The OT = UGH

[Riverwolf]

The context of the story is that they are not innocent. The Israelites had to wait for their "iniquity to be complete".

If you are saying they are innocent, you are changing the story to fit your nice little strawman to burn down.

I don't remember the Canaanites doing anything to the Israelites.

If they did do something, please show me. I'd like to know what crime justifies what amounts to genocide.

 

[Shermana]

The context of the story is that they angered God with their practices like Cannibalism and Incest and child sacrifice, warranting their destruction. And he gave them time, until their "Iniquity was complete", whatever that means, most likely means going past the point of no return and being completely depraved.

The Israelites were God's agents of destruction and his anger to punish and eliminate cultures that had gone sour. That's the context of the story. At least read it in the intended context.

 

[Sunstone]

Oh come on, Shermana! The notion that an entire people is either innocent or guilty -- that their "iniquity is complete" -- is transparently a barbaric excuse, and nothing more than an excuse. We used the same sort of reasoning when we said the only good Indian was a dead Indian. It's never been less than the reasoning of *******, and it changes nothing that they often enough dress it up as God's will. There are plenty of instances of superb moral reasoning in the OT, but that ain't one of them.

 

[Riverwolf]

The context of the story is that they angered God with their practices like Cannibalism and Incest and child sacrifice, warranting their destruction. And he gave them time, until their "Iniquity was complete", whatever that means, most likely means going past the point of no return and being completely depraved.

The Israelites were God's agents of destruction and his anger to punish and eliminate cultures that had gone sour. That's the context of the story. At least read it in the intended context.

Oh come on, Shermana! The notion that an entire people is either innocent or guilty -- that their "iniquity is complete" -- is transparently a barbaric excuse, and nothing more than an excuse. We used the same sort of reasoning when we said the only good Indian was a dead Indian. It's never been less than the reasoning of ********.

Yeah, pretty much. I don't buy it one bit. Sure, cannibalism, incest, and child sacrifice are terrible... but they don't excuse genocide. It's just visiting evil with another, far worse, evil.

I understand that the story is not historic (at least, I hope not), and now see that it's meant to extend upon concepts visited in the Torah, such as the Sodom and Gomorrah story. Problem is, the imagery and stories used involve morally reprehensible acts by God and his people to illustrate the point, which seems simply to be "Do as God wants or your entire culture will be destroyed!"

Even the Olympians aren't THAT petty.

EDIT: I should stress that I'm criticizing the story AS a self-contained story, not as a theological/religious text, or piece of Jewish tradition. One mythological interpretation that comes to mind is the idea that morality is a strong foundation which will keep a culture from deteriorating into nothingness: a good, solid lesson that is quite true in my book.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Yeah, pretty much. I don't buy it one bit. Sure, cannibalism, incest, and child sacrifice are terrible... but they don't excuse genocide. It's just visiting evil with another, far worse, evil.

I understand that the story is not historic (at least, I hope not), and now see that it's meant to extend upon concepts visited in the Torah, such as the Sodom and Gomorrah story. Problem is, the imagery and stories used involve morally reprehensible acts by God and his people to illustrate the point, which seems simply to be "Do as God wants or your entire culture will be destroyed!"

Even the Olympians aren't THAT petty.

EDIT: I should stress that I'm criticizing the story AS a self-contained story, not as a theological/religious text, or piece of Jewish tradition. One mythological interpretation that comes to mind is the idea that morality is a strong foundation which will keep a culture from deteriorating into nothingness: a good, solid lesson that is quite true in my book.

I wonder if there is even evidence of Canaanites practicing such widespread cannabalism and incest...and the Israelite's would have very little ground to talk about incest.

Jacob married sisters who were also his cousins. If they wanted to keep it in the 12 tribes, some level of incest would have had to gone done.

 

[Koldo]

Let's look at which religion is reponsible for more violence and unjust behavior...

Let's have some...

 

[arthra]

I have to wonder how many christians have read the whole Old Testament and have managed to keep an unchanged opinon of their god. I have to wonder how many have turned away from it after reading the OT.

It seems to me that the OT and the NT are so different that it seems their god has multiple personalities or something.

The amount of raping that occurred in the OT was horrifying.

The Bible in my view only reflects the culture around the stories that it tells. Life in the deserts around the Middle East was sometimes cruel and unforgiving...

If you removed all the parts you disagreed with it wouldn't be the Bible.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

You could look at the Bible as a coming of Age story, not for the Israelite's but for God.

God is the Israelite's warrior, defending them, protecting them. (That's the youthful God), powerful, quick to anger, wrathful, almost kills Moses for not having a circumcised child.

Then you have God as the husband to Israel and Judah. They are unfaithful, and God lets them be unfaithful until their lovers mistreat them to which they return to God, who does not shut them out but takes them back in.

Then you have God the father, the one spoken of in the NT, this God cares and loves greatly (you see glimpses of such a God in the psalms), but unlike the Husband, this God is now a father, Israel is no longer considered a wife, but children, who when they turn against God are being punished by a loving father. Except now God has more than one kid, God has the world.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Israelites were God's agents of destruction and his anger to punish and eliminate cultures that had gone sour. That's the context of the story. At least read it in the intended context.

Oh come on, Shermana! The notion that an entire people is either innocent or guilty -- that their "iniquity is complete" -- is transparently a barbaric excuse, and nothing more than an excuse.

It is also pervasively racist and, as such, thoroughly ignorant.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Oh come on, Shermana! The notion that an entire people is either innocent or guilty -- that their "iniquity is complete" -- is transparently a barbaric excuse, and nothing more than an excuse. We used the same sort of reasoning when we said the only good Indian was a dead Indian. It's never been less than the reasoning of *******, and it changes nothing that they often enough dress it up as God's will.

It's a scary theology which reasons that: 1) The Book I have in front of me contains God's actual Word and is therefore True in every syllable, and 2) The Book declares that God likes to do horrendous stuff that only the worst human psychopaths would do, but 3) That apparently horrendous stuff is perfectly moral since, after all, it is the behavior of God.

Makes me want to preach humanism. Or else to become the prophet who writes the next Book.

 

[CMike]

I don't remember the Canaanites doing anything to the Israelites.

If they did do something, please show me. I'd like to know what crime justifies what amounts to genocide.

Some of the cannanites were treated nicely. They made arrangements with them and paid them for transactions.

Other's were evil people, and didn't deserve such nice treatment.

 

[Caladan]

I have to wonder how many christians have read the whole Old Testament and have managed to keep an unchanged opinon of their god. I have to wonder how many have turned away from it after reading the OT.

It seems to me that the OT and the NT are so different that it seems their god has multiple personalities or something.

The amount of raping that occurred in the OT was horrifying.

The problem I have with posts such as this is that supposedly we all have to treat and read the Hebrew scriptures from some kind of evangelical 16th century POV, and there is no alternative.
If Norse paganism was the dominant religion of the world, the anti Norse crowd would quote passages of the toilet and fart humor of the Norse gods, and how the religious literature is a juvenile and violent orgy. If Greek religion was dominant, the anti Greek crowd would protest the cruelty, pettiness and barbarism of the Olympian gods.

However, the Norse, the Greek, and of course the Hebrew literature can all be read through the eyes of educated adults, with some effort. Their finer jewels can be revealed and furthered explored and we don't have to pretend to read them as children who cry whenever something violent or unexpected happens when they watch a movie.

The Hebrew scriptures, or what is called the 'Old Testament' in the OP is an outstanding piece of literature, that with the observation of a serious minded reader even the parts which are cut and pasted to show 'rape'! 'genocide'! 'jealousy'! find their proper context and become the powerful ancient ideological writings of a stiff necked and stubborn people who survived the Babylonians, Persians and Romans and went on to produce other globally ground breaking texts such as the so called New Testament, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and perhaps some of the Gnostic gospels.

 

[nazz]

It seems to me that the OT and the NT are so different that it seems their god has multiple personalities or something.

Or two different gods. That's the Gnostic view I embrace.

 

[nazz]

From what I've read, Gnostic Christians believed that the god of the OT and the god of the NT were separate entities.

It's a bit more complex than that. Two gods that actually appear in both testaments.

 

[nazz]

...I am not sure how that would work.

If you highlight what you would see as the problem I might be able to address that.

 

[nazz]

I've never been able to finish the Book of Joshua. It's pretty much the most disgusting book I've EVER read.

Try Judges. It contradicts Joshua.

 

[nazz]

yes I am talking about the text not the worst parts of christianity.

and not Judaism?

 

[Riverwolf]

Some of the cannanites were treated nicely. They made arrangements with them and paid them for transactions.

Other's were evil people, and didn't deserve such nice treatment.

I don't buy that. I've never heard of any evil that can excuse genocide.

I also don't believe that most people are even capable of being evil; only people psychopaths and the like. They're the exception. It's not possible to have a civilization of psychopaths, because it would destroy itself extremely quickly. Canaan lasted far longer than that.

 

[Riverwolf]

The Hebrew scriptures, or what is called the 'Old Testament' in the OP is an outstanding piece of literature,

Hey, when all is said and done, that remains true.

 

[CMike]

I don't buy that. I've never heard of any evil that can excuse genocide.

I also don't believe that most people are even capable of being evil; only people psychopaths and the like. They're the exception. It's not possible to have a civilization of psychopaths, because it would destroy itself extremely quickly. Canaan lasted far longer than that.

Head of Sodom?