Evidence for God from Science

As you've read the articles ( or some of them on our main site, which answers and cites some of these verses) what specifically about the responses do you find problematic? Which of these verses do you believe are prescriptive advocating the actions and which are descriptive? Do you see difference between those two situations?

Well i mean how can an all loving god condone all those things? killing non believers (even if they are family and people you love) and children is not loving and is worse than what you see in most horror films these days lol. The person or people who wrote those things are disturbed and in no way can be considered caring or loving. oh, and if you could link me to the articles that talk about some of these verses i'd be very thankful

Again please read "God is not a Moral Monster" by Paul Copan - he really does address these issues in some detail.

SIlvertusk

jacob, your question is general and not specific to the verses you've put up. It's a very basic general question and it is addressed multiple times in the articles I refered you to earlier, and it's also addressed multiple times on this forum in threads which can by doing a search on a bible reference or just in general on hard passages in the old testament.

Jacob, again, in the theme of being honest and straight forward, I've asked you specific questions about which articles you've read and which answers you're having difficulty with and why. All you've done so far is answer non-specifically and what appears to me anyway to be evasive with no real evidence that you've done your work. I think many on this board and myself as well are willing to interact with you, but it appears you want to take on the role of inquisitor and have us do all the work for you while you decline to answer specifically deflecting things back in our direction.

I'll take you at your word that you're sincere. Why don't you toss me a bone here and instead of continuing to answer generally and cutting and pasting a large section from the same site I removed the link from, which takes very little effort, why don't you interact with some of the articles you claim you've read instead of just throwing the general question out with personal assurances that you've read them?

I'm just going to end this with saying that I'm going to buy that book that was recomended. I'm tired of all this "honesty" and lack of trust. If I was an atheist I would have been the first thing I stated, but I didn't, I stated I was a deist. My question is straightforward: why would a loving god say those things? I don't want you to break down every verse, because they all pose the same question. If you believe me: great I will continue to respond. If you don't and think I'm some covert atheist spy, then expect this to be my last response. I love the website and I spend a lot of times reading the discussions on here, believe me or not that is the truth, I'm an amateur in theology and religion so my responses are simple because I'm asking a question and expecting a response, not a discussion... Because truthfully I would be boring as hell and I look like an idiot. Oh and I've read some of the articles on slavery in the bible and god destroying and murdering many... So it's not like I'm completely lazy... But the main verses are the ones I posted... Which I have not been able to find anywhere

I read these articles

Thou Shall Not Kill: Does God Violate His Own Commandment?
by Rich Deem
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/killergod.html

This is a good explanation of one instance of "Biblical genocide" by William Lane Craig, please excuse the theatrics of the video.
Also I would like to say that 9 times out of 10 you can google the passages you want questions to and get a theological answer as these passages have been talked about hundreds of times in the past.

Dan


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmodkyJv ... re=related

That's cool Jacob. All I have to go on is what you write and unfortunately we do have issues with people coming in representing themselves otherwise. I know you've been coming to the board over a long period of time even if you haven't posted much and that's fine. That indicates to me that you're sincere and looking at things and that's fine. I'm not trying to deflect you. If we're going to have a conversation though with a lot time taken to deal with issues, it's not unreasonable to save time by looking at the articles and then picking up there on what the issues are that you have, so we're not spending a lot of time and effort on things that have already been generally addressed.

It's not an easy question and most militant or new atheist sites just attack without any meaningful action. Atheists as you may notive in your looking, are not all the same. There's a branch of atheism that is as militant and rigid in their thinking as any of the extremes within Christianity. The site you originally linked is of that camp and wouldn't say anything positive about Christianity or Christians if it would save their grandmothers life. They have no issues with using every negative and out of context attack as well as assuming the worst of everything that they can and frankly, over time it gets wearisome and repetative. So when you linked to that site, naturally it raises my eyebrows and makes me wonder about someone who hasn't posted a lot and when they do post it's short and hard to read in terms of what the purpose and motives are.

So please understand that side of it.

I do think Copans book is an excellent place to start. Much misunderstanding about the Old Testament comes from reading things literally from a 21st century scientific perspective when that's not how or who it was written to. I haven't read the book. I've heard good things about it. He's a professor at the University I graduated from with Business Degree and second major in Biblical Literature.

Well your accusations are pretty weak... If you think that Christians and Jews blindly follow G-d like you propose. I would suggest you study the Bible before making blind decisions.

Ill try to answer a few now... Maybe more later. Please don't shotgun questions but give them one at a time...

jakobp wrote:
"So Jephthah led his army against the Ammonites, and the LORD gave him victory. He thoroughly defeated the Ammonites from Aroer to an area near Minnith - twenty towns - and as far away as Abel-keramim. Thus Israel subdued the Ammonites. When Jephthah returned home to Mizpah, his daughter - his only child - ran out to meet him, playing on a tambourine and dancing for joy. When he saw her, he tore his clothes in anguish. "My daughter!" he cried out. "My heart is breaking! What a tragedy that you came out to greet me. For I have made a vow to the LORD and cannot take it back." And she said, "Father, you have made a promise to the LORD. You must do to me what you have promised, for the LORD has given you a great victory over your enemies, the Ammonites. But first let me go up and roam in the hills and weep with my friends for two months, because I will die a virgin." "You may go," Jephthah said. And he let her go away for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never have children. When she returned home, her father kept his vow, and she died a virgin. So it has become a custom in Israel for young Israelite women to go away for four days each year to lament the fate of Jephthah's daughter." Judges 11:29-40

Human sacrifice is an abomination to G-d Lev 18:21, Lev 20:2-5. This sacrifice in Judges 11 has nothing to do with human sacrifice but as a living sacrifice of perpetual virginity for the remainder of her life.

jakobp wrote:Rape law: "If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her." Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Answered here.. http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 14&t=33287

Thanks guys! the comments have been helpful and like i stated before, i would like learn more about christianity and maybe convert back. It was just that before i became deist i was sort of a blind christian who didn't know much about it and after reading articles and books from atheists i stop being christian but never became an atheist. Lately i've been reading a lot from christians apologetics and trying to get things straight before i choose. i'm looking forward to seeing other responses

jakobp wrote:Thanks guys! the comments have been helpful and like i stated before, i would like learn more about christianity and maybe convert back. It was just that before i became deist i was sort of a blind christian who didn't know much about it and after reading articles and books from atheists i stop being christian but never became an atheist. Lately i've been reading a lot from christians apologetics and trying to get things straight before i choose. i'm looking forward to seeing other responses

Hi there, I've also been in a similar position to yours. I'm curious, what is it about Christianity that you are questioning.
Is it solely the nature of God? And how he would allow or condone certain acts?
When you say 'blind Christian', regarding what were you blind; just in a general unquestioning manner, or something more specific?

I think the biggest thing i'm questioning is the old testament and the way god acts and the things he says. I've heard great arguments about the existence of jesus and many other things from the new testament, but some of the evil things stated in the old testament like smashing babies against rocks and forcing women you raped to marry you all seem so dark and unlike the god of the new testament. And when i mean blind christian i meant like someone who only knows the basics, like jesus and god, but without actually knowing what's inside the books that made them so popular. I just think that Jesus has such a great message in the new testament that many are willing to forget the old one so not to think about it...well except the Wesboro Baptist Church...lol

I don't ignore the Old Testament. I just realize that it's partial and pointing toward Christ.

Maybe it will help to understand this. The Old Testament with the Nation of Israel addressed things that were spiritual as well as things that related to day to day life and law. There was no separation of church and state like we take for granted in America.

So, when the Old Testamant speaks of what to do in the case of a rape (for example), it isn't that rape is being endorsed or even countenanced, it's that these are the guidelines that were in place for such a situation (which are going to happen because there are men who are ruled by their passions or who use sex as a weapon against women to assert control) and how it was to be handled. We look at it sitting 3,000 years removed from the time in an industrial culture which looks at women as their own person who can operate independently to make her own decision and so the standard of law that we bring in that instance seems to make the Old Testament system backwards and "wrong."

THings were different in that time and culture. A woman did not have the power to "go to the city" and make a life for themselves independent of her family. The culture was agrarian and men were dominant because they had the physical strength to farm and hunt and roles were pretty established as to what men could do and what women could do and that seemed as natural to them as what our times and standards seem to us.

Slavery in OT times was more than what we think when we associate slavery with what was done to African Americans in our past. At the time of Christ, being a "slave" was a position that the majority of the people in that culture occupied. It was a means of currency in some ways in terms of the work or labor someone could do. People who found themselves in debt and unable to meet obligations had the option to place themselves or family members in service to the debt-holder for a prescribed time and in some ways that was a more human approach to things than say for instance 18th and 19th century England where debtors were put in prison and held until they paid and yet couldn't pay because they were in prison.

Every age and culture has their own codes that work in the context of their times to address situations.

This can be expanded out into other situations too.

Rather than thinking that these "revelations" are an indication that the God of the OT is somehow "immoral" by the standards of our own times (as no doubt people who look back on us will make some of the same assessments based on their times) think about it for a moment. The fact that the OT doesn't gloss over the human condition and it preserves things that seem pretty earthy and an indication of the weakness of men, in my mind makes it more reliable, because you don't have to worry in a sense that things are just being glossed over and we're being given a "polly anna" presentation that's been cleaned up and sterilized for public consumption.

THe Bible provides guidelines for slavery because slavery existed in that age and context and while that doesn't make it morally right, the OT was more than just thoughts about God. It was also the code of conduct for day to day living and addressing situations like that didn't seem to be unusual or out of the ordinary.

There are usually handful of verses that are extremely difficult.

Psalm 137:9 Happy shall he be, that takes and dashes your little ones against the stones.

One explanation is below.
http://www.learnthebible.org/dashing-l ... tones.html
It is clear that Israel did not invade Babylon. Babylon was however invaded by the Medes and Persians, and I can only imagine the atrocities.

If you are remotely sincere about understanding these difficult things, then get Paul Copan's book, Is God a Moral Monster. In the line of what Bart is saying, he unpacks all the cultural trends, idioms, rhetoric, hyperbole, etc. to help us better understand writing from 3,000 years ago.

jakobp wrote:Thanks guys! the comments have been helpful and like i stated before, i would like learn more about christianity and maybe convert back. It was just that before i became deist i was sort of a blind christian who didn't know much about it and after reading articles and books from atheists i stop being christian but never became an atheist. Lately i've been reading a lot from christians apologetics and trying to get things straight before i choose. i'm looking forward to seeing other responses

You'll find detailed responses to the "God endorsing killing" issue at an old but good site: http://christianthinktank.com/. You'll find many other good articles there I'm sure which deeply respond to many criticisms levelled against Christianity.

Additionally, you divorce God out of the picture then criticising a society, or even "God" for that matter, on moral issues becomes empty and a lot of questions need answering. For example, some questions for me that would need satisfactory answers before I could even consider Atheism would be:

1) What is it that makes human actions "wrong" or "right", which applies to whole humanity?
2) Is there some standard we can all recognise to know something is right/wrong, or is it just an inward recognition of something we perceive to exist?
3) Does right and wrong really exist, or is it just an evolved feeling?
4) If right/wrong really does exist, then what is its objective reality grounded in?
5) How does this moral grounding make moral actions wrong for all regardless of what others might believe or feel?
6) If I go against this moral grounding, then what is it that still makes my action/s wrong?
7) If right/wrong doesn't exist, then I can't really say another person is morally right or wrong. It might be distasteful to me, but they're just different.

An Atheist as I see is left in a sticky position, especially when critiquing God, Christianity or religions (e.g., Dawkins) as bad and immoral. Let's say evolution just caused us to feel some things are wrong. But this doesn't mean actions really are wrong. Because having found out they just evolved, perhaps for the better of society, I can just decide to discard them for my own benefit. What iS morally right/wrong just ultimately becomes what I find acceptable or unacceptable, unless I decide to give this up.

On the otherhand, Theism, in particular Christianity, validates as true our moral perception that some things really are wrong (e.g., child abuse), and other actions to be morally applauded as good (e.g., self-sacrificing for others). There is a moral standard built into us which came from a Creator who stands above and outside of us. Thus, what we know to be good is rooted in our Creator. And unless we are psychopaths (considered an abnormal mental condition), our recognition of this moral standard justifies and condemns us as we live out our lives depending on whether we uphold or break it.

So getting back to the original discussion... having discarded your Christian beliefs, I must ask what it is you are grounding your morality in, which allows you to judge/condemn what you perceive in the OT as really being morally wrong or bad?

Canuckster1127 wrote:I don't ignore the Old Testament. I just realize that it's partial and pointing toward Christ.

Maybe it will help to understand this. The Old Testament with the Nation of Israel addressed things that were spiritual as well as things that related to day to day life and law. There was no separation of church and state like we take for granted in America.

So, when the Old Testamant speaks of what to do in the case of a rape (for example), it isn't that rape is being endorsed or even countenanced, it's that these are the guidelines that were in place for such a situation (which are going to happen because there are men who are ruled by their passions or who use sex as a weapon against women to assert control) and how it was to be handled. We look at it sitting 3,000 years removed from the time in an industrial culture which looks at women as their own person who can operate independently to make her own decision and so the standard of law that we bring in that instance seems to make the Old Testament system backwards and "wrong."

THings were different in that time and culture. A woman did not have the power to "go to the city" and make a life for themselves independent of her family. The culture was agrarian and men were dominant because they had the physical strength to farm and hunt and roles were pretty established as to what men could do and what women could do and that seemed as natural to them as what our times and standards seem to us.

Slavery in OT times was more than what we think when we associate slavery with what was done to African Americans in our past. At the time of Christ, being a "slave" was a position that the majority of the people in that culture occupied. It was a means of currency in some ways in terms of the work or labor someone could do. People who found themselves in debt and unable to meet obligations had the option to place themselves or family members in service to the debt-holder for a prescribed time and in some ways that was a more human approach to things than say for instance 18th and 19th century England where debtors were put in prison and held until they paid and yet couldn't pay because they were in prison.

Every age and culture has their own codes that work in the context of their times to address situations.

This can be expanded out into other situations too.

Rather than thinking that these "revelations" are an indication that the God of the OT is somehow "immoral" by the standards of our own times (as no doubt people who look back on us will make some of the same assessments based on their times) think about it for a moment. The fact that the OT doesn't gloss over the human condition and it preserves things that seem pretty earthy and an indication of the weakness of men, in my mind makes it more reliable, because you don't have to worry in a sense that things are just being glossed over and we're being given a "polly anna" presentation that's been cleaned up and sterilized for public consumption.

THe Bible provides guidelines for slavery because slavery existed in that age and context and while that doesn't make it morally right, the OT was more than just thoughts about God. It was also the code of conduct for day to day living and addressing situations like that didn't seem to be unusual or out of the ordinary.

Thank you very much for this response. This has already helped me in my goal to look at the Bible as a whole and put the knowledge revealed in it into context of what God wants for my life. I have to remind myself everyday that it is everlasting love that gives me revelation.