Thomas Eshuis wrote:

willhud9 wrote:I personally think that the God according to the Bible is a just and loving God. But seeing how scientifically and historically, he cannot have existed since there is zero evidence to support his existence, I conclude that until evidence shows that results otherwise, he doesn't exist.

Really Will? You believe it is just to kill children for the crime of their fathers?
To kill animals and plantlife for the crime of humanity?

Of course he doesn't believe that. That is not his position. As far as I can tell his position, correct me I am sure he will, is that God according to the bible is a just and loving God. The fact that the bible tells us stories about God being anything but is irrelevant.

Which, as far as I can tell, does put him in the position of claiming that it is just and loving to kill all those baby squirrels and bunnies during the flood hissy fit episode.

So....?

willhud9 wrote:I would ask for the names of those books and ask for their credentials in the field of Biblical scholarship.

Haynes (the producer of automobile manuals) manage to get across the way to maintain cars to laymen. I used to do all my servicing, change cylinder head gaskets, reline my (car's) brakes, etc., etc, etc. without any formal training nor an army of trained mechanics on tap.

All powerful gawd, however, needs an army of wankers ...er, 'biblical scholars'... to interpret his WORDTM.

Why do you think that is?

...and, more to the point, why don't all christians worship Haynes, as it's obvious they are more competent than the christian god?

Sing along.
In the name of love, one gawd in the name of love

Moonwatcher wrote:

willhud9 wrote:I personally think that the God according to the Bible is a just and loving God. But seeing how scientifically and historically, he cannot have existed since there is zero evidence to support his existence, I conclude that until evidence shows that results otherwise, he doesn't exist.

The Bible *asserts* that the God of the Bible is a just and loving god. Do you believe his actions are those of a just and loving entity?

I do not "believe" anything for said God does not exist.

However, if we look at everything from theology, the Bible, to whom God is, to what sin is, to God's sovereignty over all life and death, etc, etc. I would say in that context yes his actions are those of a just (you get what you deserve), loving (he cares and strives for you to repent, and takes care of you), strict (his way is narrow), and avenging (those who wrong him or his people will get punished) God. But that is from a biblical perspective, and what I know about Theology as a whole.

From my personal perspective, I cannot make a conclusion since out of that context we have post-enlightenment worldviews which are antithetical to many of the concepts found within the OT and NT, and from a purely historical and anthropological perspective it is also erroneous to label our post-enlightenment worldview has being better than that in 1000 BCE and 1st century CE. History and anthropology don't deal with better or worse, we deal with context and facts.

In the context of Christianity, taking everything in account, I find the character of God to be a just and loving God. You may disagree with me, and that's fine, but I am not making a leap of faith but rather am lining up that the Bible is rather consistent internally despite what popular opinion around here is.

Scar wrote:The fact that ancient dimwits didn't think this stuff evil doesn't make us wrong in labelling it evil. It makes ancient dimwits evil due to not recognizing it.

and way to spit on ancient cultures. You come with your presupposition that our culture is vastly superior to an ancient one, and whether it is or is not is not the point. Cultures change, and perspectives change. But the character of God in Jewish texts, and in Christian texts remains a loving God. Place him in a post-enlightenment world, and we have a shift in opinion, his actions would not fly in today's world as just and loving and that is what I am trying to stress. When studying ancient literature, when studying ancient history for that matter, we cannot come to the table with our modern concepts of right and wrong, for those concepts will not be the same to the time period(s) we are observing. We cannot strip from the Bible it's historical context, where slavery was tolerated by the world (except you notice that slaves were to be released every 7 years in Jewish law and most slaves were indentured servants), where warfare and death penalties were very common, etc. within this context, God's actions are indeed shown as loving and just because in that worldview he is. The Bible is consistent internally. It is when you line it up to our modern philosophies and ethics where we run into issues, but from a scholarly point of view, you cannot simply do that.

willhud9 wrote:I would say in that context yes his actions are those of a just (you get what you deserve),

But God in the bible is the one who determines what people "deserve" in response to their actions and this appears to be WILDLY out of sync with the actual severity of the wrong doings in question.

Seriously, why did all those first born children deserve to die?

I think also that later in Christianity, the nature of God became quite confused, since we have on the one hand, a Jewish conception, where God is harsh, vindictive, merciful, fear-inducing, loving, and so on, and on the other hand, the Greek conception, where God is rather impassive. In fact, the notion of impassibility became an important one.

However, some modern ideas about God see her as suffering, as tormented, as murdered, and so on, which completely overthrows impassibility of course. This can be seen in the famous Auschwitz story of the small boy being hung by the SS, whereupon an old Jew calls out, 'where is our God now?', and another old Jew points to the boy, 'there'. Is this Biblical? I don't know really.

willhud9 wrote:However, if we look at everything from theology, the Bible, to whom God is, to what sin is, to God's sovereignty over all life and death, etc, etc. I would say in that context yes his actions are those of a just (you get what you deserve), loving (he cares and strives for you to repent, and takes care of you), strict (his way is narrow), and avenging (those who wrong him or his people will get punished) God. But that is from a biblical perspective, and what I know about Theology as a whole.

This paragraph just makes me wince in its reasoning. Do unbelievers cast into the flame get what they deserve (I've a creationist friend who definitely thinks this and has no problem telling people, much to the annoyance and embarrassment of everyone)?

Repent? Repent from fucking what?

The vengeful one makes me scratch my head the most. He's a big-ass God who is untouchable by us mere mortals. What the fuck wrong can a little guy on a small planet possibly do to him to make him wrathful? Does a human avenge himself of a little lizard when it nips him by stamping on him or is he really just being petty and abusive?

Onyx8 wrote:As far as I can tell his position, correct me I am sure he will, is that God according to the bible is a just and loving God. The fact that the bible tells us stories about God being anything but is irrelevant.

I guess not.

I think perhaps Will is too close to it still. I used to defend what I came from as well. For sure, there are some legitimate answers to a few erroneous claims people make against the Bible, and I'd still correct such mistakes when I see them (if I still remember the answers... It all tends to fade with time), but I can't say I agree with him on this one. Which is fine I guess; can't agree on everything.

The God portrayed here isn't much different to The Bride from Kill Bill.

You don't have to go thousands of years into the past to find practices and ethics we find repulsive. There are many contemporary examples, like the rather resent one with the Pakistani (Kashmir) parents who doused their own daughter in acid, killing her, for the crime of perhaps showing an interest in a boy. When the deed had been done and it turned out it lead to death, the parents defended their action and said they had to do it.

Now - do we have any right to say this was wrong? Or do we have to say "Oh well - it's a different culture"? Do we have to say it would be wrong to do it if living in Europe or the US, but perfectly fine and expected if living in rural Pakistan? Actually it wasn't, since they were both arrested, but...
Robbing a young girl of her life in the most horrendous way, with acid slowly burning through her skin down to the bone in places, as it runs down her body, killing her over the course of hours. Why is this wrong? Is it only wrong where we live?

If instead, heaven and sky had opened up, and God himself poured the acid on the girl, would it have been OK because God has the dominion over all life and can do with it as he pleases? How about instead using some of that huge brain (metaphorically) of his to come up with an alternative action? But no - in the Bible, God does do things (or commands things) that equal and surpass this act.

Time, culture + God makes it OK?

I thought that will was just pointing out that for ancient Jews, that view of God is consonant with justice and love; for us, not. So we tend to be anachronistic.

nunnington wrote:I thought that will was just pointing out that for ancient Jews, that view of God is consonant with justice and love; for us, not. So we tend to be anachronistic.

Perhaps, but if all this is supposed to be viewed from a Christian perspective, it's the same God then as now. It's all well and good to say that the Jews back then saw their God as - among other things - to be good and just, due to a different time and culture. But I thought the point of this discussion was foremost to take Christianity seriously, not the ancient Jewish society.

They supposedly had the same God to guide them and give them laws as Christians now turn to. Why then was their culture and ethical views so different from ours? Did God really have to look at how people back then thought and acted, and tailor his own laws and ethics to how people already were? Isn't that the tail wagging the dog?

John P. M.

I think you are bringing in here the issue of whether the Bible is the word of God, aren't you, which is a separate topic?

I was just agreeing with will that the views of ancient Jews about God were possibly consonant with their own views of love and justice, although not with ours. But I think it is also arguable that the Bible is actually full of contradictory images and narratives about God; and I believe that there is a Jewish tradition, which delights in this, and celebrates it, and sees it as a kind of 'conversation' between different views, which presumably stem from different communities and individuals and times. In that case, the situation is more complex.

Gah...

Ok, let's take this from the top. We have a video, which one must assume is geared towards believing Christians today. It would at least be nonsensical to say it's made to confront ancient Jews(!). The video lists tons of instances of violence in the OT, and attempts to draw a line between these actions, and the belief that the God commanding and/or doing them, is Good and Just.

Ok.

So - willhud9 then posts, and says this is yet an example of an atheist who doesn't get it, but makes a lot of anachronistic mistakes in order to make the video. That back in those times, there were good reasons for these actions, and they were not seen as horrible, but as just and sometimes loving.

Ok.

But he also says, many of his friends know about all these passages, and still have no problem with any of them. They are Christians, they believe their God is the same God as in the OT, and they have no problems with the passages. So we're now not talking about what an ancient tribe thought was Ok at that time, but about a living God working then and now. If not - if we're talking about this from a strictly secular POV, then I don't see the point of the discussion. People did insane things in ancient times - still do. If we divorce it from the idea of a living God dictating their laws etc., then we're left with an ancient culture doing the best they could within their 'zeitgeist'. Not that interesting, to me anyway. And it seems, off topic.

Will says:

willhud9 wrote:
From my personal perspective, I cannot make a conclusion since out of that context we have post-enlightenment worldviews which are antithetical to many of the concepts found within the OT and NT, and from a purely historical and anthropological perspective it is also erroneous to label our post-enlightenment worldview has being better than that in 1000 BCE and 1st century CE. History and anthropology don't deal with better or worse, we deal with context and facts.

Ok. So our modern ways, customs, ethics, culture, what have you, is colored by what's happened in the last few centuries, and so we don't condone a lot of what went on back in ancient Jewish times. But we can't say that our world view is better? I can't say that I find it horrifying to burn your own daughter to death with acid, because her parents have grown up with a different culture than I have? The actual act of killing her with acid is 'neutral', and the only thing pushing it to the side of 'bad' or 'good' is our differing opinion? It can't be said that another, mild form of punishment or talking to would be better, because my view of the matter is colored by a post-enlightenment worldview? And before people interject that the Bible doesn't say to pour acid on children, that's true, but this was an analogy. Being stoned to death probably isn't very comfortable either, to put it that way.

Will then says:

willhud9 wrote:In the context of Christianity, taking everything in account, I find the character of God to be a just and loving God. You may disagree with me, and that's fine, but I am not making a leap of faith but rather am lining up that the Bible is rather consistent internally despite what popular opinion around here is.

"Taking everything in account". From the OT forward through time, in the context of Christianity, this same God was and is just and loving. Now we are definitely not talking about 'different times back then and we can't force modern views onto an ancient culture'. We have a living God in the picture here - on Christianity - that existed back then, and exists now.

And so we're back to the point I made earlier; did God really have to tailor his commands and laws and his own ethics to suit an already violent tribe?

This to me paints a rather puny God.

John P. M.

Fair enough. If the discussion is that God actually has dictated the Bible or inspired it, or whatever, and has presented/constructed these images of himself as loving and just, then yes, that changes the whole debate. I must have got the wrong end of the stick.

willhud9 wrote:

Scar wrote:The fact that ancient dimwits didn't think this stuff evil doesn't make us wrong in labelling it evil. It makes ancient dimwits evil due to not recognizing it.

and way to spit on ancient cultures. You come with your presupposition that our culture is vastly superior to an ancient one, and whether it is or is not is not the point. Cultures change, and perspectives change. But the character of God in Jewish texts, and in Christian texts remains a loving God. Place him in a post-enlightenment world, and we have a shift in opinion, his actions would not fly in today's world as just and loving and that is what I am trying to stress. When studying ancient literature, when studying ancient history for that matter, we cannot come to the table with our modern concepts of right and wrong, for those concepts will not be the same to the time period(s) we are observing. We cannot strip from the Bible it's historical context, where slavery was tolerated by the world (except you notice that slaves were to be released every 7 years in Jewish law and most slaves were indentured servants), where warfare and death penalties were very common, etc. within this context, God's actions are indeed shown as loving and just because in that worldview he is. The Bible is consistent internally. It is when you line it up to our modern philosophies and ethics where we run into issues, but from a scholarly point of view, you cannot simply do that.

So slaughtering your neighbors based upon their religious affiliations in the past was kind and compassionate and doing that today is not because of cultural differences. Keeping and beating slaves was kind and compassionate and loving in the past and we just fail to recognize this due to our cultural ignorance of the past.

This is so clear to me now. We are so culturally insensitive.

So does this apply to the Romans slaughtering Christians for sport? It was just a cultural thing. Why judge, right?