What To Make Of The Old Testament

[A Cup Of Tea]

Good point wil, I don't know what to do with that deviation. First I don't know if they have guilt like we define it, something similar or if we simply project our own responds on them. Is it only dogs also, or is it their interactions with humans? Humans have been bred to respond to us, reading our faces and looking where we point.

I'm convinced that there isn't any choice, as we understand it, on the part of the dog but rather instinct vs. the strength of learnt behaviour.

Wil, have you ever thought that the dog does that thing with it's face because it can get away with more if it does?

 

[Thomas]

If what you believe is perfectly in line with what the Catholic Church teaches, Protestantism is very different from Catholicism, it seems to me.

Very. The view of human nature is fundamentally different. Catholicism regards man as essentially good, but 'wounded' by sin. Protestantism regards man as essentially corrupted by sin.

The emphasis in Catholicism is mans' co-operation in his salvation (hence faith and works).

Who had changed Christianity this much?

Well the Reformation marked a massive change, and I suppose the second biggest impact was America, where 'ideological Christianity' emerged in the proliferation of denominations.

Interestingly, he doesn't think Protestantism was created by Luther. He said Luther was very much Catholic, but only, Luther rebelled against the corruption and exploitation of laypeople by the Church's pushing indulgences.

Only when the moneys collected were headed for Rome. Luther had no problems when the money was going into the coffers of his bishop.

But Luther's view of man was really pessimistic and his interpretation of grace and salvation was coloured by that. So he was not as far out as Calvin or Zwingli, but he was not Catholic. We're the optimistic ones!

I wonder if Calvin or Zwingli were more responsible for altering Christian doctrines.

Way more.

I happen to think "don't kill, don't steal" are divine injunctions. These are common sense only to us humans, and not to other animals, are they not?

When it comes to the animal kingdom, I'm not sure.

Our common sense comes from God - we're equipped with the ability to know what God expects of us.

Oh, I quite agree. Augustine calls it capax dei – The capacity for God. But I can't prove that our moral codes come from God. Buddhists have morals. Humanists have morals.

... Jesus skipped the first four and added "love your neighbor as yourself" instead.(Mt.19:18-19) Which coincidentally covers what I happen to believe are the 'universal virtues' for mankind, both for the religious and non-religious.

I agree.

Also ... I meant to ask ... when you say 'Scripture', do you mean more of the new testament, or both? Because the God presented in the old testament and the new testament seem very different to me.

Both. The difference is a matter of perception. As I think I said before, I don't see 'Judaism' was a done deal from the moment Abram walked away from Chaldea. It was the start of a long journey, but the nature of God and man, behind the literal reading, remains the same, and spot-on.

When I point that out to my Christian friends, many of them say that God 'changed' the laws because 'a new covenant' was made by the advent of the Christ.

I don't see it quite like that.

But I'm not buying that. I am of the opinion that God does not change the laws, ever. God resides outside time (that's what I heard), so the laws must be timeless. And God gave the laws not only to the Israelites but also to everyone else in the world IMHO, so the laws must be universal.

Yep.

What I think is, Christ helped disentangle the wrong understanding of God's Law on humans' part, showed us what the true laws are. That's what I take from "I have not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it."

Yes, but I happen to think Christ is more than that: The Logos of God.

 

[Thomas]

This creates a problem for me. First of all, how do we know the Israelites are describing the Canaanite culture correctly in the OT, and not just making up an excuse for their attack for which the main reason could have been purely a land grab?

We don't. Remember the Bible is not 'history' in the sense we understand it today.

Secondly, even if the Canaanites were morally corrupt as described, is it right (God's wish) to kill people with that reason? - I think not.

I agree. But we should be cautious in judging Antiquity by the moral values of today.

So my question is, even though God didn't command to 'kill them all' including noncombatants, did God 'lead' the Israelites to attack Jericho at all? Was it a just war initiated by divine inspiration? Does God ever put forward an idea in human minds that we launch a war, if for a righteous reason? Or wars are always a human idea, but we just use God's name to justify it?

War is always a failing.

Do you believe God would sanction wars, or the wars the Israelites fought were justified in God's eyes? Otherwise, can we regard Moses as a godly man?

I think we can regard Moses as a good man, but the point is the 'history' of a people in the Bible works along the lines of, when the people flourish, God is happy, when they suffer, it's because of their falling away ...

I don't buy that entirely, and I doubt many thoughtful Jews or Christians do either, but I do see how a people might see things that way.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Have you never owned a dog??
Never seen that face of one that tore apart the yard or house....

they know so well that they did wrong....and the fun they had doing it...
oh that face... Wil

All true. Except I was making a statement about dogs behavior with other dogs. Not dogs behavior with people. A different story entirely. Dogs and people have developed a symbiotic relationship other the millennia that is very close to unique in the animal kingdom.

And yes, dogs have owned me my entire life!

 

[Thomas]

'I wish I was half the man my dog clearly thinks I am!'

Can't remember who said it, but it's one of my favourite sayings.

 

[greentwiga]

I was reading that PEW study a few days ago. If I am not mistaken, it was a survey of American's beliefs alone; not the belief's around the rest of the world. That is not splitting hairs, I don't think, it is relevant to the reasons for the views in this particular study.

There is a proposal I would offer and would enjoy some feedback on. Scientists are more likely to study science (Yeah I know. Duh!). So they are more likely to find their answers to the great mysteries of the universe within science.

The religious are more likely to study the Bible, and it is from that source that they tend to move for their answers to the great mysteries of the universe.

It would be interesting to find out how many scientists who believe religion and science can coexist have studied the Bible. Versus the number in the opposite camp who have read the Bible. If I were a betting man, I expect that the scientists who have also studied the Bible are the ones who are more likely to believe the two can coexist.

Scientists who have no use for theology would not find much purpose in studying the Bible.

What this leads me to is that a whole lot of people, scientist or otherwise, are taking a position from having studied but one of the two; i.e. the one they choose to believe in. I have often found religious folk ignorant of science and how it works, and put them down for that.

It is a new concept to me that people who favor science have probably never studied the Bible, and are just as ignorant of theology as the religious are of science. If I find it to be wrong for one side, I have to accept it is wrong for both sides. One cannot intelligently argue a position of which they have no real knowledge!

I worked as a chemist for many years. I am also a devout protestant who studies the Bible carefully. I see no problem or conflict between the two. What I do have a problem with is the religious who interpret the scriptures without considering science, and then defending their interpretation as if it were the Bible. Mind you, I find the stories of Adam, Noah, the Patriarchs, Moses, etc. extremely accurate, if I let the Bible speak and ignore the traditional interpretation.

 

[wil]

Do you believe the About the Museum | Creation Museum to be science?

 

[Devils' Advocate]

I find the stories of Adam, Noah, the Patriarchs, Moses, etc. extremely accurate, if I let the Bible speak and ignore the traditional interpretation. GreenT

This is both an interesting comment and frustratingly vague. Would you be willing to expound more on what you mean by that statement? What does phrase 'if I let the Bible speak' mean? Nontraditional interpretations of the text? Nondenominational interpretations of the text? Personal interpretations of the text?

 

[MysticMansion]

The old testament is important because it helps open our intellectual eyes to the understanding of archetypes which then allows us to understand more fully the new testament. The new testament when opened to our understanding by the old then gives depth and meaning to the old testament. This allows someone access to a greater fullness of the truth God has revealed because each confirms the other granting the reader a greater confidence in God's Plan.

 

[greentwiga]

I find the stories of Adam, Noah, the Patriarchs, Moses, etc. extremely accurate, if I let the Bible speak and ignore the traditional interpretation. GreenT

This is both an interesting comment and frustratingly vague. Would you be willing to expound more on what you mean by that statement? What does phrase 'if I let the Bible speak' mean? Nontraditional interpretations of the text? Nondenominational interpretations of the text? Personal interpretations of the text?

I'm sorry that I didn't respond. I didn't get notice that there were replies'

Take the Garden of Eden. Most ignore the clues that it was where fig trees grew. There is only a hundred miles or less, north to south, between the Tigris and Euphrates, where wild figs grew. The Garden had to be there. The waters divided into four rivers, so it was on a mountain. There is only one mountain in the Region, Karacadag. The Bible states that no domestic plants (plants needing cultivation) existed until Adam came along. Therefore, the Bible indicates that wheat (at least) was domesticated at Karacadag. (see mention of bread) Recently, Heun et al proved that einkorn wheat was domesticated at Karacadag.

Similarly, loot at the flood story. No boat can be made longer than 300 feet long and survive a storm. No wood boat, that is. The Bible, though, describes a reed boat. In fact, GPR (a semitic word, but not Hebrew) means a kind of reed. Other lines of evidence in the Bible also indicate a reed boat. Reed boats can be made 450 feet long just fine. Though the world forgot about ocean going reed boats for thousands of years, the Bible preserves the knowledge.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

Similarly, loot at the flood story. No boat can be made longer than 300 feet long and survive a storm. No wood boat, that is. The Bible, though, describes a reed boat. In fact, GPR (a semitic word, but not Hebrew) means a kind of reed. Other lines of evidence in the Bible also indicate a reed boat. Reed boats can be made 450 feet long just fine. Though the world forgot about ocean going reed boats for thousands of years, the Bible preserves the knowledge.

I'm not going to dispute reed vs wooden for Noah's (PBUH) Ark as I have no evidence to support either way. But If I had the money, I could prove you wrong. I might would have to use modern technology to do it, But I'm almost certain I could make a 300+ ft wooden ship that could survive a storm. especially if all it has to do is float and not be directed. The most difficult part would be securing the brim... but enough notched end logs and a steel cable to hold them together would be awfully strong (could also be rope wrapped, but that's not as fun...) I'm actually not sure where it comes from, but I've heard Islamic traditions that say it was more box shaped, or "like a bird cage" but i'm not exactly sure what shape that is...

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Well. There are so many problems with the story, if it is based on any real event, and not but a myth, it must have been a very localized flood.

Dissecting the story as if it were fact and one runs into a flood (Ha Ha!) of issues. First off, for it to float and NOT be directed, as Joe suggested, is a ship doomed to founder. The only way to survive savage seas is to have propulsion to turn into the waves. Otherwise you capsize very quickly.

The only way you 'might' survive without a powered vessel is if you had a 'sea anchor', which is essentially like an underwater kite on a very long rope. A sea anchor at least will attempt to keep the ship facing into the wind. Sea anchors are the option of last resort when you have no propulsion.

Secondly, well here is a typical pic of a Noah's Ark scene. Storm clouds and lovely whitecaps which would be typical of a stormy ocean inside a bay or other mostly enclosed section of ocean.

Unfortunately, that is not the Ark story. It is on a planet of ocean. Atlantic and Pacific storms can be powerful indeed, but they are constrained because the force of wind and waves is broken up by continents.

There is only one place in the world where the ocean runs unencumbered by land completely around the Earth. An area of ocean just north of Antarctica, aptly named the Screaming 60s.

I could not quickly find a good pic, so here is a description "The prevailing high-speed, westerly winds which can generate large waves in excess of 15 m (50 ft) and peak wind speeds over 145 km/h (90 mph)."

That is not a from time to time situation. It is constant. With more powerful waves easily reaching twice that height coming at you from all directions of the compass. Not even modern vessels travel these waters if they do not have to. Even a modern steel vessel would very likely not survive if they were to lose engine power.

Now take that example and make it world wide. No land anywhere to block wind and waves. And you are looking at hurricane force winds and mountain sized waves. Again I doubt any modern vessel could stay afloat in such a hypothetical situation. Much less one built of wood or reed.

Of course one can gut all the real world issues with the standard religious copout that God caused it to happen so none of the real world issues are relevant.

 

[wil]

If one is going to suspend disbelief that we have a worldwide flood of rain for 40 days and 40 nights (that 40 isn't a sign of going around the square in full to completion, that rain isn't higher ideals and thought) and we can get 2 of every or 7 of every animal on (depending on what story you read and animal doesn't mean various attributes worth saving) ....if you can buy all that, then simple technical difficulties with sailing, ship building and dynamics are not an issue...

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Yeah I know. But I had a good time writing it regardless!

 

[BigJoeNobody]

It makes no difference who constructed the laws of the Old Testament. What matters is whether these laws (actually teachings) make sense. And they do.

Humans, in their default condition, as basically immoral scum. Visit your local mall for proof. The problem is that people were designed to live in small tribes where morality was enforced by the group. This doesn't scale. What religion does is to make it possible for morality to scale up to larger groups. While many religions have had varying degrees of success at this, the Old Testament clearly is the basis of the most effective religions. Christianity was an effective religion when it took the Old Testament seriously, and when it stopped taking the Old Testament seriously, sometime in the 1800s, it became a worthless religion (Orthodox Christianity excepted).

The god of the Old Testament doesn't tolerate immorality, and modern immoral people are horrified by this. No surprise there, modern people are evil/immoral.

I don't believe in superstitious nonsense, but I study the Old Testament regularly for its moral value and I follow its moral teachings. Today is my sabbath and one thing I do on the sabbath is post to religious forums. I usually get quickly banned by intolerant modern moderators who would censor any defense of morality. That is the way of the evil modern world.

While I can't disagree that the laws of the OT are very influential, I find it somewhat fascinating that you discount the Idea of God, yet adhere to principles from a book says there is undeniably one. If you take a bit to look around, you'll see most here aren't into confrontation, and as long as you keep it civil, most will argue all day, but not ban. I'm not Christian, nor Jew. But the loss of those morals and laws was the reason my Prophet (PBUH) came. To establish a permanent culture of morality and drive out the possibility of the immoral. It seems Man is so fallible, as even with a text that hasn't changed in 1400 years, we still get people thinking they need to add to it and take away for their own gain. Such is the staple of man it seems.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Do you think that modern religions have lost their way because they are run by all too faulty humans? It would certainly align with all other types of human endeavor. Governments for example is the same. The question I wonder is what to do about it? Or is there even anything that can be done about it? Is what we have the best that humans can achieve?

 

[BigJoeNobody]

I don't discount the Idea of God at all, I just interpret God differently than you do. When the Old Testament was written, the forces of nature were described by personifying them. Today we use mathematics. But I don't see that big a difference. I view God simply as all the forces of nature. If you ask if I believe in God, and whether God is one, my answer is certainly "yes" in the sense that there are forces of nature that we must respect and these forces are one in the sense that they are universal.

I am generally civil, but I am not going to hide my opinion that all modern religions have lost their way. Islam is no exception. The Islam founded by Muhammad was certainly a great religion. The Islam of today is not.

I would say there is a difference in our opinion of God, and more importantly the creator of the laws you hold dear. Of course I acknowledge your right to think of God however you do. It is not my place to tell you what is what. I can see that if you stick around, I have many questions for you regarding how you came to some conclusions, yet this is not the place for such questions.

As for the second half, I think I partly agree. The vast majority of what is displayed in media is certainly not the submission that Mouhammed taught (terrorism and the aggressiveness of many). I would also say you are correct as many people have turned from worrying if they are doing the right things and now worry how far they can go before it becomes wrong. This is actually being addressed in the internal community (Ummah if you will) and things such as Dawah are being reevaluated and encouraged. Certainly I could go on, but this is something for somewhere else entirely.

Do you think that modern religions have lost their way because they are run by all too faulty humans? It would certainly align with all other types of human endeavor. Governments for example is the same. The question I wonder is what to do about it? Or is there even anything that can be done about it? Is what we have the best that humans can achieve?

I would venture to guess faulty humans has something to do with a lot of problems. It is a recurring theme in the Tanach and Bible, which is one of the reasons there are more than 1 Prophet (PBUTA).

 

[Amica]

I personally cannot individually judge the Old Testament. What I am told by my religious scripture about the Old Testament is:

a. It is the Revelation from God Almighty SWT
b. People have corrupted it to an extent

Perhaps the verses of laws you cite are the corrupted parts of the OT? I do not know. I know that a lot of it Jewish and Christian people do not practice anymore (like honor killings), yet Muslims who are told that there is some corruption of the OT are still doing it even though some of those laws are not confirmed in the Qur'an. Go figure. So, who am I to judge?

I think that the 10 commandments are your way to go and things that make sense in accordance to your beliefs and upbringing.