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

by digderidoo 261 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  middleman

  C.D. you said.."Middleman: The Nephilim and all their descendants were destroyed in the global flood. (Remember that little incident in the OT?) Everyone after that was descended from Noah and his three sons according to OT, so the Cananites being descended from Nephilim is pure hogwash using only the Bible as your source."

  Thank-you for your reply, I'll address what you said. To start off if you read further and study that there were in fact giants(offspring of the "sons of God") after the flood. Genesis 6:4 "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown"

  in those days; and ALSO AFTER THAT

  As for as using the Bible as my only source on this subject, this is only speculating. Read for yourself in the Book of Enoch, Josephus, Epic of Gilgamesh, etc. Greek, Norse, and other Mythology also ring down some of this ancient information. Now to be fair here, I wouldn't say that as a whole all mythology and their accounts happened however, there was something going on that compelled ancient civilizations of the world to write about. I can go into details later if you wish. Blessings.........
• 

  snowbird

  Middleman, I've read the Book of Enoch, Josephus, The Gilgamesh Epic, and the Book of Jasher. I agree with you that some weird things were going on that are only alluded to in the Bible.

  I've often wondered about the wife of Noah, and the wives of the sons of Noah. What was their lineage? The WT says the Nephilim were hybrids, but I've never seen a Scripture to back their view. Why was Canaan such a renegade? Perhaps some leftover traits of the Nephilim? There is so much we don't know.

  Cog, since most Bible/God trashers only give the worst case scenarios, I was pointing out the on-the-other-hand scenario. It wouldn't hurt for all of us to try that sometime. We may just be a wee surprised at the outcome. After all, a truly open-minded person considers all the aspects of a topic, don't you agree?

  Billy, all I can say is what I've already said. The Giver of life has every right to take life - even if we don't understand the reason for His doing so. Again as I've repeatedly stated, I believe all His ways are just and fair - even when the available evidence points to the contrary. This takes faith. I also realize and respect the fact that not all share my views.

  As to this question:

  Oh, and if Jesus is God, who the heck did he pray to all the time? Satan? Michael?

  He prayed to the Father who is also God. No, I don't subscribe to the Trinity.

  Sylvia
• 

  moomanchu

  I want a God on my side who will kick some ass.

  Who wants a pussy God ?
• 

  berylblue

  How would you deal with a child you created perfect, turning against all you created and sttod for??? Would you be just a little upset?

  I wouldn't kill him, that's for sure.
• 

  berylblue

  Now, in case of a betrothed virgin; if the incident took place in the field where no one was around to hear her scream, only the man was stoned to death. That is entirely fair. However, if the virgin was not betrothed, a bride price was to be paid to the girl's father, the man was forced marry her, and could not divorce her all the days of his life.

  Whereas you may see cruelty and barbarity in these practices, I see a strong desire to impress upon the Israelites the need for all to be morally upright.. If anyone, male or female, knowingly did what was bad, they would have to suffer the consequences.

  Oh, yeah, if I were raped, I'd really LOVE being forced to spend the rest of my life with the rapist. And please don't tell me Jehovah was only thinking of the victim's best interests - this now-deflowered woman (through no fault of her own) would have trouble finding a husband, so Jehovah - in his infinite wisdom and mercy - has provided a husband for her. Never mind that the man is a selfish and violent rapist.

  Your responses are pathetically predictable, my dear.
• 

  quietlyleaving

  HS

  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

  It does seem to me that you are combining a moral judgement with a logical argument by insisting that Snowbird is condoning all the 'cruelty' etc in the bible when she says she believes the whole bible is inspired. Whereas Snowbird seems to be saying that she is prepared to suspend moral juedgement on Jehovah because she does not have all the facts that Jehovah and his people were dealing with at the time.

  Snowbird's arguments are logical and more opeminded than yours imo.

  the moral aspect is another discussion imo and then again we'd have to consider the context.

  (testing the water with both feet here)
• 

  snowbird

  this now-deflowered woman (through no fault of her own) would have trouble finding a husband, so Jehovah - in his infinite wisdom and mercy - has provided a husband for her. Never mind that the man is a selfish and violent rapist.

  Your responses are pathetically predictable, my dear.

  How many rapes actually occurred in the nation of Israel? Based on this law, I daresay hardly any. However, human nature being what it is - and YHWH being fully cognizant of this fact - it's obvious that a proactive, just-in-case law was needed to protect women from abuse.

  If, in the unlikely event an abuse did occur, her abuser had to marry her (thereby restoring her dignity and standing in the community), give her children (who would provide comfort and support in her later years), and if a child by her was the firstborn, that child was to be given all the rights of the firstborn. I see fairness and justice here - even in less than noble circumstances

  Throughout the history of man, woman has had very little say in how things are run. That is a troublesome fact of life, and I see no exception to this in Israel. It bears out the truthfulness of YHWH's statement to Eve that the man would dominate her. Take a look around and you will see the pathetic truthfulness of YHWH's prediction.

  Sylvia
• 

  Eyes Open

  haha!!

  Eyes Open... I like a person with a sense of humor!

  I noticed you were still a newbie.... welcome to the board!

  The Oracle

  Thanks Oracle. :)

  Those of you who believe the entire old testament is inspired by God and an accurate record of what happened to his people which is to be taken literally: how do you decide which of the two flood stories you believe?
• 

  Eyes Open

  Throughout the history of man, woman has had very little say in how things are run. That is a troublesome fact of life, and I see no exception to this in Israel. It bears out the truthfulness of YHWH's statement to Eve that the man would dominate her. Take a look around and you will see the pathetic truthfulness of YHWH's prediction.

  I propose the writers and redactors concerned had Yahweh tell Eve that for etiology's sake, as women were already lorded-over by men at the time of original composition.

  In fact, I'll suggest that time and time again, events and names of characters in the old testament were designed to give people a reason for everything so that they had neat and tidy answers to everything that being human throws at you, particularly in the context of being an Israelite.
• 

  hillary_step

  Quietly,

  It does seem to me that you are combining a moral judgement with a logical argument by insisting that Snowbird is condoning all the 'cruelty' etc in the bible when she says she believes the whole bible is inspired. Whereas Snowbird seems to be saying that she is prepared to suspend moral juedgement on Jehovah because she does not have all the facts that Jehovah and his people were dealing with at the time.

  Moral judgements and logical arguments are not mutlally exclusive are they? I would hope that the two should be combined when discussing issues of genocide!. Remember if you may, that this debate is all about the condoning of genocide as a moral act, as framed by Snowbird and Funky Derek.

  The fact is that Snowbird has condoned the behavior of her God by accepting as morally correct her God's demand that his 'people' commit acts of genocide. She may try to excuse her own position by suggesting that though she accepts God's 'judgements' she does not understand this, but the lack of logic in this argument needs no explanation for a person to see its invalidity. We have at least found common ground in accpeting that the God of the OT, if it is to be believed, did indeed inspire and command his 'people' to commit genocide. The argument now is whether siding with God on this issue, and accpeting that this behavior was correct, is actually condoning his behavior. Well, of course it is!

  Snowbird's arguments are logical and more opeminded than yours imo.

  I am not interested in being 'open-minded' on issues of genocide, and for the reasons give above you are incorrect in the extreme to impute logic to the argument that Snowbird is presenting. I would be pleased if you might show us all where the logic is contained in the viewpoint expressed by Snowbird. What has been presented is an appeal to 'present ignorance', a stand commonly taken by religionists stuck between a dichotony and a hard place.

  As I have noted, she only has three logical choices here:

  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.

  I have asked that if any other options exist in the framework of this discussion and that can be logically presented in defense of Snowbird they be offered in evidence. So far you have not even got close to doing so.

  HS