How to accept the actions of the Old Testament God (page 2)

confusedandalone

So then there is no reason to believe the actions of the Old Testament God are valid? The problem seems that the camps are divided as to wether the things written are metaphorical or real.

Daniel1555

WT and other groups who believe the bible is infallible say:

1. Those nations (like canaanites) deserved it, as they did very bad things.

2. God gave life, God can take lives. Who are we to judge him?

3. God will have some reasons for his actions that we don't have.

Some of my friends and family say that Jehovah will ressurect some that he killed. They say it would have been better for the canaanite babies to be killed by the sword than to be left on their own to die.

I can't accept any of these explanations.

adamah

Cantleave said-

God's wisdom is above our own. What we may consider an atrocious act of inhumanity is in god's eyes an act of love - afterall god IS love.

Ever heard of circular self-referential logic? No? You're pretty good at it!

God of the Bible is a moral thug, and if you think you can present a moral case to defend and excuse Jehovah's admitted crimes of genocide, mass murder (even heard of the Flood?), delegating authority to establish and regulate slavery, etc that can be excused with a better argument than, "if GOd did it, it's right", then lay it on us. In the end, though, you and I know that's all you got: "might makes right".

The OT is clearly a book filled with IMMORALITY, and following orders in blind obedience to a moral bully of a God who relies on "might makes right" justification is immoral. No amount of pleading in the name of political correctness, or the importance of not hurting any believer's fragile 'peelings' and delicate sensibilities is going to change that moral FACT. The God in the Bible is immoral, not the shining paragon of morality.
I'd find it refreshing if believers would just publicly admit that they believe in Bible God for ONE very-selfish reason: it makes them feel good, safe, and comfy to think that they can kiss up and be BFF with Jesus and Jehovah, to have a personal relationship with the "winning team".

Religious faith leads to "black and white" thinking, in the form of religious extremist thinking. We're all ex-JWs here, we've ALL seen it in ACTION, so don't act like we haven't "been there, done it" and don't KNOW that it exists. Never heard of shunning? The willingness to DIE for God by refusing blood? If there's anyone who SHOULD be able to see the abuse of power that grows out of a belief in a God, it's an ex-JW, if only they're smart enough to "do the math" and see it!

But it's not just that, and not only that it's an extremely simplistic view of life, but more importantly, a belief in a God (even a moral one, which isn't Jehovah, but maybe Ahuru Mazda) serves as an excuse to not do ANYTHING in the here and now, to ignore the real challenges humankind actually faces today.

Adam

adamah

Monsieur said-

you are only scratching on the very top surface of the subject that you are trying to understand. if it doesn't make literal sense in the deepest part of your mind, its for a reason. What you are reading in the old testament is metaphorical, symbolic. The extreme reactions of the 'God' of the old testament, are the reactions of MAN. Man can be very loving and caring, he can also be hateful and vengeful. Remember this when you read the old testament and it will make a lot more sense to you.

So lay it on us, if you can. HOW are the Torah codes which permitted the ownership of other humans (slavery) to be read as symbolic, much less, as moral?

Let's hear a moral justification of Exodus 21, which permitted an owner to beat a slave to death, but only if the slave didn't die within a day or two of the beating, since in the chilling words of Exodus, "it (the slave) is the owner's money (property/chattel)".

What possible symbolic meaning is derived from THAT legal code?

Morality is a symbolic concept in itself, but I wouldn't expect you to grasp that concept, since you've clearly demonstrated that you have difficulty understanding the difference between physical symbols and the intangible trait or tangible item they represent.

Adam

adamah

Cantleave said-

So then there is no reason to believe the actions of the Old Testament God are valid? The problem seems that the camps are divided as to wether the things written are metaphorical or real.

The problem is the metaphorical reading sends an unmistakeable message: do what God says, and be blessed, as it will go good for you. Or else.

That's not a high-minded metaphor, it's an ultimatum sent from a Heavenly terrorist, just like a note wrapped around a rock that's thrown thru the living room window that says, "do what I say, or else....".

Adam

cantleave

adam - have you not heard of Irony?

I am an atheist - I was giving a religitard answer.................................. *sigh* brains of a rocking horse

Monsieur

Morality is a symbolic concept in itself, but I wouldn't expect you to grasp that concept

adam

what is it with you sounding so pissed off at anyone trying to give an answer to a question?

lol, it's ridiculous and devoid of class...

to answer your question...the OP asked how can we VALIDATE what the God of the OT did? Apparently, there is a disconnect in the mind of Confused.

I stated that the 'God' of the OT is a metaphor for MAN, and man's actions. Now, unless you can prove that ancient man/God exists, then the OT is a metaphor. I say it is a metaphor for MAN, hence all the crazy actions emmanating from this 'God'.

unstopableravens

i will comment, thou i know whatever i say will prob not make you say aww ok good point. but thats okay. the god of the new and old are the same, good is not any different, this is a differance between the old and new covenent but thats another thread. jesus is the same yesterday today and forever:hebrews 13;8 god is love yes in times past and future however is also just than ,now and future notice what jesus said at rev 2:23. god is a just jugde. and he is also slow to anger and ready to forgive. however he is also one to fear matthew 1o:28

Hortenzie

Everything people say about God and every time people claim to talk for God you have to take with a grain of salt. Unless God comes and puts us straight there are no answers. Everything else is just opinions. Including this comment.

adamah

CAA said-

adam - have you not heard of Irony?

I am an atheist - I was giving a religitard answer.................................. *sigh* brains of a rocking horse

You didn't use an emoticon to indicate irony (eg a rolleyes: ). Like Poe's Law holds, it's impossible to distinguish irony from the real thing, when it comes to dealing with religious fundies, eg:

Monsieur said- adam, what is it with you sounding so pissed off at anyone trying to give an answer to a question? lol, it's ridiculous and devoid of class...

What is with you creating strawmen by ascribing motives to others? If you want to deliver ad hominems (eg by saying I'm devoid of class and ridiculous), then just have the courage to admit to being a tone troll. But I see you did respond to my question, so let's see what you offered....

Monsieur said- to answer your question...the OP asked how can we VALIDATE what the God of the OT did? Apparently, there is a disconnect in the mind of Confused.

I stated that the 'God' of the OT is a metaphor for MAN, and man's actions. Now, unless you can prove that ancient man/God exists, then the OT is a metaphor.

Uh, OF COURSE someone had to WRITE the Torah, an ancient document. Unless you're floating some new theology, it's pretty safe to assume the Bible didn't write itself.

Monsieur said- I say it is a metaphor for MAN, hence all the crazy actions emmanating from this 'God'.

So, 'MAN' gave other men permission to buy and sell humans. The 'MAN' in your metaphorical reading were immoral then, since modern men have long-ago abolished institutionalized slavery, recognizing that owning humans robs them and the owners of dignity, since people are not possessions.

Your argument in defense of the Bible's "God" is vapid, since you seemingly refuse to acknowledge that the question is NOT about the name given to the individual who set up the practice, but the ACTION itself: the violation of human rights (eg slavery) is not swept away or dismissed, simply by playing such labelling games and claiming mistaken identity.

Adam

How to accept the actions of the Old Testament God

Share this