Disowning the God of the OT is not an Option (page 6)

GrreatTeacher

My coment was meant for Hold Me. He's going off on a tangeant equating the nature of god with the morality of society. Not the same thing at all.

cofty

Good point GT.

the OT is just as "moral" as the 21st century - HTMT

Who is "the 21st century?"

The Israelites, acting under the explicit orders of "the God and Father of ..Jesus Christ", had as much moral sense as ISIS.

I hope people can move beyond the black-and-white thinking of the premise of this thread. The point that you must accept the Jews view of God and what they wrote about God in the Old Testament or you can't accept anything Jesus taught is obviously black-and-white thinking. Or that you can't accept what is of value in the bible and not accept other things is also self evidently false.

The Jews of the first century obviously had a very distorted view of the divine as shown by their scriptures. Jesus presented the divine like a loving father. Would not one of the best ways to help the jews come up in consciousness is to use the parts of their own scriptures that could be valid in teaching a particular point? I may quote from the movie the Matrix to make a point but it doesn't mean I believe it is some ultimate truth.

As JWs we had black-and-white thinking. Let's move beyond it. We can find value in many teachings it doesn't mean we have to accept it lock, stock and barrel.

GrreatTeacher

I can't tell whether you believe that the god of the OT is the same as the god of the NT or not? Is Jesus a part of that godhead or is he just the son of the OT god Yahweh? When Jesus speaks of his father, is this the same as Yahweh, the OT god? I'm just not clear on your position.

Joe Grundy

"We can find value in many teachings it doesn't mean we have to accept it lock, stock and barrel."

That's true, of course, and it includes all 'teachings' from whatever source. That's an enlightened view - assess, evaluate, accept or discard. But it's not one which sits well with many in the religious world. If you teach that the bible (however defined) is divinely inspired and inerrant, and that your god is all-powerful and unchanging, you have to accept it all - and then try to explain away the unacceptable stuff.

Or, you 'cherry pick' - and once you start doing that your 'cherry picked bits' may, no will, differ from others and so you've started your own religion/sect/cult - which quite nicely illustrates that religion is a man-made thing built to suit your own circumstances, needs and aspirations.

An example which quickly comes to mind - isn't there a teaching in the NT which talks about giving away your worldly possessions, taking no thought for the morrow, etc? And yet Mormons (I think) and certainly some US fundy groups say that financial prosperity is a gift from their god and a reward for their faith. Choose your view and someone somewhere will provide a justification for it.

Joe Grundy

As to the origins of the OT - I watched this on youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5RfScpEcZ8

I'm not competent to comment on its accuracy, but it's compelling, and sits well with other work by (for example) Francesca Stavrakopoulou which casts doubt on the veracity of the stories of David, etc.

At about 1:20 it suggests that the Torah (the Pentateuch) was written and promulgated in 458 BC by Ezra. This would, perhaps, make the OT as reliable historically as the NT.

Worth a watch, I suggest.

(PS: In a comment which is entirely beneath me and irreverent, I recommend Francesca's you tube videos for her scholarship, communication skills, and mammaries.)

cofty

Jesus presented the divine like a loving father. - Willmarite

There is not even the slightest hint in any of the gospels that Jesus rejected of a single word of the Old Testament.

cofty

Willmarite - Taking your position we are at liberty to pick and choose which texts we think are authentic and which we would rather reject.

Why not just put the bible in the bin and invent your own religion from whole cloth?

Oh wait, that's what you just did.

willmarite

Grreatteacher - My view of the divine isn't dependent of the bible so I can't answer your questions in a concise way.

That's true, of course, and it includes all 'teachings' from whatever source. That's an enlightened view - assess, evaluate, accept or discard. But it's not one which sits well with many in the religious world. If you teach that the bible (however defined) is divinely inspired and inerrant, and that your god is all-powerful and unchanging, you have to accept it all - and then try to explain away the unacceptable stuff.

What you say about religions is for the most part true but it is because they are mired in the same aforementioned black-and-white thinking. Religion says you must accept the whole bible. This thread says you have to reject the whole bible. Both are examples of black-and-white thinking.

Or, you 'cherry pick' - and once you start doing that your 'cherry picked bits' may, no will, differ from others and so you've started your own religion/sect/cult - which quite nicely illustrates that religion is a man-made thing built to suit your own circumstances, needs and aspirations.

Of course religion is a man made venture. However most religions have some truths in their core. Starting a religion is a fool's game. Developing our own spirituality without trying to force others is where it's at. However this doesn't appeal to people who are in it for money, power, or adulation.

Hold Me-Thrill Me

Cofty: So why did Jesus' god not educate them?

I've already answered that question. We are now entering an endless circle of argument for argument's sake. I'm stepping off the merry-go-round until you have something interesting to say.

Disowning the God of the OT is not an Option

Share this