RE: Vhawk - OT Interpretation

[John21]

Rather than further derailing madnak's post and the interesting dilemma with the Born Again Hitlerites, I thought I'd just respond to vhawk in a different post.

Vhawk writes:

[ QUOTE ]
I am trying to imagine a watered-down, non-literal, metaphorical interpretation of the Old Testament that makes any difference. I can't. In what possible way can you interpret the OT to come to the conclusion that God ISN'T the biggest [censored] of all time?

Oh wait, NOW I thought of one. If humans are worthless insects not deserving of mercy and only deserving of misery and torture! At least he didn't make anyone wear armbands, right?

[/ QUOTE ]


I wouldn't go so far to say you couldn't interpret the OT the way you do, but honestly, I don't know of anyone in the Christian community who does. I think the standard interpretation goes something to the effect that, whether the stories are literally true or not, they are essentially examples and warnings. Do what these people did and look how great everything worked out for them; do what this other group of people did and look how horribly things went.

There's a lot of different do's and don'ts, but the bulk of the stories emphasize believing in an absolute God and believing in absolute morality. Then there's a story saying something to the effect that this group of people believed in God and look how great it was for them, and another group denied God and they perished. Or this group accepted absolute morality and look how great their communities functioned and this group didn't and they were plagued with strife. Like I said, I guess it's possible to interpret the OT stories differently, but I think this is pretty close to a "standard" interpretation inside the Christian community. And when a Pastor/Reverend/Priest refers to those stories it's usually in this sort of context.

However, I'll go out on a limb and say you could accept the above explanation, but your contention is how could a so-called loving and benevolent God so viscously destroy what are supposedly His own children, because either through ignorance, foolishness, defiance, etc., they acted contrary to His will. This is brought up in theology with the question of whether or not God can act contrary to the law of His own being, or against His inherent nature - and the standard answer is no.

So the standard view would not be that God is unjustly inflicting all this pain and suffering on His children. The pain and suffering are a result and/or consequence of acting out of harmony with God's nature and all those stories are there to prevent this from happening. In other words, they're just saying if you put your hand on a hot stove, there's nothing we or God can do to keep you from suffering the consequences.

From the theological point of view, the law of God's being is just as real as the laws of nature - if you break them there's consequences. However, it's also saying that if you understand and obey them, and learn to work in harmony with them there's a positive side to all this. In a like manner that we've made all the technological advances and gained all the benefits by understanding the physical laws of nature, the theological claim is that there are spiritual laws also at work. And like the physical laws they're immutable, we can't change them. But we can understand them, and by so doing harness them and make our world a more enjoyable place to live.

[Taraz]

Yeah, I kind of agree. It's not that "God will do this to you unless you behave". It's more like "this will end up happening".

Many people actually do hold the view that God actually did those things. I can understand the confusion and outrage against that viewpoint.

[Silent A]

The first problem I have with this line of thinking is that it is totally contradictory to what we see in reality. Following "the law of God's being" does not generally corelate with good consequences and violating it does not corelate with bad consequences.

I'm confident that if you were able to come up with a metric for measuring a person's harmony with "God's law" and the harmony of their lives and plotted the results on a graph the result would be a massive cloud of random points. Sure, there might be some corellation but it'll almost certainly be quite weak (there are far too many happy non-Christains and miserable Christians out there to doubt this, IMHO).

What should be particularily troubling is that mere humans can come up with systems of law that produce better results for most people than the OT laws.

I want to emphasize here that some of the most important OT laws were of extreme importance according to the OT but have zero meaning today. The most notable is the law prohibiting statues to other gods (Baal, etc) in the high places. There is a virtual 100% co-relation in the OT between good, successful Israelite kings and enforcement of this law. Furthermore, the reverse is also true: bad, doomed kings invariably put the statues back up.

The only conclusion I can draw from all this is that the god of the OT is seriously disfuntional, either in his ability to draw up meaningful "laws" or his ability to enforce the appropraite consequences. I would venture to say that he is almost totally inconsistent with what most Christians imagine "God" to be: fundamentally just, wise, and powerful.

[hashi92]

God should lead by example. If he goes around killing everyone that doesnt do his will why shouldnt his followers do the same.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
There's a lot of different do's and don'ts, but the bulk of the stories emphasize believing in an absolute God and believing in absolute morality. Then there's a story saying something to the effect that this group of people believed in God and look how great it was for them, and another group denied God and they perished. Or this group accepted absolute morality and look how great their communities functioned and this group didn't and they were plagued with strife.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's get something straight: these aren't group decisions made by different towns being described in the OT, they're primarily the decisions of individual kings who ruled over the same people and according to the OT, it's the entire population that suffered or benefitted, not just those that committed the "abominations".

If you don't see a fundamental violation of justice there ... well let's just say it would seriously disturb me.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I kind of agree. It's not that "God will do this to you unless you behave". It's more like "this will end up happening".

Many people actually do hold the view that God actually did those things. I can understand the confusion and outrage against that viewpoint.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am the one who is confused. How can ANY reading of the Bible give you the impression that it wasn't God who did these horrible things? What part of "And then God killed them all" translates to "And then they died of their own hands because they were wicked." I mean, I'm sure Hitler thought the Jews had it coming, but he still killed them.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't see a fundamental violation of justice there ... well let's just say it would seriously disturb me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is why you hear so many objections from "the clergy" in regards to absolute versus relative value judgements. In a sense, they're saying it's perilous to adopt relativism.

Look back to the point I mentioned about the law of God's being, and draw an analogy between the law of His being and the law of your being. If a tumor started developing, wouldn't you be thankful that the "law of your being" did everything in its power to kill it? Yeah, it's a bummer all those cells got mindlessly caught up in the mess, but you still need to kill them, because if you didn't - they'd eventually kill you.

So was it unjust what happened? I guess the tumor cells would feel they were treated unjustly, and they had a right to exist, prosper and further their own interests. But from your standpoint, I don't think the issue of justice even arises - the law of your being (survival) necessitated the actions that were taken.

I think most of the criticism I see over God and the Bible, has more to do with perspective than anything else. Most of the complaints center around His irrationality, meanness, vindictiveness, etc., and end up making judgements over Him and His motives. However, I don't think this is what those stories are saying. Yes they presuppose the existence of God, but what they're really talking about are very hard to discern forces at work. (I know that last sentence sounds flaky, but I couldn't think of a better way to phrase it at the moment.) But the point is they weren't making a judgement of those forces, spiritual laws, or whatnot - they were just describing them.

So as to perspective, a lot of theists would find the idea of judging God or His actions as incomprehensible and futile as judging gravity and it's actions. We don't criticize and condemn gravity when someone falls off a cliff, but we do try to understand how it works.

Now you can question whether any such thing as a spiritual law, or complicated forces governing human dynamics even exist, and that's fine. But when I read those stories, I just see groups of people - from their own mistakes/actions or the mistakes/actions of others - attempt to discern some principles that come into play with human interaction.

Despite what a lot of people think on the issue, I don't believe our ancestors went through the time and energy to write down and preserve what they regarded as truths to torment and torture future generations. I think they went through the trouble to help us, and I give it that weight and consideration when reading it. Like several posters mentioned, some of it might not be applicable to our current day and age, but then again some of it might be. I really doubt a big wooden horse will show up in my front lawn, but if one does, I just may question whether it's a gift or not.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you don't see a fundamental violation of justice there ... well let's just say it would seriously disturb me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is why you hear so many objections from "the clergy" in regards to absolute versus relative value judgements. In a sense, they're saying it's perilous to adopt relativism.

Look back to the point I mentioned about the law of God's being, and draw an analogy between the law of His being and the law of your being. If a tumor started developing, wouldn't you be thankful that the "law of your being" did everything in its power to kill it? Yeah, it's a bummer all those cells got mindlessly caught up in the mess, but you still need to kill them, because if you didn't - they'd eventually kill you.

So was it unjust what happened? I guess the tumor cells would feel they were treated unjustly, and they had a right to exist, prosper and further their own interests. But from your standpoint, I don't think the issue of justice even arises - the law of your being (survival) necessitated the actions that were taken.

I think most of the criticism I see over God and the Bible, has more to do with perspective than anything else. Most of the complaints center around His irrationality, meanness, vindictiveness, etc., and end up making judgements over Him and His motives. However, I don't think this is what those stories are saying. Yes they presuppose the existence of God, but what they're really talking about are very hard to discern forces at work. (I know that last sentence sounds flaky, but I couldn't think of a better way to phrase it at the moment.) But the point is they weren't making a judgement of those forces, spiritual laws, or whatnot - they were just describing them.

So as to perspective, a lot of theists would find the idea of judging God or His actions as incomprehensible and futile as judging gravity and it's actions. We don't criticize and condemn gravity when someone falls off a cliff, but we do try to understand how it works.

Now you can question whether any such thing as a spiritual law, or complicated forces governing human dynamics even exist, and that's fine. But when I read those stories, I just see groups of people - from their own mistakes/actions or the mistakes/actions of others - attempt to discern some principles that come into play with human interaction.

Despite what a lot of people think on the issue, I don't believe our ancestors went through the time and energy to write down and preserve what they regarded as truths to torment and torture future generations. I think they went through the trouble to help us, and I give it that weight and consideration when reading it. Like several posters mentioned, some of it might not be applicable to our current day and age, but then again some of it might be. I really doubt a big wooden horse will show up in my front lawn, but if one does, I just may question whether it's a gift or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a lot of this post makes errors in reasoning because it is so extremely difficult to wrap your head around 'omnipotent.' None of your analogies are even remotely accurate, because none of the players in them are omnipotent, and this DRASTICALLY changes everything.

A lot of the conflict is because we attack the theists God with the understanding that he is omnipotent, and the theists defend an anthropomorphized version of him, which has limitations. Sure, we anthropomorphize him too, from time to time, but we usually do it in an effort to give meaning to terms like 'justice' and 'love' and 'good.' These can really only be defined in relation to human beings and our innate morality.

[Silent A]

I don't have much time right now but I'll say this:

One of the main problems with your cancer analogy is drawing a parallel between individual cells and individual people. Cells are not sentient beings in their own right.

It's a fundamental Christian concet that we're supposed to have individual relationships with this god, if only indirectly via Jesus - it's still part of his plan either way.

If the OT god sees us more as cells and that his interest involves humanity as a whole you're contradicting a central tenent for a huge portion of Christians, if not the outright majority (including studied theologians).

It also sets up some rather nasty parallels with Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.

As for your other comments, it seems your drifting into territory where you deny the OT has any significant literal historical meaning ... that it has more in common with Homer than with modern concepts like History and Science. I have no argument with this personally but I fail to see how it could give anyone confidence that Christianity itself has a firm foundation in reality (as opposed to a tool that an educated person can use or not use as their own wisdom sees fit).

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a fundamental Christian concet that we're supposed to have individual relationships with this god, if only indirectly via Jesus - it's still part of his plan either way.

If the OT god sees us more as cells and that his interest involves humanity as a whole you're contradicting a central tenent for a huge portion of Christians, if not the outright majority (including studied theologians).

[/ QUOTE ]

True. But the concepts you're referring to are in the NT, I was discussing the OT.

In the minds of the people in the OT, we really don't see any deep attempt at understanding the nature of God. For the most part - God is what God does. There really wasn't an analysis of why He did things, He just did.

So from that perspective they figured out that:
If we do action "a" bad consequence "x" follows.
If we do action "b" good consequence "y" follows.

They didn't know why things happened the way they did or how it worked, nor did they judge it - they just thought they perceived some cause and effect relationships, which they wrote down and passed along.

Now I get your point that the God they saw at work back then was anything like a truly loving entity. For most of the context the worship was generated more out of fear than admiration. But they did figure out if they did "a" bad things would result, and if they did "b" good things would result - so at some primitive level the idea of a just God started to emerge. I'm not saying anyone particularly liked the rules of the game, but you get a sense that the rules as they perceived them were administered justly. And that's pretty much where the OT ends - with a just God. The idea of a truly loving God and our special place in the scheme of things didn't really start setting in until Jesus.

[Kimbell175113]

[ QUOTE ]
From the theological point of view, the law of God's being is just as real as the laws of nature - if you break them there's consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]

What laws of nature are you talking about here?

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From the theological point of view, the law of God's being is just as real as the laws of nature - if you break them there's consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]

What laws of nature are you talking about here?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't have a particular one in mind, but you could use Ohm's law for the analogy.

[hashi92]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's a fundamental Christian concet that we're supposed to have individual relationships with this god, if only indirectly via Jesus - it's still part of his plan either way.

If the OT god sees us more as cells and that his interest involves humanity as a whole you're contradicting a central tenent for a huge portion of Christians, if not the outright majority (including studied theologians).

[/ QUOTE ]

True. But the concepts you're referring to are in the NT, I was discussing the OT.

In the minds of the people in the OT, we really don't see any deep attempt at understanding the nature of God. For the most part - God is what God does. There really wasn't an analysis of why He did things, He just did.

So from that perspective they figured out that:
If we do action "a" bad consequence "x" follows.
If we do action "b" good consequence "y" follows.

They didn't know why things happened the way they did or how it worked, nor did they judge it - they just thought they perceived some cause and effect relationships, which they wrote down and passed along.

Now I get your point that the God they saw at work back then was anything like a truly loving entity. For most of the context the worship was generated more out of fear than admiration. But they did figure out if they did "a" bad things would result, and if they did "b" good things would result - so at some primitive level the idea of a just God started to emerge. I'm not saying anyone particularly liked the rules of the game, but you get a sense that the rules as they perceived them were administered justly. And that's pretty much where the OT ends - with a just God. The idea of a truly loving God and our special place in the scheme of things didn't really start setting in until Jesus.

[/ QUOTE ]

God is not just because if he were anyone who led a moral and honest life would be welcomed into heaven

God is not loving. how can any loving person sacrifice there only son.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
True. But the concepts you're referring to are in the NT, I was discussing the OT.

[snip]

Now I get your point that the God they saw at work back then was anything like a truly loving entity. For most of the context the worship was generated more out of fear than admiration. But they did figure out if they did "a" bad things would result, and if they did "b" good things would result - so at some primitive level the idea of a just God started to emerge. I'm not saying anyone particularly liked the rules of the game, but you get a sense that the rules as they perceived them were administered justly. And that's pretty much where the OT ends - with a just God. The idea of a truly loving God and our special place in the scheme of things didn't really start setting in until Jesus.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just out of curiosity, are you actually a Christian?

Becasue you talk about these things like they're attempts by ancient primative peoples to understand the world they live in and put events in some kind of larger context. While I don't dispute any of this, it boggles my mind that anyone can see this as the foundation of a path to any kind of meaningful description of what reality actually is.

If you divorce the OT from any real prophecy from a real god, but instead see it as a long progresion from primative to more modern concepts of the supernatural then you leave the NT with no foundation to build on whatsoever. Either that or you're forced to see the NT as just another human development in our attempts to understand the universe.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
Just out of curiosity, are you actually a Christian?

[/ QUOTE ]I consider myself to be. Others might classify me as a Gnostic Christian or a Christian Mystic. But there's a common lineage or family tree.

[ QUOTE ]
Becasue you talk about these things like they're attempts by ancient primative peoples to understand the world they live in and put events in some kind of larger context. While I don't dispute any of this, it boggles my mind that anyone can see this as the foundation of a path to any kind of meaningful description of what reality actually is.

If you divorce the OT from any real prophecy from a real god, but instead see it as a long progresion from primative to more modern concepts of the supernatural then you leave the NT with no foundation to build on whatsoever. Either that or you're forced to see the NT as just another human development in our attempts to understand the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a difficult area, and I think it's the one Vhawk alluded to when he said: [ QUOTE ]
A lot of the conflict is because we attack the theists God with the understanding that he is omnipotent, and the theists defend an anthropomorphized version of him, which has limitations.

[/ QUOTE ]
We're ultimately left with attributing personal qualities or a quality of personal-ness to what really isn't a person and for all practical matters, couldn't be a person. And as difficult as it is to conceive of such an entity, those difficulties are magnified when trying to convey or communicate that concept.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a lot of this post makes errors in reasoning because it is so extremely difficult to wrap your head around 'omnipotent.' None of your analogies are even remotely accurate, because none of the players in them are omnipotent, and this DRASTICALLY changes everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason it drastically changes everything is because you keep drastically changing your position. You particularly asked for:

[ QUOTE ]
I am trying to imagine a watered-down, non-literal, metaphorical interpretation of the Old Testament that makes any difference.

[/ QUOTE ]


Then when I give you a non-literal, metaphorical interpretation, you accuse me of improperly relying on metaphors in my analogies.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh wait, NOW I thought of one. If humans are worthless insects not deserving of mercy and only deserving of misery and torture!

[/ QUOTE ]

As nutty as it sounds, I think this is correct.

By nature we are sinners deserving nothing but ill fate and damnation. To achieve anything else requires effort, and even then there are no guarantees. That effort includes things like acceptance of God's word, repentance for our sins, hard work aimed at reducing the maginitude and frequency of our own sins, followed by passing on the attitude and philosophy to others.

If we do a good enough job of that, we can be saved. And even then, it's not because we deserve it in any way. Anything good that happens to us, either in life or in the afterlife, is solely because of God's grace.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
Many people actually do hold the view that God actually did those things. I can understand the confusion and outrage against that viewpoint.

[/ QUOTE ]

This argument doesn't work for monotheism.

"I'm swinging my arms and walking in this direction you happen to be in. If your face runs into my fist it's not my fault."

--God

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think a lot of this post makes errors in reasoning because it is so extremely difficult to wrap your head around 'omnipotent.' None of your analogies are even remotely accurate, because none of the players in them are omnipotent, and this DRASTICALLY changes everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason it drastically changes everything is because you keep drastically changing your position. You particularly asked for:

[ QUOTE ]
I am trying to imagine a watered-down, non-literal, metaphorical interpretation of the Old Testament that makes any difference.

[/ QUOTE ]


Then when I give you a non-literal, metaphorical interpretation, you accuse me of improperly relying on metaphors in my analogies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm...perhaps you are right. My objection was that your metaphorical version seemed impossible to me, and one that no Christian could accept in good faith. Your metaphor makes God a Watchmaker God, a deist God, it puts him outside the realm of direct interaction with the world. Is that a God the Christians really want?

FWIW, that is EXACTLY the kind of God that I think is defensible, and its also where I think the theists will eventually fall back to. I was just surprised to hear it as a legitimate defense of the Christian God.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh wait, NOW I thought of one. If humans are worthless insects not deserving of mercy and only deserving of misery and torture!

[/ QUOTE ]

As nutty as it sounds, I think this is correct.

By nature we are sinners deserving nothing but ill fate and damnation. To achieve anything else requires effort, and even then there are no guarantees. That effort includes things like acceptance of God's word, repentance for our sins, hard work aimed at reducing the maginitude and frequency of our own sins, followed by passing on the attitude and philosophy to others.

If we do a good enough job of that, we can be saved. And even then, it's not because we deserve it in any way. Anything good that happens to us, either in life or in the afterlife, is solely because of God's grace.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hitler would have agreed, thus the comparison.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, that is EXACTLY the kind of God that I think is defensible, and its also where I think the theists will eventually fall back to. I was just surprised to hear it as a legitimate defense of the Christian God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I see it with Jesus and the NT as just a deeper understanding and application of that same "law". If you take the basic understanding of the OT law as:
If we do action "a" bad consequence "x" follows.
If we do action "b" good consequence "y" follows.

I think Jesus basically said:
What if instead of doing just the basic requirements of "b" like treating people with tolerance, we were to go even beyond that?
What if we didn't just tolerate others but actually treated them like brothers?
Or even better, what if we made the attempt to love them like a mother loves her children?

Essentially making the case that - if we do "b" and good things follow, wouldn't it make sense that if we did really, really good "b" that really, really good things would follow? He obviously made a better case, but He also had a few other things working for Him. One of them being that to the people of that day and age, the "law" I referred to was pretty much common knowledge. It had been taught and handed down generationally for thousands of years.

It's really in the NT where the Christian, personal, or special place in the scheme of things, comes into play, simply because volition factors in. We have a choice whether to act with kindness and compassion towards others, or not to do so. And I think the message is basically: if we make the choice to act in ways that are above and beyond those OT laws, we'll free our soul, or essential being, of the confines, restrictions, and limitations of what is essentially the generic and non-personal operation of the law. (at least how it's portrayed in the OT.)

I believe it's essentially the same law at work, but in the NT it's just being specialized to higher and higher degrees to produce effects or consequences that wouldn't necessarily occur if that law was left to operate on a purely generic level, i.e. without human volition. And I also believe: because we have the ability to understand that law and through free-will have the ability to apply it in ways that can produce effects (like love) that don't spontaneously occur in nature - we have a special and unique place in the universe or as some say, "a unique relationship with a Christian God."

At least that's my take on things.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

Hmmm...perhaps you are right. My objection was that your metaphorical version seemed impossible to me, and one that no Christian could accept in good faith. Your metaphor makes God a Watchmaker God, a deist God, it puts him outside the realm of direct interaction with the world. Is that a God the Christians really want?


[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on if they are fundamentalists or not /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[ QUOTE ]

FWIW, that is EXACTLY the kind of God that I think is defensible, and its also where I think the theists will eventually fall back to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Hopefully we will get there sooner rather than later.