God in the Old Testament

[Joan832]

Why is it that God seemed to treat the Gentiles so harshly in the Old Testament? That seems unlike the loving God we know. Atheists use that against us a lot.

[meltzerboy]

Originally Posted by Joan832

Why is it that God seemed to treat the Gentiles so harshly in the Old Testament? That seems unlike the loving God we know. Atheists use that against us a lot.

I think the operative word in your question is "seemed." When G-d commands the destruction of the Gentiles by Israel, it is never for minor offenses and never without a prolonged period of waiting for some positive change in their behavior. Further, sometimes G-d does not treat the Gentiles so harshly, as in the story of Jonah, in which He instructs the latter to save the Assyrians by asking them to repent, even though they are the enemy of Israel. Finally, G-d often punishes the Jews as well. I realize this is a succinct response for now, but it's very late here in New York!

[Hokomai]

Originally Posted by meltzerboy

I think the operative word in your question is "seemed." When G-d commands the destruction of the Gentiles by Israel, it is never for minor offenses and never without a prolonged period of waiting for some positive change in their behavior. Further, sometimes G-d does not treat the Gentiles so harshly, as in the story of Jonah, in which He instructs the latter to save the Assyrians by asking them to repent, even though they are the enemy of Israel. Finally, G-d often punishes the Jews as well. I realize this is a succinct response for now, but it's very late here in New York!

Meltz good to be back in a thread with you. You know I cannot let this pass. What were the major offenses of the children and babies killed at Jericho?

[meltzerboy]

Originally Posted by Cormacnl

The god of the Old Testament was regularly nasty and cruel to Jews and Gentiles alike; an equal opportunity, dictatorial sadist - somewhat similar in character to the gods and goddess of Olympus. Why worship such a sorry figure?

The G-d of the Old Testament is, for Christians, no different from the G-d of the New Testament. He is a G-d of both justice and mercy, which are intimately intertwined. Numerous times G-d displays sorrow and mercy toward His people, both Jews and Gentiles, even while He chastises them. If you are a casual observer, not schooled in Biblical literary writing, cultural history, and moral didactics, it may appear G-d is tyrannical and sadistic; but contextual, interpretive study of the Bible, as well as the Oral Torah (Talmud), strongly suggests otherwise.

[meltzerboy]

Originally Posted by Hokomai

Meltz good to be back in a thread with you. You know I cannot let this pass. What were the major offenses of the children and babies killed at Jericho?

Much has been written, discussed, and debated on the extermination of the seven nations of the Canaanites. There are accusations as well as justifications and rationalizations on all sides of the issue. The criticisms point to, among other items, the terrible ramifications of genocide commanded by G-d Himself on the world, including further genocides of Native Americans, Armenians, Cambodians, Rwandans, Palestinians, and Jews themselves; and the advent of the Crusades and the Inquisition(s), as well as colonialism. The justifications (or rationalizations) remind us that these nations were given every opportunity to repent of their persistent evil ways as well as a physical means of escape, but chose to reject them. Furthermore, the slaughter of all civilians, including children, may serve as a means of self-defense for the Jewish people with respect to future generations, who are socialized by the present evil one. Critics, however, argue that this idea has led to the implementation of discretionary preemptive wars, which are not in response to any immediate danger, and, according to Judaism, do not meet the criterion of a just war without legal sanction. Another justification is based on the idea that the story of conquest and annihilation itself may be exaggerated based on the narrative literary style contained in this portion of the Hebrew Bible. Others state it may be metaphorical and part of the traditional didactic teaching style. This is supported by subsequent contradictory passages in the Bible which speak of surviving Canaanites who were not exterminated.

[TimothyH]

Originally Posted by Joan832

Why is it that God seemed to treat the Gentiles so harshly in the Old Testament? That seems unlike the loving God we know. Atheists use that against us a lot.

Because they sold their young sons to be homosexual boy prostitutes in the temples of the pagan gods, or just sacrificed them when they were infants by burning them alive to the god Molech.

Because the men had sex each other and with their mother/sister/aunt/daughter. Women likewise had sex with each other and with their father/brother/uncle/son, and all of them had sex with their sheep and other livestock.

Because they cooked their children and ate them.

Because they used primitive surgical insturments to pull apart unborn babies and pull their little body parts out and then threw them in the garbage, or used noxious potions and fumes to induce miscarriage.

Because they used barriers to block sperm from entering the uterus, thereby preventing pregnancy and allowing them to have sex with whomever they wanted and whenever they wanted.

Because they said, "There is no God. I am God."

And not just Gentiles. The Israelites also did these things and recieved some pretty harsh treatment from God as a result.


-Tim-

[Hokomai]

Originally Posted by meltzerboy

Much has been written, discussed, and debated on the extermination of the seven nations of the Canaanites. There are accusations as well as justifications and rationalizations on all sides of the issue. The criticisms point to, among other items, the terrible ramifications of genocide commanded by G-d Himself on the world, including further genocides of Native Americans, Armenians, Cambodians, Rwandans, Palestinians, and Jews themselves; and the advent of the Crusades and the Inquisition(s), as well as colonialism. The justifications (or rationalizations) remind us that these nations were given every opportunity to repent of their persistent evil ways as well as a physical means of escape, but chose to reject them. Furthermore, the slaughter of all civilians, including children, may serve as a means of self-defense for the Jewish people with respect to future generations, who are socialized by the present evil one. Critics, however, argue that this idea has led to the implementation of discretionary preemptive wars, which are not in response to any immediate danger, and, according to Judaism, do not meet the criterion of a just war without legal sanction. Another justification is based on the idea that the story of conquest and annihilation itself may be exaggerated based on the narrative literary style contained in this portion of the Hebrew Bible. Others state it may be metaphorical and part of the traditional didactic teaching style. This is supported by subsequent contradictory passages in the Bible which speak of surviving Canaanites who were not exterminated.

This illustrates one of the rarely-discussed problems of the Judeo-Christian worldview. G-d deals with individuals (as in the case of Job) and also deals with peoples (Jews, Canaanites). This approach appears modified in the new testament, in which G-d is portrayed as dealing with individuals. In each case, however, G-d attacks innocents associated with either individuals or nations (Job's children, the innocents of Jericho). There seems to me to be no reasonable explanations possible here, which would align either of these views of G-d with the idea of an all-loving and all-powerful deity. The Christian case collapses and has nothing to say except "It's a mystery!", and has even less to say when asked why a G-d concerned for how much gluten is needed for transubstantiation, who actually makes his requirements known through his Church, would somehow fail to mention how this problem is resolved. The answer, of course, is that there is no such being.

[meltzerboy]

Originally Posted by Hokomai

This illustrates one of the rarely-discussed problems of the Judeo-Christian worldview. G-d deals with individuals (as in the case of Job) and also deals with peoples (Jews, Canaanites). This approach appears modified in the new testament, in which G-d is portrayed as dealing with individuals. In each case, however, G-d attacks innocents associated with either individuals or nations (Job's children, the innocents of Jericho). There seems to me to be no reasonable explanations possible here, which would align either of these views of G-d with the idea of an all-loving and all-powerful deity. The Christian case collapses and has nothing to say except "It's a mystery!", and has even less to say when asked why a G-d concerned for how much gluten is needed for transubstantiation, who actually makes his requirements known through his Church, would somehow fail to mention how this problem is resolved. The answer, of course, is that there is no such being.

You're assuming a solely historical and literal interpretation of these events. As I indicated in my previous post, some have suggested an exaggerated narrative style and others an allegorical one. The variety of literary styles in the Bible: narrative, poetic, allegorical, didactic, as well as the context of verses both within and across books, and the influence of the culture and the language of the time, must all be taken into account in studying the Bible. In Judaism, that's where the Oral Law (Talmud) comes in, with its several layers of interpretation of the Written Law (Torah), as well as the Zohar and its kabbalistic mystical insight. Neither Judaism nor Catholicism is a sola scriptura religion.

[Patavium]

Originally Posted by meltzerboy

You're assuming a solely historical and literal interpretation of these events. As I indicated in my previous post, some have suggested an exaggerated narrative style and others an allegorical one. The variety of literary styles in the Bible: narrative, poetic, allegorical, didactic, as well as the context of verses both within and across books, and the influence of the culture and the language of the time, must all be taken into account in studying the Bible. In Judaism, that's where the Oral Law (Talmud) comes in, with its several layers of interpretation of the Written Law (Torah), as well as the Zohar and its kabbalistic mystical insight. Neither Judaism nor Catholicism is a sola scriptura religion.

Thank your for sharing this meltzerboy. Excellent insight. G-d Bless!

[patrick457]

Originally Posted by Hokomai

This illustrates one of the rarely-discussed problems of the Judeo-Christian worldview. G-d deals with individuals (as in the case of Job) and also deals with peoples (Jews, Canaanites). This approach appears modified in the new testament, in which G-d is portrayed as dealing with individuals. In each case, however, G-d attacks innocents associated with either individuals or nations (Job's children, the innocents of Jericho). There seems to me to be no reasonable explanations possible here, which would align either of these views of G-d with the idea of an all-loving and all-powerful deity. The Christian case collapses and has nothing to say except "It's a mystery!", and has even less to say when asked why a G-d concerned for how much gluten is needed for transubstantiation, who actually makes his requirements known through his Church, would somehow fail to mention how this problem is resolved. The answer, of course, is that there is no such being.

I would like to approach this from a different angle. I've been recently reading a book by Timothy Beal entitled The Rise and Fall of the Bible, and this is what he argues.

The main problem with many people - believers and non-believers - is that they hold to a steretotype of the Bible (tracing its origins from 18th-19th century evangelicalism) as this self-interpreting divine manual where you can find every solution to every problem defined in crystal-clear terms. So it would come as a shock for readers when they find that the Scriptures aren't really what popular culture has made it to be: in reality the Bible is a library of ambiguity, of conflicting details which are not easy to resolve (ranging from "who went to Jesus' tomb, and how many of them were there" to "how to reconcile the divinely-sanctioned warfare of the OT with 'love thy neighbor'"), a fountain of unanswered questions. That's something we couldn't - and shouldn't - deny. The clincher is: we can say that devout 'defenders' of the Bible, those who are bent on smoothening out the different viewpoints expressed by texts, and irreligious 'debunkers' of the Bible are really two sides of the same coin. Both sides think that the Bible is on trial, and they agree on the terms of the debate: its credibility as God's infallible book. They agree that Christianity stands or falls depending on whether the Bible is found to be 'inconsistent'; the question is whether it fails to answer questions from the trivial to the ultimate, consistently and reliably.

But the problem is this. To ask whether the Bible fails to give consistent solutionrs or be of one voice presumes that it is meant to be a 'book of answers' penned by God (and perhaps even dropped down from heaven as it is) - which is really a false presumption. Biblical literature is polyvocal, constantly interpreting, interrogating and even disagreeing with itself: it ultimately evades any attempt to reduce it to univocality. Given how the Bible as we have it today is literally thousands of years in the making, and given how many hands were involved over such a long time in the context of this literature, can we honestly think that no one noticed the different viewpoints and the discrepancies? Can we really believe that Job's picture of righteous people suffering be allowed to stand with the Torah's depiction of suffering as something that comes upon the wicked? That all the passages which show lament and complaint be allowed to remain with those who definitely proclaim God's help towards the afflicted? That two different accounts of Judas' death which differ with each other in the details would not have been fixed and smoothened out? That four different accounts of Jesus' life (one more radically different than the other three) be considered to be 'inspired'? If consistency and univocality were the goal here, were the people who were involved in the development of biblical literature and the Scriptural canon really that blind and stupid to canonize all these writings?

Beal then connects this with the idea of 'faith in ambiguity'. For many people (especially nonbelievers), faith is seen as an absolute certainty despite or without regard to observed facts or evidence. But as many believers will know, doubt is faith's other, dark side: there is no faith without doubt. People of faith know the reasons to doubt their faith more deeply and more personally than any outsider can. To live by faith is to live with its inherent vulnerability exposed wide open. The same is true of the Bible: some parts of it "can atheist any book under the table." It presumes faith in God, but it also often gives voice to the most profound and menacing doubts about the security of that faith.

[Hokomai]

Originally Posted by patrick457

I would like to approach this from a different angle. I've been recently reading a book by Timothy Beal entitled The Rise and Fall of the Bible, and this is what he argues.

The main problem with many people - believers and non-believers - is that they hold to a steretotype of the Bible (tracing its origins from 18th-19th century evangelicalism) as this self-interpreting divine manual where you can find every solution to every problem defined in crystal-clear terms. So it would come as a shock for readers when they find that the Scriptures aren't really what popular culture has made it to be: in reality the Bible is a library of ambiguity, of conflicting details which are not easy to resolve (ranging from "who went to Jesus' tomb, and how many of them were there" to "how to reconcile the divinely-sanctioned warfare of the OT with 'love thy neighbor'"), a fountain of unanswered questions. That's something we couldn't - and shouldn't - deny. The clincher is: we can say that devout 'defenders' of the Bible, those who are bent on smoothening out the different viewpoints expressed by texts, and irreligious 'debunkers' of the Bible are really two sides of the same coin. Both sides think that the Bible is on trial, and they agree on the terms of the debate: its credibility as God's infallible book. They agree that Christianity stands or falls depending on whether the Bible is found to be 'inconsistent'; the question is whether it fails to answer questions from the trivial to the ultimate, consistently and reliably.

But the problem is this. To ask whether the Bible fails to give consistent solutionrs or be of one voice presumes that it is meant to be a 'book of answers' penned by God (and perhaps even dropped down from heaven as it is) - which is really a false presumption. Biblical literature is polyvocal, constantly interpreting, interrogating and even disagreeing with itself: it ultimately evades any attempt to reduce it to univocality. Given how the Bible as we have it today is literally thousands of years in the making, and given how many hands were involved over such a long time in the context of this literature, can we honestly think that no one noticed the different viewpoints and the discrepancies? Can we really believe that Job's picture of righteous people suffering be allowed to stand with the Torah's depiction of suffering as something that comes upon the wicked? That all the passages which show lament and complaint be allowed to remain with those who definitely proclaim God's help towards the afflicted? That two different accounts of Judas' death which differ with each other in the details would not have been fixed and smoothened out? That four different accounts of Jesus' life (one more radically different than the other three) be considered to be 'inspired'? If consistency and univocality were the goal here, were the people who were involved in the development of biblical literature and the Scriptural canon really that blind and stupid to canonize all these writings?

Beal then connects this with the idea of 'faith in ambiguity'. For many people (especially nonbelievers), faith is seen as an absolute certainty despite or without regard to observed facts or evidence. But as many believers will know, doubt is faith's other, dark side: there is no faith without doubt. People of faith know the reasons to doubt their faith more deeply and more personally than any outsider can. To live by faith is to live with its inherent vulnerability exposed wide open. The same is true of the Bible: some parts of it "can atheist any book under the table." It presumes faith in God, but it also often gives voice to the most profound and menacing doubts about the security of that faith.

I think this is all easy to explain. The various books that make up the Bible are in substantial agreement on many points, but not on others. They were canonised because they were in wide use in the Church, with the assumption that any problems could be resolved. Some could, through church teaching. Many of the problems in fact were not identified until the 19th and 20th century, as a result, probably, of wider academic freedom to study and write about challenges to Christianity. As a result of study, the contradictions in the Bible, including around such things as pain and suffering v a loving God have become more widely accepted and understood. Christians react by denial (the contradictions can be resolved; its a mystery; just have faith), anger (Satan is motivating me to post like this on CAF to destroy the faith); and so on - and sometimes reach acceptance, which often involves some form of agnosticism, or unbelief. I have personal experience of faith and doubt and understand their coexistence. I am happier now, with just doubt.

[patrick457]

(Continued)

Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel once penned a play entitled The Trial of God. The play is set in a 17th century eastern European village after a massacre of local Jews at the eve of the festival of Purim. The last remaining survivors are holed up in a local tavern: Beresh the innkeeper and his guests decide to stage a play in which they put God on trial for what has happened to their community and others throughout history: problem is, no one is willing to represent God. Just then, a mysterious stranger named Sam shows up and agrees to take on the role of God's defense attorney.

Many have commented upon the thematic similarities between this play and the book of Job. Beresh is very much the Job character: like Job, he places God on trial in connection with the classic theodicean question - how can God allow the innocent to suffer? - and refuses to justify Him in the face of this undeserved suffering. Sam, on the other hand, sounds very much like Job's three friends: he and they defend God's moral universe, saying that all this suffering must have been caused by some sin.

These two trials are eventually both cut short, but in radically different ways. In Job, God finally shows up and condemns Job's friends for their ignorance and lack of understanding while commending Job. In Wiesel's play, the bloodthirsty villagers break through the tavern door and proceed to murder the surviving Jews, as Sam reveals who he truly is: Satan.

In both of these cases, we can see an irony at play. In Wiesel's play, Satan is really the only one willing to stand up for God: we can imagine God saying here, "look who is my defendant!" Wiesel's Sam/Satan is the figure of a fanatic, who thinks he is justifying God. For Wiesel, questioning divine justice is perfectly acceptable: there is a difference between asking theodicean questions about God's justice (or lack thereof) and answering them. The Hebrew word for 'question', she'elah, contains 'el 'God' in it: in effect, God is in the question. But to give the answer? Keep asking the question. In Job's case, meanwhile, the one who has argued with God has spoken rightly; the ones who defended God have not. Job's friends are trying to answer for God against Job's accusations, but they are ultimately scolded because they did not "speak rightly" to or about God. In a way, God is saying, "Who do you think you are? Who asked you to answer for me?" God ultimately does not give Job any clear answers, He ultimately leaves things ambiguous, but He does take his side over against the three friends: "look who I have to defend me!"

"Ambiguity is the devil's playground," so a saying goes. In this idea, faith is a battle to keep up the wall of certitude against the floodwaters of chaos: uncertainty is a crack in the dam of faith. Wiesel obviously disagrees. His Satan figure is very much like the Grand Inquisitor who tries Jesus in Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, who believes that freedom is not what people want; rather they want to be told what to do and to believe. Contrary to them, faith deepens not in finding certainty but in learning to live with ambiguity.

So says Timothy Beal.

[Hokomai]

Originally Posted by meltzerboy

You're assuming a solely historical and literal interpretation of these events. As I indicated in my previous post, some have suggested an exaggerated narrative style and others an allegorical one. The variety of literary styles in the Bible: narrative, poetic, allegorical, didactic, as well as the context of verses both within and across books, and the influence of the culture and the language of the time, must all be taken into account in studying the Bible. In Judaism, that's where the Oral Law (Talmud) comes in, with its several layers of interpretation of the Written Law (Torah), as well as the Zohar and its kabbalistic mystical insight. Neither Judaism nor Catholicism is a sola scriptura religion.

I don't accept that a narrative, poetic, allegorical, or didactic endorsement of genocide is anything other than an endorsement of genocide. It is, of course, important for people who believe it to be the inspired word of G-d to explain this endorsement away, but while the motivation can be understood, and the opposition the these poetic acts of G-d lauded, it does not make the fact of the endorsement any less real. If I were to make up a story about a Santa Claus who murdered children whose parents did not agree with him, it would of course be rightly condemned as a moral exemplar. But if I actual really did believe that this Santa had inspired this information about him, and he really did exist, I would have to come up with a 'he didn't really mean it' story. we are left with the conclusion that G-d did not inspire scripture, that G-d did not inspire scripture in an effective way, despite being all-powerful, that G-d inflicts suffering on the innocent, despite being all-loving; or that God is not all-loving, or not all-powerful, or not both, or does not exist.

[patrick457]

Originally Posted by Hokomai

I think this is all easy to explain. The various books that make up the Bible are in substantial agreement on many points, but not on others.

And the points in which they do disagree can sometimes be very serious matters. Take a look again at Job and contrast it with say, Deuteronomy. In Deuteronomy Moses offers a vision of a perfectly moral universe governed by God: where keeping the commandments will bring down blessings and disobedience brings down punishment and puts you out of sync with the moral universe. Job, however, does not suffer because he has sinned against God. In the heavenly court, "the Accuser" (haśśāṭān) suggests that as a test, Job be allowed to suffer; after all, how hard is it to be good if you never face adversity? Thus, contrary to the image in Deuteronomy, Job's exceptional righteousness does not earn him a blessing but a curse - all this with God's assent!

So Job begins to lose his wealth, his family, and eventually even his health. The boils that Job gets are precisely, word for word, what Deuteronomy prescribes as punishment for disobedience:

But if you will not obey the voice of the Lord your God or be careful to do all his commandments and his statutes that I command you today, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you. [...] The Lord will strike (yakəḵâ) you on the knees and on the legs with grievous boils (bišəḥîn rā‘) of which you cannot be healed, from the sole of your foot to the crown of your head. (mikaf raḡələḵā wə‘aḏ qāḏəqŏḏeḵā)

- Deuteronomy 28:15, 35

And the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil? He still holds fast his integrity, although you incited me against him to destroy him without reason.” Then Satan answered the Lord and said, “Skin for skin! All that a man has he will give for his life. But stretch out your hand and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse you to your face.” And the Lord said to Satan, “Behold, he is in your hand; only spare his life.” So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord and struck (wayyaḵə) Job with loathsome sores from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head. (bišəḥîn rā‘ mikaf raḡəlwō ‘aḏ wə‘aḏ qāḏəqŏḏwō)

- Job 2:3-7

They were canonised because they were in wide use in the Church, with the assumption that any problems could be resolved.

You're forgetting the Old Testament: that also shows a huge divergence within itself (as the Deuteronomy-Job example shows). I mean, Marcion did a very easy convenient thing when he rejected the OT wholesale: why did Christians still insist on doing it the hard way and decided to keep the Hebrew Scriptures?

[Hokomai]

Originally Posted by patrick457

And the points in which they do disagree can sometimes be very serious matters. Take a look again at Job and contrast it with say, Deuteronomy. In Deuteronomy Moses offers a vision of a perfectly moral universe governed by God: where keeping the commandments will bring down blessings and disobedience brings down punishment and puts you out of sync with the moral universe. Job, however, does not suffer because he has sinned against God. In the heavenly court, "the Accuser" (haśśāṭān) suggests that as a test, Job be allowed to suffer; after all, how hard is it to be good if you never face adversity? Thus, contrary to the image in Deuteronomy, Job's exceptional righteousness does not earn him a blessing but a curse - all this with God's assent!

So Job begins to lose his wealth, his family, and eventually even his health. The boils that Job gets are precisely, word for word, what Deuteronomy prescribes as punishment for disobedience:

But if you will not obey the voice of the Lord your God or be careful to do all his commandments and his statutes that I command you today, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you. [...] The Lord will strike (yakəḵâ) you on the knees and on the legs with grievous boils (bišəḥîn rā‘) of which you cannot be healed, from the sole of your foot to the crown of your head. (mikaf raḡələḵā wə‘aḏ qāḏəqŏḏeḵā)

- Deuteronomy 28:15, 35

And the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil? He still holds fast his integrity, although you incited me against him to destroy him without reason.” Then Satan answered the Lord and said, “Skin for skin! All that a man has he will give for his life. But stretch out your hand and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse you to your face.” And the Lord said to Satan, “Behold, he is in your hand; only spare his life.” So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord and struck (wayyaḵə) Job with loathsome sores from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head. (bišəḥîn rā‘ mikaf raḡəlwō ‘aḏ wə‘aḏ qāḏəqŏḏwō)

- Job 2:3-7

You're forgetting the Old Testament: that also shows a huge divergence within itself (as the Deuteronomy-Job example shows). I mean, Marcion did a very easy convenient thing when he rejected the OT wholesale: why did Christians still insist on doing it the hard way and decided to keep the Hebrew Scriptures?

I appreciate your erudition, Patrick, as always. I think your final 'why' helps in my thinking about the nature of belief (my main point of being on CAF). I don't agree with Mark Twain's witticism that Faith is believing what you know ain't so. I Think faith is believing what you can't explain in the light of the known facts must be true in spite of the facts. Those who were aware of the biblical contradictions, I suspect, will still have put the boks together because they believed they were inspired. Any contradictions, they will have rationalised, were from their own failure to understand, and (probably) their sinfulness, or fallen natures. So it was then, and so it is now. And that facts become daily more apparent to more people, and the strength of faith lessens and the facts become harder to refute.