Struggling with an all-too human God in the OT...

[Dragonseer]

I believe that many of the Bible's lessons--especially those attributed to Jesus in the Gospels--are deeper than they appear on the surface. And while I think that there are esoteric teachings in the OT, I also find some very on-the-surface statements that reek of human motivations--e.g., instilling fear in mankind. Such statements cause me to struggle to get through the OT. (I find myself mentally repeating: This is not something God would say, per Jesus' description of Him/Her.)

Does anyone else struggle with reading the OT for the same reason? Do you just see too many human traits attributed to God?

Here are a few examples from Exodus (in the ESV):

1) "Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death" (21:17).

2) "You shall not permit a sorceress to live" (22:18).

3) "If you do mistreat (any widow or fatherless child), and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry, and my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword..." (22:23, 24).

Since all three of these "rules" fly in the face of the commandment against killing another human being, I'm guessing that certain Jewish (or even other religious) understandings of God greatly flavored them.


Thank you,

DS

 

[Virtual_Cliff]

I've just been reading about Marcion, born 85AD and close to St Paul.

Marcion taught that the Jewish ideas about God, as set forth in the Old Testament, were inferior and antagonistic to the ideal of the Good God revealed by Jesus. Marcion saw that the Old Testament taught a false view of a hateful, avenging God. In Marcion's view, Jesus had taught a new concept of the one true God--so there can be no reality to the evil "God" of the Old Testament. Persons who allowed themselves to believe in the Old Testament concept of God created a fetid, evil "world" of illusion and suffering, whereas Jesus had taught about real life--life in the spirit with Jesus and a return to the loving God.

You can read more here. So this idea is far from new.

My view is that each age struggles with the idea of God and interprets their vision in terms of what they are familiar with. So a patriarchial, war-like race descended from herdsmen will have a certain view of God as father, warrior and receiver of animal sacrifices. Hopefully our ideas are evolving, although I sometimes wonder.

 

[Dream]

I do not understand what is meant by 'Sorceress' in your #2, but #1 & #3 I'll comment using my own opinion.

The solution is understanding the reason why murder is forbidden. You may not think there needs to be a reason to ban murder, since it should be obvious; but there is a reason given and it does matter. Genesis 9:6 says the reason is "for in the image of God made he man." The idea is that you and I are created in God's image, so killing each other is a disgrace to the divine. When you disgrace the divine, your life itself becomes a disgrace to the divine and is no longer in God's image. With regard to your #1, it is grouped together with several similar prohibitions all of which are deemed to disgrace the Divine:

• Killing someone unless it is accidental
• Striking one's own parents
• Treating parents disrespectfully
• Allowing a dangerous beast to harm people

With regard to your #3, the threat is not from a human being but from the 'LORD', but the problem is the same. By not caring for the weak you have disgraced the divine, since they are made in God's image. The 'LORD' will destroy you for this, however and not men. Caring for orphans and widows is the the central statement that characterizes the law.

The laws in Exodus and these other books were written to be memorized and so are not as expansive and literal as we'd like. They're actually a backbone of information to which other specialist memorizations could be added. For the sake of not misunderstanding, the enforcement of the literal words was not the goal of the laws and interpretation of the memorizations was not literal. As an example, Exodus 21: says 'Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,' but this effective memorization was actually referring to payment of money in exchange for an injury (just like people today expect) -- not a revenge injury. The point of these dramatic statements was to help get the law memorized so the principles could be internalized and properly applied, not to have a bloodbath. Killing mentioned in the Bible was not always literally killing. A clear example of this is in passages about an exchange called 'Redemption', in which a person figuratively was killed but actually only payed some money.(Numbers 18:15). It was a figurative death. Literally killing people was out of the question, and redemption could not happen in reverse. (Paying money could not buy you permission to kill someone, because the focus was upon preserving the divine.) I do not know that parents actually killed rebellious children, but Banabrain protests very loudly whenever someone suggests that they did. I think probably they didn't.

Can't really help you with the part about sorceresses, because I don't know what exactly they did or in what way they disgraced the divine exactly.

 

[bob x]

I've just been reading about Marcion, born 85AD and close to St Paul.

An important and controversial figure, but the schoolmarm in me has to point out that, since Paul was long dead by 85, Marcion could not be "close" to him. Marcion did admire Paul (his followers called themselves "Paulicians", and there were still some "Pavliki" in the Balkans until the early 20th century), and published the first collection of his epistles: he did not have 1st or 2nd Timothy, Titus, or Hebrews (scholars do not consider any of those to have been by Paul, anyway; they also doubt 2nd Thessalonians, Collossians, and Ephesians, which he did have), and his texts of Romans and Ephesians lacked some of the sections in the now-canonical text. This book of epistles, called the Apostolikon, was accompanied by the first published text of the Third Gospel, at that time simply called the Evangelion and not attributed to Luke (or any other particular author), not associated with a book of Acts, and not containing the first couple chapters (Nativity stories; Temptation in the Desert). This was the first "canon" of the New Testament; he rejected the gospel of Matthew and the epistle of James as too Jewish, and all the "John" literature since he did not get along at all with the Johannine community in Asia Minor; the larger canons which began to appear in subsequent decades were reactions to his work.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Dragonseer,

I am sorry to hear that you are struggling with the idea that there are inaccuracies in the Bible. I hope you can come to terms with this soon. Once you come to terms with the idea that there are inaccuracies in the Bible, I think things will go a lot better for you.

 

[Quahom1]

I believe that many of the Bible's lessons--especially those attributed to Jesus in the Gospels--are deeper than they appear on the surface. And while I think that there are esoteric teachings in the OT, I also find some very on-the-surface statements that reek of human motivations--e.g., instilling fear in mankind. Such statements cause me to struggle to get through the OT. (I find myself mentally repeating: This is not something God would say, per Jesus' description of Him/Her.)

Does anyone else struggle with reading the OT for the same reason? Do you just see too many human traits attributed to God?

Here are a few examples from Exodus (in the ESV):

1) "Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death" (21:17).

2) "You shall not permit a sorceress to live" (22:18).

3) "If you do mistreat (any widow or fatherless child), and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry, and my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword..." (22:23, 24).

Since all three of these "rules" fly in the face of the commandment against killing another human being, I'm guessing that certain Jewish (or even other religious) understandings of God greatly flavored them.


Thank you,

DS

One thing to consider is that God is everything, and we are subjects to his laws. God is judge, jury and executioner. God is not subject to the laws made for man. Nor is God accountable for the giving and taking of life as God sees fit (by God if God sees fit).

What man mistakes is that God is not subject to human judgement, and the cry of "unfair". God is no respector of persons.

We are not dealing with a "finite" being here. We are dealing with the Creator of life (our life as well).

 

[Gatekeeper]

Dragonseer

It hasn't been long that I myself began to ask similar questions about the God described in the OT. My problem with it all is that I had been so conditioned to view the entirety of scripture as infallible and without error, that it made it difficult for me to come to terms with the idea that the God described in the OT is more than likely a product of man.

It seems likely to me that God has been silent throughout the ages, and that mankind has been attempting to place our ungodly characteristics on Him in attempt to keep the whole of us in line. Fear being the most basic, and effective tool for doing so. I think perhaps that mankind had lost faith in our abilities govern with humility and meekness, so certain ungodly characteristics were placed on a silent God in desperation.

The thing is ... God is here with us. He is in all things, and all things are a part of His entirety. We are never alone, but we are hard pressed at times to see Him and acknowledge Him as He is. We want God to be a protector. We want him to avenge wrong doing, and we want Him to take care of what we ourselves must take care of for ourselves.

God rested after He formed man, and left to us an inheritance to do with what we wished. We've been reaching out to God ever since. Some have gone to great lengths to create a God that would help strengthen man in times of trouble. Not only that, but they also went to great lengths to create a God we should fear.

All the world has been given to mankind to govern. It is up to us to figure out how to govern effectively. God is here resting silently within all existence however. His Spirit lives in all of us. That Spirit is our connection to Gods own heart. It is love. Jesus knew this about our heavenly Father, which is why he never attempted to rule, but rather chose a life of service.

Jesus realized that we are in this life together, and that it takes more than one person to change it. God is here, His Spirit available to all. It is simply a matter of allowing Gods Spirit (Love) to guide us.

"The kingdom of heaven is like a man who left to his children many gifts as an inheritance. Among the gifts was one which contained the key to living a happy and abundant life. The only thing his children knew of this gift is that it seemed small and insignificant compared to the other gifts their father had left them.

So this tiny gift sat largely unnoticed and unappreciated by his children. They had so many gifts after all, and as each child desired the gifts they thought to themselves to be the greatest, the one gift they truly needed was discarded.

While the mans children did their best to make the best of their inheritance, the gift containing the key to their happiness was neglected and viewed to be the least important among the rest.

And much to his childrens shame, and because they neglected this amazing gift, they failed to experience a life filled with happiness. His children missed out on an amazing inheritance because they failed to realize the importance of that one tiny gift."

So it is with God and man. Much like the children in the above story, mankind has failed to make the best of what we've been given. All while the key to the kingdom resides within each mans heart waiting to be nurtured, so that Gods heart may rise up in our heart, that we might know Gods fullness, and come to know the goodness of life.

Love is that gift

2 cents,

GK

 

[Dragonseer]

I am sorry to hear that you are struggling with the idea that there are inaccuracies in the Bible. I hope you can come to terms with this soon. Once you come to terms with the idea that there are inaccuracies in the Bible, I think things will go a lot better for you.

I am well aware that there are inaccuracies in the Bible. That said, I still find the not-so-hot human traits attributed to God in the OT to be incredibly frustrating.

 

[Dragonseer]

With regard to your #1, it is grouped together with several similar prohibitions all of which are deemed to disgrace the Divine: ...Treating parents disrespectfully.

Again, such "divine" laws are, IMO, human-made, not God-ordained.

I was raised by a verbally-/emotionally- abusive mother (and a dad who just pretended like nothing was amiss). Due to her systemic abuse, my "mother" has earned my disrespect and anger. And even though my negative human emotions/thoughts aren't the ideal, I don't believe that God is so petty as to kill humans for them.

The laws in Exodus and these other books were written to be memorized and so are not as expansive and literal as we'd like. They're actually a backbone of information to which other specialist memorizations could be added. For the sake of not misunderstanding, the enforcement of the literal words was not the goal of the laws and interpretation of the memorizations was not literal.

I know that the laws were first transmitted orally--and that cultural and religious "norms" color human understanding. (And I agree that much of what's written in the Bible should not be taken literally.) Still, the all-too-human traits attributed to God in the OT seem incredibly misleading to me--especially when compared to Jesus' descriptions of God.

 

[Dream]

Dragonseer, oops I forgot that you are a seeker and I sort of lost the context. I actually don't understand what Esoteric Teachings are and what you found in the OT concerning those, but I respect what a seeker is. Just like you didn't post everything you were wondering in your opening post, I never post everything that I am thinking. Silence is both part of the process of finding things out and part of the process of sharing understanding. You cannot say everything at once.

Again, such "divine" laws are, IMO, human-made, not God-ordained.

I was raised by a verbally-/emotionally- abusive mother (and a dad who just pretended like nothing was amiss). Due to her systemic abuse, my "mother" has earned my disrespect and anger. And even though my negative human emotions/thoughts aren't the ideal, I don't believe that God is so petty as to kill humans for them.

And your parents should not have done that. Written laws aren't complete, since they are only ink; but that has never been a secret. The ink is a step towards good principles and must be meditated on and further steps taken. 'You have to read the white letters in between the black ones.' I am curious what an Esoterist thinks about that and whether you have seen a similar idea elsewhere? I think the question is do you believe that there are divine laws underlying the human ones or not and also do you think there a common way for everyone to live? Do you believe we can teach all parents to treat their kids better and how should we do it?

I know that the laws were first transmitted orally--and that cultural and religious "norms" color human understanding. (And I agree that much of what's written in the Bible should not be taken literally.) Still, the all-too-human traits attributed to God in the OT seem incredibly misleading to me--especially when compared to Jesus' descriptions of God.

John 4:25 The woman said to him, "I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ); when he comes, he will show us all things."

John 16:12..14 "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth...He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

Jesus ministry is a continuation towards fulfilling our search for perfect principles that everyone can live under together. He also did not explain everything while he was here but said the spirit of truth would come to do it. The spirit of truth guides Christians into them and should continue doing so until all things are under Jesus. He went up to heaven and it says he reigns from there until things are worked out on the earth. ICor15:24 "Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power." 28 "When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one."

Ephesians 1:16-23 I do not cease to give thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers, that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the
knowledge of him, having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power in us who believe, according to the working of his great might which he accomplished in Christ when he raised him from the dead and made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come; and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church,which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all.

 

[17th Angel]

I personally think the god in the OT would get a lot more done than the god in the NT. I guess in a way, the proof is in the pudding!

 

[Dream]

I personally think the god in the OT would get a lot more done than the god in the NT. I guess in a way, the proof is in the pudding!

Agree 100% that its inexcusable for a kid to have to grow up verbally demeaned by their parents. You are a Christian living in the Christian country, if I remember. Baptized, right? I think you are right about the OT. The God in the OT is where we get "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord." Eph 6:4, even though it is recorded in a NT letter. The fact that it is recorded in the NT suggests two things: 1 that it was already a viable idea present within the Jewish community at the time, probably understood and extrapolated from the written laws during the previous millennia. 2You have to admit though that if child abuse had already been destroyed there would not have to be a verse against it in the NT! So the problem is that child abuse continued and still does. In fact, despite both the OT and NT gods as you call them, child abuse still exists on earth today. The Christian is charged with fighting against the very possibility and potential of child abuse. It is called fighting the principality -- that hidden cause which causes child abuse. Dragonseer is interested in fighting the principality that causes child abuse. If it be Christianity, than Dragonseer would fight her. If it be Judaism, then Dragonseer would fight her. If it be eating meat, then Dragonseer would fight that, and so on. Though I don't think it is any of the three, I say Fight the good fight. Its admirable to do that.

 

[17th Angel]

Hey there old bean,

Well I guess yeah currently the religion with the majority population on the island is
christianity. I however am not a christian. The only reason I say OT god and NT god is because I see a complete two different entities. Or perhaps, a schizophrenic? You have the wrathful, demanding, jealous being. (which also shows alot more presence) Then in the NT there is a metamorphosis to this benevolent forgiving and more reasonable being. Did the god evolve and learn? Was he a complete different entity? Or was it say a plan by that one being? Perhaps to show life needs a balance? *shrugs*

 

[Dream]

Dear 17th Angel (May DM Live Forever),

I think you have a point about the schizophrenic business. Its very ironic that the OT god would be bloody while the NT one is kissyface, since they are supposed to be the same. There must be some underlying reason why the two should appear to be so different. I have decided that the reason must be pain. Some people say it is a Zionist plot. I seriously looked into that for myself, but I decided it was not a plot. That would've been cool though. I think it is all a misunderstanding. I've thought and thought about how the differences came about, and it would be hard to explain my motivation for doing that. The best explanation is that I was driven by some pain to understand those apparent differences. I just have a bug or something. May be I'm not like these people who study all these different religions, like path-o-one-two-three or chris-summer-flower-bonechina-cat. I don't get what their motivation is that allows them to power through six stacks of books per week, but somehow at the end of the week they do. How does 17th sit still long enough to paint things? Why? I ask myself. Why do they do it? I just don't get it, but I would understand if you told me it was because of the pain. The reason the NT is written differently from the OT is that there was a lot of pain in between. May be that is an oversimplification.

 

[17th Angel]

Greetings and salutations; (Yeah DM is awesome that is a picture of me from my sisters birthday this Saturday passed.)

Could you expand on this pain? I maybe slow or being a dullard or something, But, I am not sure what this pain is? I totally agree about the books yet do not agree about the painting / creating. As I see no effort really needed to express by visually creating something. However reading books, even book. That is a trial of my patiences, I already know the out come of that battle. I guess one be attempting to express and in the other they be attempting to gain knowledge. I don't see where this pain is a drive? I need to know more of this pain lol.

I am sure if looked to you there has to be something you spend time on, because that is the path to a personal goal? Perhaps not reading, perhaps not painting, but something. One thought what if your path be exactly the same as Path and Flower? Sure you say you do not read a bajillion books to study religion, but you speak of religion and discuss it with others? Which is a form of studying religion isn't it?

*rubs hands and smiles conspiratorially* What be this Zionist plot you speak of?

 

[Dream]

Dangerous Mighty Mouse-eared Chum,

The major difference between the gods as you call them is just a mirage. I'd say that Jews are civilized as Christians and seem to get what guidance they need, so I do not see a bloody Jewish god vs. a peaceful Christian one.

There is a lot of confusion between Jews and Christians as to the nature each of the other. This confusion is more pronounced than the actual differences.

The real difference betwixt the two form the start was Christianity said Gentiles no longer needed laws to keep them in line but could be civilized by spiritual living or Law of the Spirit. The old laws sometimes called 'Noahide' laws were declared dead in Christianity and replaced by the law of the spirit. In traditional Judaism, I think they would say the time was yet to come. Christianity said that time was already come, however the new testament of it was still being developed, which was the testament of Christians living good lives. So as long as Christians showed themselves to be good people, they would be a New Testament in favor of the gentiles. When they did not, then lets say there were problems with that, but the main thing was whether they kept trying. If they kept trying, went the argument, it proved that there was a law within them trying to make them do the right thing. Hence, this was their testament to prove messiah had come already. Traditional Judaism on the other hand, felt that it had a duty to live so perfectly as to shine, and then everyone throughout the world would marvel and even gentiles would choose to live in harmony. It felt it was still waiting for the messaih to come show it how to do that. That seems really the main difference between the archaic Jew and Christian. They still believed in the same God, still do. Same same.

 

[Dragonseer]

The only reason I say OT god and NT god is because I see a complete two different entities. Or perhaps, a schizophrenic? You have the wrathful, demanding, jealous being. (which also shows alot more presence) Then in the NT there is a metamorphosis to this benevolent forgiving and more reasonable being. Did the god evolve and learn? Was he a complete different entity?

I believe that the OT was greatly colored by human "filters"--namely religious and cultural beliefs. And I think that Jesus incarnated to exemplify what God is truly all about: love. In other words, I think that most of the OT authors were too biased and misguided to accurately portray God's essence. They made God into their image--rather than the other way around.

I'm nearing the end of Exodus and marvel at "God's" demands for specific material goods in order for people to commune with Him/Her--namely gold, silver, bronze, etc. And then you have Jesus' statement that the kingdom of God is within every person/soul. To my mind, the two ideas are diametrically opposed. To say that God was once wrathful/jealous/vengeful (in the OT) and turned all lovey-dovey (in the NT) seems, as you've said, schizophrenic.

 

[Amergin]

I believe that many of the Bible's lessons--especially those attributed to Jesus in the Gospels--are deeper than they appear on the surface. And while I think that there are esoteric teachings in the OT, I also find some very on-the-surface statements that reek of human motivations--e.g., instilling fear in mankind. Such statements cause me to struggle to get through the OT. (I find myself mentally repeating: This is not something God would say, per Jesus' description of Him/Her.)

Does anyone else struggle with reading the OT for the same reason? Do you just see too many human traits attributed to God?

Here are a few examples from Exodus (in the ESV):

1) "Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death" (21:17).

2) "You shall not permit a sorceress to live" (22:18).

3) "If you do mistreat (any widow or fatherless child), and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry, and my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword..." (22:23, 24).

Since all three of these "rules" fly in the face of the commandment against killing another human being, I'm guessing that certain Jewish (or even other religious) understandings of God greatly flavored them.


Thank you,

DS

Man made God in man's own image. Since most gods were created by Warlords or tribal Chiefs, naturally the manufactured god has the personalities, virtues, vices, and psychopathy reflect the minds of the warlord creators.

The rare warlords who invented compassionate, loving, protecting, just, fair, and altruistic gods led their tribes to extinction or extermination from tribes with violent, vindictive, and cruel monster gods. Bad gods beat good gods every time. Tribes with bad gods win wars.

Amergin

 

[Quahom1]

Man made God in man's own image. Since most gods were created by Warlords or tribal Chiefs, naturally the manufactured god has the personalities, virtues, vices, and psychopathy reflect the minds of the warlord creators.

The rare warlords who invented compassionate, loving, protecting, just, fair, and altruistic gods led their tribes to extinction or extermination from tribes with violent, vindictive, and cruel monster gods. Bad gods beat good gods every time. Tribes with bad gods win wars.

Amergin

Please show current examples.