- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The title of this post is very general (as parts of the Old Testament can be uplifting while others aren’t so much), but I hoping to hear your views about the content of the Old Testament. My interest in understanding your views was sparked by a comment I once heard in a class. The instructor referenced a scripture that related to the Israelites dealings with the inhabitants of Jericho. When asked to recap the story of Jericho, a member of the class made it very clear that what Israel did to Jericho was justified because the people of Jericho were so wicked that the Lord did not want to any more spirits to be born to the inhabitants of Jericho. Just so you know my bias, I find it really hard to accept that the same being that blessed children in the New Testament and BOM commanded such a slaughter of an entire city. When reading the account I can’t find any reason for the slaughter, and simply find that the inhabitants of Jericho were on the wrong land at the wrong time and had a different belief system than the Israelites. I was kind of disgusted with the member’s justification of the Israelites actions. Does anyone feel the same? Differently? Have a different explanation for what happened? Thanks for your thoughts!
There is absolutely no evidence that most of the OT is an accurate historical record – and I, personally, don’t accept that God commanded the extermination of entire populations. I kind of like the OT, but only because the stories in there are interesting. But, like everything in history, the victorious write the history. This means that they remove the parts that make the victorious look bad and the losers look good, this way all you have left is how benevolent the winners are and how evil and nasty the losers are.
If WWII ended differently, Hitler would be a benevolent leader, but instead he was written as a evil leader.
Hope that helps.
I agree with both of your points regarding the historicity of the OT. I guess my real concern is that so many (not just within the Church) don’t just accept the OT at face value but also seem to justify some of the horrific events. I guess I consider it a case of bad ideas breeding bad ideas: when a person accepts the OT as historical fact they must reconcile the uncomfortable passages with their understanding of the nature of God, and they do so by creating interesting doctrines or principles like God preferring to brutally exterminate an otherwise innocent people out of love for those that might be raised improperly. We say we accept the Bible “as far as it is translated correctly,” but we fail, imo, to realize that “translated correctly” also includes the original recording and not just subsequent translations. I see all scriptures as the record of how people viewed their gods and their interactions with those gods, with NONE of them being inerrant or God-dictated. Thus, I value scripture highly – even as I don’t accept a lot of what is in them when it comes to divine intervention or command, and even as I see much of the most ancient scripture as mythological in nature.
I kind of like the OT as well, but I don’t see it as purely, or even mostly, historical. I believe the stories in the OT are much like the parables taught by Jesus – they illustrate a point or concept but are mythical. I actually wouldn’t mind if God were a bit more like the one portrayed in the OT – I think there would be a lot less wickedness in the world if people got struck by lightning when they seriously sinned! 
Some of the stories in the Old Testament are horrendous and I consider them nothing more than the self-congratulatory myths of the victors. But there are other stories that I find inspiring. I just don’t feel obliged to accept all of the stories. Some people erroneously consider scripture to be infallible (scripture doesn’t claim to be so). In taking that perspective they have to go through mental gymnastics to make it fit every time. As a result people in this category don’t bat an eyelid when a man talks to his donkey. Or when a man sends his second wife and son into the desert to die.
I take the OT as the religious writings of a primitive culture. In some ways this “wisdome literature” speaks universal truths about the human condition.
In the next sentence it can express cultural norms, assumptions, and even attempted justifications for abhorrent events.
I can’t be too judgmental of the past because I also am a product of my time. A general reverence for all forms of life and an understanding that we are part of a universal brotherhood are luxuries that I’m not sure the nomadic tribesmen could afford.
wl44 wrote:I guess I consider it a case of bad ideas breeding bad ideas: when a person accepts the OT as historical fact they must reconcile the uncomfortable passages with their understanding of the nature of God, and they do so by creating interesting doctrines or principles like God preferring to brutally exterminate an otherwise innocent people out of love for those that might be raised improperly.
Yup, I believe that the clearest example of this is in the case of the priesthood ban. The church has downgraded this over time from a doctrine, to a commandment without explanation, to a policy, and now to a misguided policy without clear origen that was belatedly corrected through revelation. During the evolution of thought on this topic there were all sorts of explanations and justifications for the ban (many coming from church leaders) that now seem to have been very misguided.
Well interesting was the word I would have used growing up. Kind if inspiring in some parts. But as in adult it definitely had set up unrealistic expectations of myself and others and how they would be. As well as an overly negative overtone In general when I read it now. I now try to skip the negative parts that repeatedly talk about death and destruction and abomination in the same story or chapter. Same with BOM or even New Testament. But in general NT and BOM are friendlier reading and more positive- though not entirely.
I encounter so much negativity in life and tribal culture in general against other “tribes” that I don’t want to spend my spare time reading more about it. It’s hard not to come out depressed for me.
Certainly doesn’t inspire hope – not for me.
Nowadays I stay away from overtones of doom and gloom and repent in stories, talks, books or movies.
I have heard it literally 10s of thousands of times already. More then any other topic by far.
But still there are some good stories that tend to uplift, I skip around the book(s).
I mean the BOM really starts off with tons if abomination and nephi killing a drunken smaller man.
So it’s not right there either but there are still quite a few stories. I’m all for books I find enduring and I use those.
Find the stories that work to strengthen you and others around you in a positive way.
Some stories just don’t do that and can help to tear down, but others can help to build up.
Find what stories work for you and focus on those. It’s ok to pass on the stories that don’t help build you up.
I, like others, have found stories in the Old Testament that are very uplifting. The stories of Esther and Job are wonderfully inspiring. One of my favorite stories is that of the leprous Naaman and his initial unwillingness to do something very simple to cure his problem. I have used that story in a variety of contexts. But it’s true some of the stories are a little strange. The witch of Endor, the talking donkey, the Song of Solomon (I knew a guy who ripped that entire book out of his Bible!), the wholescale slaughter of many many people. (Though I always get a kick out of the story of Elijah and the priests of Baal. There aren’t too many passages in the scriptures where the man of God outright mocks someone.) – On God taking sides in war – Abraham Lincoln, describing the North and South, said, “Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other.” In our ancient history, conquest and defense were major reasons to have gods. The OT is completely in-line with the idea that “God” would be on their side in wiping out their enemies. There is really nothing exceptional about the OT in that regard. If we were to read 3000 year old babylonian or assyrian histories, they’d say the same thing. As pointed out in this thread, the problem is in trying to justify today what was a practice of mankind long ago, that we have since (to some degree) put behind us. – On the disparity between the God of the OT and the Savior of the NT – Yeah, it’s an issue. So much so that there were early Christian movements that thought of the God of the OT as a “lesser” god, replaced by the more powerful, higher level, NT God, who saw that the OT god was messing up and needed the true God to step in. It’s hard to harmonize the OT destruction of the Canaanites with the NT golden rule. It’s difficult to rationalize the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in light of Jesus’ consorting with “publicans and sinners” and then teaching, “They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick… I will have mercy… for I am not come to call the righteous, but the sinners to repentance.”
– On whether the OT is uplifting – my view is ‘yes’, but it requires taking it all as a metaphor and not as literally describing God’s interaction with mankind. The OT is a work that clearly anticipates the need for a Messiah. God’s intervention is needed to raise Israel up from their base condition to something more glorious. Sounds a lot like Paul when taken in that way. The Creation is a metaphor. The flood is a metaphor. The captivity and redemption from Egypt is a metaphor. The rise to power under the care of God is a metaphor. The divided kingdom and eventual destruction of both is a metaphor. The Babylonian captivity and return to Judea is a metaphor. Like everything else in religion, we get bogged down in literalness of details, and lose sight of the big picture. Unfortunately, the OT is rife with opportunities to do exactly that.
I think it really depends which part of the OT you mean! Roy wrote:Yup, I believe that the clearest example of this is in the case of the priesthood ban. The church has downgraded this over time from a doctrine, to a commandment without explanation, to a policy, and now to a misguided policy without clear origen that was belatedly corrected through revelation. During the evolution of thought on this topic there were all sorts of explanations and justifications for the ban (many coming from church leaders) that now seem to have been very misguided.
Very well said, in my opinion.
The only reason I find it uplifting is due to studying many Jewish traditions and apochyrpha. Genesis 6 implies that fallen angels had decided to take daughters of men as wives and beget a race of giants. A detailed account is in the book of Enoch and Jubilees. These fallen ones were supposedly trying to sabotage the Messianic blood line. It also Implies the corruption of the animal kingdom. I sort of think this is where the legends of all the demigods and chymera animals of Roman/ Greek myths come in. According to Jubilees, many of these fallen ones intermixed with Canaan’s descendants which later multiplied and settled in the promised land. Moses sent spies but the were terrified because they were merely gd”grasshoppers in their sight”… and David fought Goliath (who also had multiple giant brothers), Agag the the king who Samuel got so angry at Saul for not killing was (according to tradition) a giant, Og,the king of Bashann, etc. The Raphaim of Egypt, the Zazummin are other examples. All the “Ancient Alien” stuff the legends all over the world in almost evrry culture about a giant race seem to almost justify a cleasning though in light of that it still seems radical. I find it a lot easier to enjoy the Old Testament when I use one of the better modern translations.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.