A bloodthirsty god?

[Riverwolf]

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

This and other threads explore the possibility of theodicy, which is basically the attempt to exonerate God in the face of the evil apparent in creation or evil done at his hands or by his authorization.

As a Christian, I find this among other passages deeply troubling. But the real issue, for me at least, is the question of God's attitude toward his creation and the people that populate it. And to answer that question, my controlling image is the cross. There, God demonstrated his love for all of humanity and made a full disclosure of his character -- nonviolent and longsuffering. Yes, this observation must be held in tension with passages as we see here. But in the end, we are looking through a glass darkly, as they say. We know only in part, and what we do know we're apt to confuse. In the end, we can only place ourselves at the mercy of the Creator, whether he is a tyrant (as you may fear) or a benevolent father (as you may hope). What other option -- assuming the existence of a creator -- are open to us?

That's really true. If YHWH were real and, as his followers claim, the only god, there's really nothing we can do. If he were a tyrant intent on eradicating humanity from existence save for his own supporters, then fighting him would be useless. I personally doubt that he is a tyrant myself. I personally think that, just like us, the gods mature and grow with time, and these decisions were simply made by a young and immature YHWH. He himself admitted to doing something wrong when he said he'd never flood the whole world again, unless you believe that he meant he'd never have need to again.

[Father Heathen]

It's hard to accept God and rebuke Satan when it's hard to make the distinction between the two.

[Riverwolf]

Originally Posted by Father Heathen

It's hard to accept God and rebuke Satan when it's hard to make the distinction between the two.

In the old days, there was no distinction. The gods, or even the one Sky God of many names, had two sides: a loving side that wanted to protect humanity, and a hating side that wanted to destroy humanity.

[gnomon]

Originally Posted by gnostic

How many of these bloodthirsty gods do you know that have demanded a genocide of a whole kingdom?

Beside this is a Biblical Debate, so I have chosen something from the bible, which have nothing to do with other gods. Please stick to the topic.

True.

I just have a hard time attempting to use a sole piece, such as the Bible, as the primary talking point without additional context of the people who wrote the text and the relative values of their culture compared to those around them.

I do admit that I find this story to be horrifying and does not lend much sympathy towards the religious beliefs of the Hebrew people from that time. I don't hold enough biblical knowledge to give any further comment so I leave it to folks such as yourself, A_E and Jay.

Should be some interesting reading.

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by Riverwolf

I personally think that, just like us, the gods mature and grow with time, and these decisions were simply made by a young and immature YHWH. He himself admitted to doing something wrong when he said he'd never flood the whole world again, unless you believe that he meant he'd never have need to again.

That may let YHWH off the hook (in a way), but it's not the view of YHWH in scripture. There, YHWH is the one and only creator of the universe. And one of the things scripture tells us about God is that he doesn't change. He may change his mind about doing good or evil to someone or a group, but he doesn't change in the sense of "mature" or "develop". So from a biblical perspective, we're back where we started.

Another useful way to motivate a theodicy is to recall that the OT law was a "schoolmaster" designed to prepare the people of God to receive the messiah, that person who would reveal God most accurately. In order to get to that point, to get a nation of Bronze Age pagans to shed their pagan ways and to carry forward God's program of blessing all nations, God may have had to do some things which, although back in the day nobody would have batted an eye, we have difficulty stomaching them.

All of this was ultimately to get things to reveal the messiah, whose work would actually put into effect that program which his people failed to implement fully. In doing so, God reveals himself fully, and we learn that God abhors violence and desires mercy rather than sacrifice (thereby ending blood sacrifices and all other sacrifices and killing in God's name).

In other words, it helps to look at redemption history as that, history. It's a progression not only of revelation, but of a project. What was necessary at earlier stages in that project are not necessary now; we may even see them as counterproductive and even evil.

But there you go. My two and a half cents.

[gnostic]

I don't see how the messiah have anything to do with the time of OT, between Moses and Saul's genocide of the Amalekites. There were no prophecy of the messiah in Moses' time, which I can recall.

How does the genocide of women and children prepare the Israelites to receive the messiah, which in this case, Jesus?

Why would a god want to punish the Amalekites for what happened in the past, couple of centuries before Saul's time?

Did God not give order for the slaughter of Amalekite women and children?

[gnostic]

Originally Posted by logician

The xian bible is a book of stories, mostly fiction, the gods represented change with the telling of the stories.

I don't see this statement to be helpful contribution to the thread.

[Melissa G]

Originally Posted by Jay

Superficial generalizations. Disregard as worthless.

In your opinion, which doesn't actually count for very much. Everything I just wrote is true, Read some history, you seem to have blinkers on

Melissa G

[logician]

Originally Posted by gnostic

I don't see this statement to be helpful contribution to the thread.

Other than the fact it is most certainly true, and you disagree with it?