"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character...

by digderidoo 261 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  hillary_step

  Quietly,

  snowbird denies that she should be seen to be condoning the cruelty etc and that is the position she occupies as I see it. She said one day it will all be understood or something like that.

  Yes, we know that, but that position is not one that can be argued with any logic, that is why it is untenable. To deny that she in condoning the genocide in the Bible, yet accepting the divine inspiration of the Bible, the history of The Israelites and the God who put in motion the actions we are discussing is a logical impossibility which an appeal to some hoped for future understanding is not needed in order to to dismiss.

  A logically flawed position in an argument does not have any credibility and is not therefore an alternative of belief. As has been stated Snowbird has three logical choices:

  1) Accept the OT as inspired in its totality and by doing so condone all that is contained therein that is attributable to God, Snowbird's present position.

  2) Accept that some portions of the OT are inspired and some are not.

  3) Accept that the OT is a book of myths, half-truths, historically manipulated, moral poems and the like.

  There are, as far as can be argued with any logic any other alternatives, though I am open to any view which can be logically defended.

  HS
• 

  snowbird

  The point that we are trying to get Snowbird to see, is that in accepting the OT as an article of faith means that you cannot escape condoning the behavior of the genocide that "gods people' enacted at the behest, according to the 'inspired' Word of their Maker.

  Ah, but I can and have escaped condoning the behavior of both God and the Israelites. Accepting and condoning are two entirely different things. For instance? I accept the fact that certain sectors of American society routinely discriminate against Blacks, but by no means do I condone it.

  I accept the fact that the Israelites were instructed by God to wipe out the nations of Canaan, but my condoning of either's actions doesn't enter the picture because I have faith (based on the prior and subsequent acts of God) that it was the right and just thing to do.

  Sylvia
• 

  inkling

  I prefer this attitude of Abraham's much better.

  I'm confused, because Abraham's attitude was a QUESTIONING, challenging one. He was skeptical that Jehovah's course was just, and he called Jehovah out because of it. In response, God both listened and ANSWERED his criticisms. Why do we not receive as much from God today? Why is it that back then, in that one instance, Abraham was allowed to demand an explanation, but if the same demand is made today, it is seen as a unreasonable lack of faith? [ink]
• 

  quietlyleaving

  HS

  Here is your answer from snowbird herself

  I don't assume anything. My convictions are based on what I've read and observed. I'm not out to convince anyone. The record of God's dealings are there for all to accept or reject.

  Sylvia

  It seems to me that you are imposing your boundaries on snowbird and she is telling you that she has her own, she does not need yours.
• 

  hillary_step

  Hi Snowbird,

  Ah, but I can and have escaped condoning the behavior of both God and the Israelites. Accepting and condoning are two entirely different things. For instance? I accept the fact that certain sectors of American society routinely discriminate against Blacks, but by no means do I condone it.

  Though this argument is a red herring, I will argue it on your playing filed. If you were to defend in principle those that discriminate against Blacks, you would be condoning that discrimination by your defense.

  I accept the fact that the Israelites were instructed by God to wipe out the nations of Canaan, but my condoning of either's actions doesn't enter the picture because I have faith (based on the prior and subsequent acts of God) that it was the right and just thing to do.

  ...and this is exactly what you do here with regard to God ordained genocide in the OT.

  Your position is best stated, according to your own argument, by suggesting that you DO condone the OT excesses ordained by the God you worship, because you have 'faith' that the genocide was a correct thing. Anything other than this is not a logical viewpoint Snowbird.

  This is actually what FunkyDerek has been arguing all along.

  HS
• 

  snowbird

  I don't know about you, Inkling, but I question God all the time.

  It's the WT that doesn't like questions.

  Sylvia
• 

  inkling

  Ah, but I can and have escaped condoning the behavior of both God and the Israelites. Accepting and condoning are two entirely different things. For instance? I accept the fact that certain sectors of American society routinely discriminate against Blacks, but by no means do I condone it.

  I accept the fact that the Israelites were instructed by God to wipe out the nations of Canaan, but my condoning of either's actions doesn't enter the picture because I have faith (based on the prior and subsequent acts of God) that it was the right and just thing to do.

  Ok, lets put your analogy to work: "I accept the fact that some sectors of the population act in a racist manner but my condoning of their actions doesn't enter the picture because I have faith (based on the prior and subsequent acts of these people) that racism must have been the right and just thing to do." HUH???? This is a terrible analogy. Please try again. [inkling]
• 

  snowbird

  This is actually what FunkyDerek has been arguing all along.

  HS

  I know that and respect his right to his opinions. What incensed me was his abusive, belittling attack on me personally.

  Sylvia
• 

  snowbird

  Ok, lets put your analogy to work: "I accept the fact that some sectors of the population act in a racist manner but my condoning of their actions doesn't enter the picture because I have faith (based on the prior and subsequent acts of these people) that racism must have been the right and just thing to do."

  Apples and oranges.

  Sylvia
• 

  inkling

  I don't know about you, Inkling, but I question God all the time.

  The asking is the easy part. I have asked. I have repeatedly asked God, and his earthly defenders such simple a question as: "Why does the Bible, at Deut 22:13 endorse the belief
  that a woman who does not bleed and stain the "mantle"
  on her wedding night must not be a virgin? If a girl
  got married, and on here wedding night did not bleed,
  (now medically known be quite common) she would be
  STONED to death if the husband pressed the issue.
  Why would Jehovah endorse a such a massively flawed
  test based on a medical misconception? Even if it were TRUE that she was not a virgin, the death penalty hardly seems fitting. What about repentance? Where is the compassion of forgiveness? This type of barbaric overreaction was exactly the sort of thing Jesus spoke against. It hardly seems fair to imply that Jehovah was truly and directly responsible for writing such a unjust law that his own son would later decry." As of the moment, God has failed to get back with me with an answer. Have you had any more success than me? Please, do share. [ink]