Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
taken in its fullness, the 'Biblical' idea of G()D can be viewed in two ways.
As a 'male' it is a monster.
As a 'female' it is simply trying to protect its Children, as any Mother will understand completely.
That's the short and sweet of the argument.
(your move).
No it's not the short and sweet of the argument, you're just making this stuff up. Yeah that bible god sure is protective, killing off MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN in one fell swoop, you know, the supposed flood that never could have happened in the first place. Yep, I want that one, man or woman, on my side. It's all just made up anyway, there is no god, and the point of arguing whether it's a man or a woman is moot.
You're always arguing "for" a god yet you claim to be agnostic or whatever it is - what's the deal with that? Me thinks you just like to argue for the sake of arguing.
Noticibly there is not one mention of homosexuals whatsoever, although the impression I did get was that the townsfolk were preoccupied with sexuality and were likely bisexuals at that.
I've been saying that for years -- but because the crowd wanted Lot to give up the angels so that the crowd could "know" them ("know" being a euphemism for "have sex with") many Christians, especially fundamentalists, think the entire story is about God's displeasure with homosexuality.
The more common explanation I've heard from Biblical scholars is that the story is supposed to be an example of the lengths a host is supposed to go to in order to protect his guests. That was a really big issue in Middle Eastern culture -- you are supposed to even lay down your life for a guest in your house regardless of whether that guest is a friend, a relative, or a Kirby vacuum cleaner salesman.
Fundamentalists, amusingly enough, actually think God destroyed those two cities and killed all of those people because of how much he supposedly hates homosexuality.
LOL!
All it does is reveal how much the fundamentalists hate homosexuality.
taken in its fullness, the 'Biblical' idea of G()D can be viewed in two ways.
As a 'male' it is a monster.
As a 'female' it is simply trying to protect its Children, as any Mother will understand completely.
That's the short and sweet of the argument.
(your move).
You're really reaching, aren't you. I'm starting to sincerely believe you're trying to troll me.
The "short and sweet" of the argument is that you're making stuff up to avoid having to admit you were dead-bang wrong in how you interpreted what I said.
So go right ahead and keep on beating the dead horse. Keep on keeping on belaboring your point which has already been debunked -- twice.
To chime in, one of the authors/editors of the story also made a comment on the moral implications of the actions of Yahweh. He doesn't always come right out and condemn, but there are plenty of examples where he doesn't shy away from portraying Yahweh and other important figures in an unflattering light.
Rotagivan mentioned it in passing in his "Google" version of the story, but glossed over the problem of Divine Justice. Perhaps Google is not the best source for understanding this story, judging from the mentions of "someone called Lord" and "angels".
The men arose from there, and looked down upon the face of Sedom,
and Abraham went with them to escort them.
Now YHWH had said to himself:
Shall I cover up from Abraham what I am about to do?....
So YHWH said:
The outcry in Sedom and Amora - how great it is!
And their sin - how exceedingly heavily it weighs!
Now let me go down and see:
if they done according to its cry that has come to me -
destruction!
And if not -
I wish to know.
The men turned from there and went toward Sedom,
but Abraham still stood in the presence of YHWH.
Abraham came close and said: Will you really sweep away the innocent along with the guilty?
Perhaps there are fifty innocents in the city,
will you really sweep it away?
Will you not bear with the place because of the fifty innocent that are in its midst? Heaven forbid for you to do a thing like this,
to deal death to the innocent along with the guilty,
that it should come about: like the innocent, like the guilty,
Heaven forbid for you!
The judge of all the earth - will he not do what is just?
(Genesis 18:16-17, 20-25 SB Fox)
The author puts these words (and the subsequent humorous bargaining) in the mouth of Abraham - quite a charge to lay at the feet of Yahweh. One could easily forgive Abraham (or the editor) this doubt concerning Yahweh's Divine Justice, especially if they were already familiar with how quickly Noah had responded to God's information that he was going to destroy "all flesh" (which included animals). Not even a complaint from good ol' Noah.
God said to Noah:
An end of all flesh has come before me,
for the earth is filled with wrongdoing through them;
here, I am about to bring ruin upon them, along with the earth.
Make yourself an Ark.....
Noah did it,
according to all that God commended him, so he did.
(Genesis 6:13-14a, 22 SB Fox)
At least the Mesopotamian Noah (Atra-Hasis) felt terrible about the whole thing!
But even in the Book of Job, God's Justice is laid bare for the critique of the reader:
'Tis all the same. Therefore I say,
'Guiltless as well as wicked he destroys.'
When the scourge slays suddenly,
He mocks the despair of the innocent.
Earth is given to the control of the wicked.
The faces of her judges he covers.
If not he, then who?
(Job 9:22-24 AB Pope)
Not to apologize for God, but the Biblical authors were also aware of his "Justice" and frequently brought it into question.
Hi Whoppers, just wanted to say that I am glad you are back
This point you raise only shows me that the Bible is reporting the story as it really happened. It shows the heroes of the Bible committing sinful acts, questioning God and having moments of doubt because it doesn't whitewash or cover up the truth. Abraham had moments of doubt. Jacob had moments of doubt. Moses had moments of doubt. That doesn't mean that the text is intended to invoke a question of God's morality for the audience.
If the stories are just a works of fiction, why would the author portray God in an unflattering light yet go to efforts to show God is just and holy in other passages?
Well, I don't think we can use examples of human faults and weaknesses in Biblical characters as an example that a story was historical (saying "why would the authors depict them in such an unflattering light if it were not true?"). There are plenty of stories out there with such qualities that are anything but historical.
As the books of the Bible were written by many different authors (mostly anonymous, save for who tradition ascribes various books to), with some books having several authors and schools of tradents culminating in a final editor, or redactor - this can demonstrate the innerbiblical dialogue that frequently went on between the different authors. In many instances they disagreed with one another on many things.
A good example is in the census of David, as reported by two different authors in Samuel and Chronicles.
Once again YHWH's anger flared up against Israel,
and he incited David against them, saying:
Go, take-a-census of Israel and Judah.
(II Sam 24:1 SB Fox)
Satan rose up against Israel by enticing David to count Israel.
(I Chron 21:1 AB Myers)
Why the change in the instigator (and yes, it was the very same census)? The author of Samuel is the author who depicted the favorite one of Yahweh as a deeply flawed individual who committed adultery and murder, brought bloodshed upon his house till the end of his life for the former acts, and died cold and unable to warm himself (a Biblical "bad" end, if you will). The entire rest of his life was marked by bloodshed and rebellion and a bad end.
The author of Chronicles, however, was interested in depicting the House of David in a favorable light alone. In it you will not find the many faults of David the deeply flawed King. He was also writing in a late time where it was not popular to ascribe evil to God, as Isaiah never shied away from doing.
In this light, you can see why the substitution of "the Adversary" was made in Chronicles, to whitewash the incident from off of Yahweh, and essentially onto this new character: Satan.
This is just one example among many in which different Biblical authors had different ideas of the Deity. Yahweh was a complex character in the Bible - he was at times wrathful and petulant (to the point where Moses had to talk him out of doing rash things), and other times loving and graceful. God is not the one-minded all-loving deity of our imagination. He was MUCH more interesting, in my opinion.
The Book of Job, by the way, is entirely about questioning the idea of Retributive Justice and God's Divine Rule. It is not about the patience of Job. It is, at times, a VERY blasphemous book.
Well, I don't think we can use examples of human faults and weaknesses in Biblical characters as an example that a story was historical (saying "why would the authors depict them in such an unflattering light if it were not true?"). There are plenty of stories out there with such qualities that are anything but historical.
As the books of the Bible were written by many different authors (mostly anonymous, save for who tradition ascribes various books to), with some books having several authors and schools of tradents culminating in a final editor, or redactor - this can demonstrate the innerbiblical dialogue that frequently went on between the different authors. In many instances they disagreed with one another on many things.
A good example is in the census of David, as reported by two different authors in Samuel and Chronicles.
Once again YHWH's anger flared up against Israel,
and he incited David against them, saying:
Go, take-a-census of Israel and Judah.
(II Sam 24:1 SB Fox)
Satan rose up against Israel by enticing David to count Israel.
(I Chron 21:1 AB Myers)
Why the change in the instigator (and yes, it was the very same census)? The author of Samuel is the author who depicted the favorite one of Yahweh as a deeply flawed individual who committed adultery and murder, brought bloodshed upon his house till the end of his life for the former acts, and died cold and unable to warm himself (a Biblical "bad" end, if you will). The entire rest of his life was marked by bloodshed and rebellion and a bad end.
The author of Chronicles, however, was interested in depicting the House of David in a favorable light alone. In it you will not find the many faults of David the deeply flawed King. He was also writing in a late time where it was not popular to ascribe evil to God, as Isaiah never shied away from doing.
In this light, you can see why the substitution of "the Adversary" was made in Chronicles, to whitewash the incident from off of Yahweh, and essentially onto this new character: Satan.
This is just one example among many in which different Biblical authors had different ideas of the Deity. Yahweh was a complex character in the Bible - he was at times wrathful and petulant (to the point where Moses had to talk him out of doing rash things), and other times loving and graceful. God is not the one-minded all-loving deity of our imagination. He was MUCH more interesting, in my opinion.
The Book of Job, by the way, is entirely about questioning the idea of Retributive Justice and God's Divine Rule. It is not about the patience of Job. It is, at times, a VERY blasphemous book.
I see it more as growth in the knowledge of God. The Samuel author believed God did both evil and good, the author of chronicles had a better understanding of God and attributed it to Satan. This same thing is evident even today, many still believe God does evil and good, other have come to see the evil as coming from the spirit of man/satan.
What part of free will do you not understand?
Man has free will which is a gift from God and God does not "allow" anything, it is man's choice to do as they do.
I've been told this concept of free will isn't actually in the Bible. Someone may want to check on that.
I see it more as growth in the knowledge of God. The Samuel author believed God did both evil and good, the author of chronicles had a better understanding of God and attributed it to Satan. This same thing is evident even today, many still believe God does evil and good, other have come to see the evil as coming from the spirit of man/satan.
This is certainly the case, I think - though instead of framing it as mankind gaining a better "knowledge of God" and his nature, perhaps better to think of it in terms of mankind has changed its view of God's nature?
I think the original tendency to see God as having a multitude of conflicting, but complementary, traits was changed into a dualistic picture of a merely Good God and a Bad Adversary. Perhaps it boils down to personal belief on the matter?
Most people understood their deities in terms that were not black or white. The same god could bring pestilence one day and bounties the next. The ancient Israelites were not much different from their neighbors in this regard, and the god of the Hebrew Bible was viewed in the same manner. In order to start removing some "bad" qualities from God, earlier accounts in the HB have him portrayed as the "Divine Warrior" who has some of his vengeance taken over by accompanying divine beings, sometimes collectively referred to as the "Holy Ones":
YHWH from Sinai came,
he shone forth from Se'ir for them,
radiating from Mount Paran,
approaching from Ribebot Kodesh,
at his right-hand, a fiery stream for them.
Though he has-affection-for the peoples,
all his holy-ones (are) in your hand,
they place themselves at your feet,
bearing your words.
(Deut 33:2-3 SB Fox)
El came from Teman,
the Holy One from Mount Paran.
His glory covered the heaven,
His praise filled the earth. (3)
There was brightness like the sun;
rays protruded from his hand.
There was Hebyon, the strong one; (4)
Before him walked Pestilence,
and Resheph marched behind him. (5)
He stood and shook the earth;
he looked, and nations were startled.
The ancient mountains were scattered,
the eternal hills collapsed,
eternal ways sank low before him. (6)
(Hab 3:3-6 SGANE Green)
These and other references show the victorious Storm God Yahweh marching from the South with his retinue of terrible beings, these "holy ones" being also well-known from surrounding people's mythologies. This helped remove some of the harsher aspects of God to lesser divine beings.
Throughout the Hebrew Bible one sees an eventual tendency towards a stricter monolatry where Yahweh is not alone among the gods, but is the most powerful, however, with the exillic and post-exillic writers pushing for a god that is truly GOD and in control of the entire Universe, who needs no assistance from other divine beings. Here he is not quite yet the Universal God many people see him as now, but still a national god looking out for the interest of his people:
See now that I, I am he,
there is no god beside me;
I myself bring-death, bestow-life,
I wound and I myself heal,
and there is from my hand no rescuing! (39)
For I lift up my hand to the heavens,
and say: As I live, for the ages - (40)
when I sharpen my lightning sword,
my hand seizes judgment,
I will return vengeance on my foes,
and those who hate me, I will pay back. (41)
I will make my arrows drunk with blood,
my sword devour flesh,
with the blood of the slain and the captives,
from the head thick-with-locks of the enemy. (42)
Should-for-joy, O nations, (over) his people,
for the blood of his servants he will avenge.
Vengeance he will return upon his foes,
effecting-atonement for the soil of his people! (43)
(Deut 32:39-43 SB Fox)
Now that's someone I want on my side when the proverbial crap hits the fan heh heh!
In the crisis of the Exile, when the people feared that their national god had failed them, a new ideology sprung up: Yahweh was no longer merely a national god of Israel and Judah, he was a Universal GOD who had allowed the defeat of the Judeans for their sins. Yahweh was still in control, and in fact was raising a Messiah ("Annointed One") to liberate them: Cyrus the Great. In the following, the prophet Isaiah has Yahweh addressing Cyrus and his role, and the passage solidifies the idea that the once-national god Yahweh was now becoming the Universal GOD with all the attributes of a Creator-God as well:
"I am Yahweh, there is no other;
beside me there are no gods;
I gird you [Cyrus] with strength,
though you have not known me, (5)
so that all may acknowledge,
from the rising of the sun to its setting,
there is none apart from me.
I am Yahweh; there is no other. (6)
I form light and create darkness,
I bring about well-being [or "good" in Dead Sea Scrolls] and create woe;
it is I, Yahweh, who do all these things." (7)
(Isaiah 45:5-7 AB Blenkinsopp)
The rest of the chapter concerns Yahweh's creation of the world and solidifies his status as GOD of the World. Quite a change from a national god.
But this introduced problems in Theodicy. If God IS in control of the world, how is there evil? How is there injustice? Many were uncomfortable with passages such as the above. They didn't like this type of God. See the references in my previous post for these issues. It is at this point that the character of the Adversary, the Satan, begins to take on a life of his own. No longer just a servant of God's and subject to his Will concerning his actions and role with mankind, the character of "the Satan" loses his definite article, and becomes a personal name: "Satan". This is the answer to the problem of Theodicy in the Hebrew Bible. Satan gets the rap.
So I do agree with you that our "knowledge" of God has changed, but I am not so sure whether the change is an actual knowledge of God's nature or whether ancient writers came up with a clever answer to the Theodicy problem and through adopting it, we have imagined that we have opened a window with a better view onto God. I suppose that depends on how you view the evolution of God as seen in the Hebrew Bible and extra-Biblical traditions of the time. I personally prefer a much more nuanced deity, than a one-sided "Good" deity that can do no wrong. But that's me. I think everyone should struggle with their faith from time to time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's all just made up anyway, there is no god, and the point of arguing whether it's a man or a woman is moot. 
