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

by digderidoo 261 Replies latest jw friends

Billy the Ex-Bethelite

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 don't mean this as a personal attack on you, Snowbird, or your faith. Currently, I'm going through my own speaking out against the injustices of the JWs and the Bible. The faith I'd defended has proven to me unworthy of my efforts. So, I'm overdue to speak up for what I've read and questioned in the Bible.
Actually, in Ancient Egyptian records, women had most of the same legal rights as men. Inheritance, divorce, property rights, women Pharoahs and business leaders, and remember the authority of Potiphar's wife. Here's a couple short examples or women's rights in Ancient Egypt in wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_rights_of_women_in_history#Egyptian_law see subheading Legal System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egypt#Government_and_economy
As a man, the Mosaic Law sounds pretty awesome. Find the hottest babe, rape her, and she's yours! Woo hoo! What's even better, polygamy is allowed so rape every hottie you can afford (pay her dad and kill a ram)! SCORE!!! Plus, Join the Army, get your choice of young virgins FREE!!! Thank you Jehovah! Is it any wonder that in Israel every girl and her family would try to get her engaged ASAP before she got raped?
Read Judges chapter 21 for a sick example of justice in Ancient Israel. In conclusion, Judges 21:25 "25 In those days there was no king in Israel. What was right in his own eyes was what each one was accustomed to do."
Of Ancient Egypt, wikipedia says, "Though no legal codes from ancient Egypt survive, the many extant court documents of the period show that Egyptian law was based on a common-sense view of right and wrong that emphasized reaching agreements and resolving conflicts rather than strictly adhering to a complicated set of statutes."
No wonder the Israelites were eager to go back to Egypt, kept reverting to Egyptian calf worship, and wanted a powerful Pharoah-like ruler. Sounds like they needed more common-sense and fewer law-reading-sheep-burning-priests.
quietlyleaving

HS
snowbird said
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
I think the above argument is valid.
I think the word genocide is a sticking point -snowbird believes that God acted righteously based on his prior and subsequent acts which she considers were right and just.
You are judging the past by modern day standards of right and wrong. Also Snowbird has offered that God has changed. Jehovah has become Jesus.
It seems to me that you are imposing an 'its either black or white' frame on her thoughts to make your argument stick.
hillary_step

Quietly,
With all due respect you need to put your thoughts on this subecjt through a critical thinking process.
I think the above argument is valid.
What you think is not relevant, what is relevant is whether the argument can be proved to be valid.
I think the word genocide is a sticking point -snowbird believes that God acted righteously based on his prior and subsequent acts which she considers were right and just.
No, genocide is subject of my posts, an action that has actually been defended by Snowbird with a number of viewpoints, none of which can extricate her from her stated position, that is that she is prepared to accept and back the position with her faith, that God had reasons for committing genocide. What Funky and I are trying to get her and yourself to see, is that in defending and accepting genocide as an article of faith she by default is condoning the actions of the God that she worships. This is logic in action.
You are judging the past by modern day standards of right and wrong. Also Snowbird has offered that God has changed. Jehovah has become Jesus.
That is not just irrelevant but indicates that you have not grasped the principles at stake. I have been scrupulous in avoiding the NT but focusing on the point at issue, the genocide contained in the OT. It is THIS that Snowbird is accepting not just as a fact, but acknowledging that it was inspired by the God that she worships. What she is acknowledging is that were she one of God's 'people' in those days, she would have morally supported genocide. You are trying to change the playing field to make your argument stick. ;)
It seems to me that you are imposing an 'its either black or white' frame on her thoughts to make your argument stick.
My argument is based on logic, it has no need to 'stick' to anything. It stands and rests on a development of thinking. What you need to do is to stick to the facts of the matter and rebut the arguments that I have presented.
I have asked of you three times that if there are any alternative viewpoints to the above three that I list, that you present them as alternatives. I have yet to see any that come close to dealing with the ethics of the matter at hand.
HS
wildfire

I think he was cool in the old testament. (this is judahbenkenobi not wildfire) He allowed whores for Judah, and more than one wife for people, but in the New Testament in REvelation he promises to burn demons and sinners forever in utter torment. That's a lot worse than anything he has ever done in the old testament, and Jesus was his cocky way of lying that he has any love at all left in him. I've tasted his New Testament wrath, he needs to be destroyed. We created God, we gave a scary ghost our power for some stupid competition a long time ago, it's time he was destroyed or stripped of all his power. I'm doing my part, you should too.
quietlyleaving

OMG HS are you telling me I have to go back and re-read the whole thread.
Okay I'll do that but at this time of night I can't promise that I'll be able to put together anything intelligible.
AlmostAtheist

>> 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.
Is that REALLY snow's position? From what I gather, she accepts the OT as inspired, but does NOT judge the acts of god contained in it. She neither condones them, nor condemns them. You or I may say she tacitly condones them by worshiping the Bible's god, but that's not HER position.
That's a little different than the position I thought she held which was "God did it, therefore it was righteous". She said some things that could be construed that way. But I get the impression that she doesn't actually believe that.
It's hard for me to get my head around, but I think her position is this:
'I love and worship the God of the Bible, whether he has acted righteously in the past or not. I do not take it upon myself to judge his actions right or wrong.'
Snow, feel free to tell me I'm completely wrong. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. But I think that's where you stand, isn't it?
Dave
hillary_step

Almost Atheist,
>> 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.
Is that REALLY snow's position? From what I gather, she accepts the OT as inspired, but does NOT judge the acts of god contained in it. She neither condones them, nor condemns them. You or I may say she tacitly condones them by worshiping the Bible's god, but that's not HER position.
That's a little different than the position I thought she held which was "God did it, therefore it was righteous". She said some things that could be construed that way. But I get the impression that she doesn't actually believe that.
You are falling into the same trap that is holding 'Quietly' fast and hard. That Snowbird states she believes something to be so that is then denied by the logic of her position on the matter, makes her thinking and argument flawed and by default her argument fails. This is at the crux of the matter.
She accepts that her God did not just inspire but instructed that his 'people' should commit genocide. She has assured us that her faith in the OT is complete. She has suggested that God had his reasons for killing women and children in a desert holocaust, but that they fall outside her understanding. By taking this position she has condoned what happened.
Just to remind you what the word 'condone' actually means:
Condone: : to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless.
Condone: To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure.
HS
berylblue

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
Are you claiming that forcing a woman to marry her rapist is a PROTECTION against abuse? Or are you alleging that this LAW (that a rapist must marry his victim and never divorce her) is the protection against abuse?

Not quite clear on that one.
I'm amused that you think that there were few rapes based on this law. Considering the myriad ways, according to the scriptures, in which the Israelites routinely BROKE MANY laws, how is it a fair assumption that there were "hardly any"?
I am so glad that I'm no longer expected to buy into this nonsense, forcing myself to accept from a "loving God" acts which any person with even a modicum of decency would find reprehensible. You can swallow it if you want. Makes no difference to me.
Me, I like to call a spade a spade. Jehovah is a sociopathic murderer - plain and simple.
AlmostAtheist

>> By taking this position she has condoned what happened.
I don't think she would agree with you. Nor you, with her.
You say she's voting Yes by not voting No. She says she's Abstaining.
Which brings us all to that great moment in a debate where we understand each other's positions. We actually know what it is that we disagree on. That we got here at all is admirable -- nobody took their ball and went home before the game could play out.
>> You are falling into the same trap
I don't agree that I'm in a trap. Very little in life is truly binary, there's no need to force things into boxes, shove them onto one side or the other. I only wanted to know how Snowbird could take the position she takes, and unless I misunderstand her, I know that now. I don't see how understanding that traps me.
Dave

quietlyleaving

I agree with AA

additionally

Quietly,
With all due respect you need to put your thoughts on this subecjt through a critical thinking process.
I think the above argument is valid.
What you think is not relevant, what is relevant is whether the argument can be proved to be valid.
My answer: Snowbird's argument, as I see it, is valid in that it is logical but it is an inconclusive logical argument and it has to remain so because because it is based on her own experience of faith and no one can deny her that.
I think the word genocide is a sticking point -snowbird believes that God acted righteously based on his prior and subsequent acts which she considers were right and just.
No, genocide is subject of my posts, an action that has actually been defended by Snowbird with a number of viewpoints, none of which can extricate her from her stated position, that is that she is prepared to accept and back the position with her faith, that God had reasons for committing genocide. What Funky and I are trying to get her and yourself to see, is that in defending and accepting genocide as an article of faith she by default is condoning the actions of the God that she worships. This is logic in action.
You are judging the past by modern day standards of right and wrong. Also Snowbird has offered that God has changed. Jehovah has become Jesus.
That is not just irrelevant but indicates that you have not grasped the principles at stake. I have been scrupulous in avoiding the NT but focusing on the point at issue, the genocide contained in the OT. It is THIS that Snowbird is accepting not just as a fact, but acknowledging that it was inspired by the God that she worships. What she is acknowledging is that were she one of God's 'people' in those days, she would have morally supported genocide. You are trying to change the playing field to make your argument stick. ;)
HS you have been scrupulously avoiding the NT but Snowbird has not - she believes that the OT and NT go together (snowbird excuse if I have got it wrong)
It seems to me that you are imposing an 'its either black or white' frame on her thoughts to make your argument stick.
My argument is based on logic, it has no need to 'stick' to anything. It stands and rests on a development of thinking. What you need to do is to stick to the facts of the matter and rebut the arguments that I have presented.
I have asked of you three times that if there are any alternative viewpoints to the above three that I list, that you present them as alternatives.
I have told you that yes there is - and that is snowbird's own viewpoint which AA explains very accurately imo
And anyway there are different types of logical argument that I know of - It seems to me that snowbirds logical argument structure is inductive which allows for probability
I have yet to see any that come close to dealing with the ethics of the matter at hand.
The Ethics need to judged in their context and snowbird has given several examples

edit - I don't know why the layout has changed

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

Share this