regrets them. sometimes, he describes them as evil.if god says he's not perfect, should we take him at his word? depends on which part of the bible you're reading. indeed, even which part of which book sometimes.

---

The audience? We can clap or throw tomatoes?Joking aside. I don't believe the source of the universe has dictated any operating manual, memoir, etc. to any human. I believe that there are insights, truths even, wisdom in the various sacred texts and teachings in the world but in the human world everything is subject to flaws and imperfections.I know fundamentalists long for a literal verbal explanation of reality that they can understand i.e. no higher maths, nothinging beyond fractions, certainly no irrational numbers. It's human understanding that is being imposed on God. It's projection. They were creating God in their image and then claiming their projection created them in its image.I understand and can even at times have empathy with the insecurity that drives this confusion but I also grow impatient and weary with it.I would say that the God of the Bible is a typical flawed human conception of the source, or What Is and typical of humans they will defend their errors with rabid irrationality until long after the cows have come home.lfen

What about the answer: we are made in God's image to this?

quote:

---

well, we get varying degrees of physicality and personality in the bible.

---

Yes, exactly. Iano considers this human, flawed portrayal of God to be attractive because I could view Him as a "personal God", but that's not how I look at it at all.

quote:

---

but who are we to judge god's actions?

---

Clearly, the fundamentalists believe they are.

quote:

---

if god says he's not perfect, should we take him at his word?

---

I think so, but I'll bet that Iano and Faith and randman would take issue with that.

quote:

---

It's human understanding that is being imposed on God. It's projection. They were creating God in their image and then claiming their projection created them in its image.

---

Good post. I like your viewpoint.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Flaws are not demonstrated by your saying so. I put up an opening response to your OP in order to get things moving a little. Effectively, you ascribe human frailty to God. If you would like to elaborate on how you suppose these 'flaws' to be flaws then I am happy to discuss with you.iano