Reddit Reddit reviews Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense Of The Old Testament God

We found 23 Reddit comments about Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense Of The Old Testament God. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Books
Christian Bible Criticism & Interpretation
Old Testament Criticism & Interpretation
Christian Books & Bibles
Christian Bible Study & Reference
Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense Of The Old Testament God
ISBN13: 9780801072758Condition: NewNotes: BRAND NEW FROM PUBLISHER! 100% Satisfaction Guarantee. Tracking provided on most orders. Buy with Confidence! Millions of books sold!
Check price on Amazon

23 Reddit comments about Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense Of The Old Testament God:

u/ThaneToblerone · 13 pointsr/Christianity

What you're talking about mainly sounds like Marcionism, but that is less of a denomination and more of a really old Christian heresy.

If you're having trouble reconciling God as portrayed by the Hebrew Bible with God as portrayed in Jesus in the New Testament I'd recommend you take a look at the book Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the God of the Old Testament. It isn't a particularly difficult or long read and can really help illuminate some of the grodier passages in the Hebrew Bible.

u/MikeTheInfidel · 11 pointsr/DebateReligion

Yes, it's loaded, but it's fair, considering that many mainstream Christian apologists explicitly do act as genocide apologists. William Lane Craig, for example, says that the Israelites did the children of their enemies no harm because they were instantly transported to heaven, and that we should feel more sorry for the soldiers who had to go through the trauma of committing genocide.

>So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.

Paul Copan does much of the same in his book Is God a Moral Monster. See Thom Stark's review of that book, entitled Is God a Moral Compromiser, for more details.

u/AboveAverageFriend · 4 pointsr/Christianity

So it's all just a metaphor? Hard to buy that.

There are a couple of books on Amazon that address this topic, however. One is called Is God a Moral Monster? and the other is titled God Behaving Badly.

u/Anredun · 4 pointsr/Catholicism

Regarding the Old Testament, here's a good book on the subject.

u/[deleted] · 3 pointsr/DebateAnAtheist

Thank you for your kind words, and I appreciate the sincerity of your responses.

I agree that people do not need belief in a supreme being to be kind to each other, but this is where I think our worldviews will inevitably collide due to the nature of the different paradigms.

I’m sure you’re aware of the fact that the main theme of the Bible is God’s rulership or kingdom. According to the Bible, we were created to serve, honor, and glorify God, not ourselves.

In Ezekiel 18, Ezekiel is talking to self-righteous Jewish leaders, who believe in the afterlife and think they are going to enter heaven because of their good deeds. Ezekiel essentially tells them that God isn’t going to look at their good deeds, only at the things that displeased Him, and will judge them on that basis. The self-righteous Jewish leaders thought this was unfair, because they wanted their good deeds to be weighed against their bad deeds, and were convinced that they had done more of the good deeds. Now, Ezekiel essentially tells them that God is going to count the good deeds against them too. The Jewish leaders again responded by saying this was not fair. Then Ezekiel offered a solution—if they repent of their pride, self-autonomy, and desire to exalt the self, then God will disregard all the bad deeds and thoughts they had ever committed and had, and reward them on the basis of their good deeds.

So, why were their good deeds going to be counted against them? It is because those good deeds are done by the motivation of exalting the self, not God. The worst of all sins of humanity is the sin of pride, and Isaiah (ch. 64), who also spoke to self-righteous Jewish leaders, indicated that all these good deeds are like filthy rags to God, and He will be offending by them.

A major distinguishing factor between Christianity and the other religions is that other religions require people to perform good deeds in order to get into heaven, whereas Christianity focuses on the relationship of the individual to God. If the individual places God first and is dependent on Him, then he/she will be rewarded for the good deeds; if the individual is self-autonomous, then he/she will be judged.

So it is my relationship to God that motivates me to serve Him and others. Upon repenting of my sins and receiving Jesus Christ as forgiver and leader, my heart was transformed and I had new desires. Granted, being a Christian is no walk in the park, but there is this inner peace and satisfaction of living a life that is honoring to God.

After one repents and receives Christ as forgiver and leader, he/she is justified and undergoes sanctification, a life-long process that progressively shapes the person to know Christ and be conformed to His image. All believers are morally flawed, but you should see a decrease in their character flaws and sinful desires over time, especially if they are true to their discipleship.

In terms of the questionable acts that you listed, I can see how this can be unsettling at first glance, but those events and commands are specific to those individuals at those particular periods of time, and not for us to universalize or carry out. Additionally, those judgments are not evil, because God stood for goodness in the midst of bad, wicked, and reprobate individuals and societies.

  • God decided to establish a nation—land, people, and government—to be entrusted with His word, to be a blessing, and to mediate between Him and other people.
  • God gave His Law to Moses (Mosaic Law/Covenant), which further defined the government and the people (providing cultural guidelines).
  • The Law also provided moral commandments, protection from spiritual and physical harm, and allowed blessings if obeyed.

    Today, we are in the age of grace and under the New Covenant.

  • The New Covenant involves: 1) a new relationship with God in which laws are on the heart 2) complete forgiveness 3) giving of the Holy Spirit 4) national revival for Israel.
  • We’re not rejected or accepted by how well we keep the Law; we’re saved by grace through faith. However, the Torah is still a valuable source of teaching.

    For a specific response to 2 Kings 2, please see Why did God kill 42 lads merely for saying Elisha was bald?

    And please let me know if you want more details about the trial of adultery, etc.

    Also, if you’re interested, the following resources might be useful:

    Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God by Dr. Paul Copan

    Without a Doubt: Answering the 20 Toughest Faith Questions by Kenneth R. Samples

    The Bible Fast Forward: Piecing Together the Biblical Puzzle

    Thank you for your message, and no offense was taken. I just want to let you know that my intent is not to re-convert you to Christianity or anything like that. I’m simply here to answer questions and provide reasons for the hope that I have. I know that the Gospel message is offensive enough.

    Best regards, and your thoughts are always welcome.
u/Uskglass_ · 3 pointsr/dataisbeautiful

Ok cool, I was genuinely asking since verses in Leviticus (like you posted) have differing contexts, audiences, time periods and all sorts of things compared to other passages on the topic of homosexuality or homosexual acts (of which there aren't many) say in Romans.


There are a couple things I'd say about this passage by way of giving some context which I think changes it.
1 - These are laws written to the people of Israel at a specific time in history. It is clear that God goes to great lengths to keep them distinct from the peoples around them as they are transmission point for the bulk of his revealed will so far. Their writings, history, and civic systems would form the foundation upon which God would point towards Christ 1300-1400 years after these books were written. There are a lot of things God forbids that are obvious in keeping the culture separate like intermarriage or certain political alliances. Others are more cultural like tattoos, certain foods, etc. It is my firm belief that this passage is speaking of all manner of things common in neighboring cultures who worshipped Moloch and similar deities. These cultures were pretty bad and God went to great lengths to keep Israel seperate from them. If you'd like to read more about Israel's relation to its neighbors through the Old Testament narrative I recommend "The Old Testament Against Its Environment by G. Ernest Wright. https://www.amazon.com/Testament-Against-Environment-Biblical-Theology/dp/B002EBGKTS/


2 - Despite point #1, many of the things are this list are part of God's moral will for our lives. Several things on the list go against how the God has made us according to the bible and thus are both wrong (IE a transgression worthy of punishment in an eternal sense) and harmful (IE something that will not satisfy or make one happy in the long run or hurts/defrauds others, sometimes both). I think it is the consensus of biblical text that the intention of our creator was for sexuality to exist on a man/woman spectrum. Some disagree with this but I think most biblical scholars would agree that the above passage most especially in its punishments for certain acts, is for a certain place and time and not an ongoing command of any type. It is important to not just do what the bible says but also emphasize what the bible emphasizes. Such a command to enforce any kind of morality regardless of the rightness of it is really foreign the bible. God is the enforcer, we aren't really called to do such a thing. We may disagree on what's God's moral will is for our lives (or whether there is a God or that his moral will is knowable), but I think the context here paints it in a much different light than "God says it's cool to hit gays with a rock". If you'd like to read further on the topic of understanding God's actions in the Old Testament, I recommend "Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God" by Paul Copan. https://www.amazon.com/God-Moral-Monster-Making-Testament/dp/0801072751/


3 - The other important context here is God's redemptive plan for humanity. Why is it so important to keep this people group a certain way over time? What could be so important that you have these books full of civic and moral hoops to jump through with harsh consequences for non-compliance? The answer is that humanity has a problem, born seperated from God by the wrong things that we do, we are under the sentence of death and unable to deal with the punishment for our actions by a just God or the alienation between us and Him due to our sin. As I said everything about ancient Israel prepares for an points directly to Jesus, God's son who came to Earth as a human and died sinless to take the punishment onto himself. Having accepted this sacrifice we can not only escape the eternal consequences of our sin but also end the alienation between us and God and have a relationship with him. This is the moment where all of humanity, every person who has or will ever live on Earth, went from having the sentence of death hanging over them to the potential to live forever and have an eternal purpose. If you'd like to read more about this I recommend Romans Chapter 1:18-2:16,3:9-8:39.


The whole book is good but I've tried to exclude some sections as you are not, I assume, a first century jew living in Rome. I'd also recommend reading it in a more modern translation. It looks like what you posted is from the King James probably? That bible was really great in 1611 but since then modern archaelogy was invented and our greater access to older texts and evolution of better historically grounded textual scholarship means that many many versions are better. I personally like the New American Standard Bible which tries to be more of a "word for word" translation of the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic in the text. It can sound a bit like Yoda so if you'd like a "Thought for Thought" translation the New Internation Version, New Living Translation, and English Standard Bible are all fine.


This might be more reply than you're looking for but at least we can agree that Twitter is perhaps not the best place for something so complex. :D Also sorry for a hastily written reply, I didn't think I'd be discussing Leviticus today.

u/dschaab · 2 pointsr/DebateAChristian

(I'm not Mjdillaha.)

I've recently enjoyed reading Is God a Moral Monster? by Paul Copan. It doesn't go over the the tabernacle dimensions, but it does talk quite a bit about the context and interpretation of the Old Testament laws. Although today we look back on ancient Near East laws today and find them all unsuitable for our time, the Mosaic law was actually in many cases a major improvement over contemporary laws in surrounding cultures, even with respect to the treatment of women and slaves (two topics that people love to bring up when talking about the "injustice" of the Old Testament God).

Copan's book is a quick read, and every chapter has a reading list if you want to dive deeper into any of the topics.

u/cookie_king · 2 pointsr/IAmA

>the claims of christianity are quite extraordinary, and thereby requires extraordinary evidence or argumentation; I am sure that if any of these people had come up with a truly extraordinary argument I would have heard about it. I must conclude they have not.

My earlier point, when I mentioned both classical and contemporary philosophers/theologians, was to show you that christendom had already produced rigorous and rational reasons for the intellectual viability of the christian faith. From the fact that you haven't heard about these writings it does not necessarily follow that they are not compelling or true, or further, that they do not exist. Therefore, your deduction is invalid on this point.

>This in contrast with my limited experience with theology...I have examined the ideas and found them to be extremely wanting in terms of logic and evidence.

You seem to vacillate on whether you are actually familiar with christian thought. You seem to say that you have limited experience with it, and then claim that you find their defences to be illogical and wanting. Seeing as how you also claimed that you hadn't come across 'extraordinary' (i'll construe this as compelling) arguments for christianity, I can safely assume you aren't familiar with rigorous christian thought. This also means that the pool of information from which you deduce your conclusions is insuficient. I'll provide some links to some material to further your knowledge of the christian faith.

>Any open-minded child can see it, and it takes an adult mind to come up with the kind of contortions that pass for a defense of those ideas.

When it comes to questions that are religious or philosophical in nature, the answers are hardly simple. Any subject matter becomes increasingly sophisticated the more you develop it, and the same is with religion and philosophy. To expect otherwise is unfair at the least, and irrational at worst.

Per your request of your wishing me to delineate the founding principles of christianity, I will admit that I neither have the talent or the time to do them justice in this kind of setting. It should suffice that I affirm the nicean creed. As per your list, this should get you started:
God 1 and 2,
the Trinity,
Omniscience 1 and 2.
I'll construe your question of God and regret to the question on whether God can change. If that's fair, then these links may help.
Your question on how the OT and NT harmonize may come because you see the seemingly moral infractions that God causes in the OT versus the seemingly squishy and loving God in the NT. If this is the case, then maybe these links will help some.
For your question on the atonement, this may help.
The wikipedia article on original sin is pretty good, so read that for more info.
Your question on why the theist God is more plausible than other gods that humanity has come up with should become self-evident if you go through the material I have linked here.

>My basic argument will be this: it is possible to waste many words on these topics, but no essay can compete with the idea that it is simply made-up nonsense in terms of parsimony and consistency. Therefore, for anyone who values reason, that should be the default position.

Your position here is one that I find most unhelpful in this exchange. Unless you provide reasons or material on why christianity is "simply made-up nonsense", then your saying that "no essay (which I'll interpret as argumentation) can compete with [your] idea" actually boils down to circular argumentation. You really come across as saying that christianity is silly because it's obviously silly. That kind of assertion (not deduction) doesn't hold water; you have to provide reasons for why that should be the case. If you say that Occam's Razor is an intrinsic defeater for christianity, then you have to show me just how it defeats it. If you say christianity is illogical, then you have to show me how. Once you tell me how you came to those conclusion, I can understand where you're coming from and we can share/learn from one another.

I've given you stuff that I went through when learning about my faith so I've linked it to you. You may find it frustrating that I sent you material for you to go through yourself instead of my just typing it out. I did this because I don't think you've exposed yourself to enough material on christianity to substantiate the claims you make here. If you're going to hold your views, that's cool, but if you want to make huge claims like christianity is "baloney" or "illogical," then you have to be familiar with what you're going up against. Until you familiarize yourself with the material, I doubt our exchange would be useful; at least not until you are more forthcoming in telling me what you believe, why you believe it, and (for the purposes of this conversation) why you think (in detail) that christianity is baloney and illogical.

u/WeAreTheRemnant · 2 pointsr/Christianity

There's a book on the subject: Is God A Moral Monster?

u/God_loves_redditors · 2 pointsr/Christianity

Part 1 of 2

Wrote a really long reply and had to break it up. Sorry :/

>First off... I'm sorry I came off so upset before.

And I will be more careful going forward on reddit with my posts so as not to offend :) I could have taken more time with the post in question to strip away the implications that I thought you had moral similarities to those groups.

>Morals are personal feelings of what is right or wrong.

This is true in that it describes that individuals hold morals themselves but they can also have absolute truth values depending on whether or not objective morality is a 'thing'. "Murdering humans is wrong" has a truth value of 'T' or 'true' if the Christian God exists. Just like "The holocaust was good" has a truth value of 'F' or 'false' if the Christian God exists. Both of these moral statements have a NULL truth value in a world where morality ebbs and flows with human opinion. The Christian God isn't necessarily the only possible grounds for objective morality but I think he is the most likely, thus me being Christian and not of some other religion.

>I do believe that morals change based on when/where you live. This doesn't bother me.

Maybe you're right and this doesn't bother you, but it bothers me. And I would say 99% of the world at least LIVES as though morals were absolute. I'm sure it would bother you had lived as a Jew in 1930s/40s Europe and been thrown in a concentration camp with your family. There would be little comfort to take in reminding yourself the Nazi morality is 'different' than yours but not objectively 'wrong'. A world where the bodies can be stacked in concentration camps and where child-rape happens and where chemical weapons can be released on villages AND where none of this is objectively 'wrong', is a troubling reality.

>I have no problem and do not judge based on the Christian ideals. I understand it's not wrong in Christian society or they wouldn't be doing it.

In your post, you mention that you are passionate about gay rights. In your morality, I'm assuming that you believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry and that this is good. Following from this, I'm assuming you believe that religious efforts to keep marriage between heterosexual partners only, to be wrong. Also you say you have no issue with the fact that morality is subjective from one group of individuals to the other. Basically, that morals do not have absolute truth values one way or another since there is no objective standard. From this you can see that allowing homosexuals to marry is neither right nor wrong. You can campaign for their right to marry if you want, that's your choice, but it is not 'right' to do so, anymore than it is 'wrong'.

>Interpretations of the bible have changed drastically over the years.

I'm not arguing that followers of God are always moral in an objective sense. It is pretty obvious from history that this is not the case. What I'm saying is that God's changelessness provides truth values to morality. Jews and Christians may believe their actions are moral but the real truth value of that moral action is determined by God. So if you see a Christian or Jew who acts immorally, that is not proof that objective morality does not exist. It is merely proof that that individual person does not act morally 100% of the time.

>Even if you attempt to take the Bible at face value it's still difficult to understand fully.

Amen. But the worthwhile things are never easy. Jews and Christians believe we are called to 'study' God's word, not to skim it or to read once and put down. There's a lot of depth and nuance to it, along with contextual and historical factors that need to be taken into account. It's true that different interpretations arise, but most are in full agreement about the fundamental teachings of scripture, the most important being who Christ was (God incarnate, come to earth) and what he did for us (freed us from slavery to sin, immorality, and death).
I'm sure, if you've read part or all of the Bible before that many of the Old Testament sections offended your sense of morality. Old Testament morality is not an easy subject and can often be a class or two of its own in a seminary or religion program. There are few key things to keep in mind when reading the Old Testament

  • The bible records what human beings did, not necessarily what God commanded them to do. Read the full context to see which cases belong in this category.
  • God didn't drop the full morality bomb on early humans. He is constantly working in humanity to set them on an upward moral trajectory. I.e. He is 'steadily' making them better rather than asking them to completely change everything about their life at once.
    If God himself does something you perceive to be immoral, remember to analyze the passage based on the unique circumstances surrounding moral decisions of an omniscient and omnipotent being. Also remember that death in the physical temporal world is one thing, and eternity after judgement at the end of the world is another.
  • In Old Testament laws, Christians generally recognize 3 different categories: Moral laws, Ceremonial/purity laws, and Civil laws. Moral laws would be timeless moral values, ceremonial laws would be special laws that set Israel apart as God's special priestly nation, and civil laws would be like our legal code, that is, laws for the Jewish nation to deal with crime. When you read one of these laws, it becomes obvious which category it should fall under. These categories are generally how Christians choose which apply today (namely, only the moral laws since the rest were for the Jews in that time and place).

    For a much better exposition of Old Testament ethics (while still being at the popular level) I highly recommend the following book by Paul Copan who is a Biblical ethicist: Is God a Moral Monster?

    >And yet if they removed every written record of this objective morality and killed off every person with a memory of it... what?

    As a Christian, I have faith that God has a vested interest in preventing this reality from happening. But let's say that it did. In that case, the existence of the Bible shows me that God desires humans to be aware of his plans and intentions so he would speak to humanity again as he did in the Bible. Perhaps the stories would be different and the books would be different, but the same moral and loving God would shine through all the same. If God is real, then his ultimate plans for the universe cannot be thwarted by ours.

    >Would everyone go to hell?

    I think the Bible is clear that, at final judgement, God will not hold anyone accountable for what they didn't know. If a little girl is raped by her Bible-thumping religious father, was she actually shown the real Jesus? No. God would expect her to be angry at religion and would provide a way for her that is fair. The Bible is crystal that God is completely just and aware of every secret thought and deed. We don't have to worry about him being fair.
u/reformedscot · 2 pointsr/TrueChristian

I hate people who post 90 minute videos on youtube, but today I'm going to be that guy! If you're serious about wrestling through this issue, I recommend that you check out this video by a guy named Paul Copan. I don't endorse everything he says everywhere, but this is a helpful resource to start thinking this issue through. You can grab it here, too, if you're a reader.

u/blepocomics · 1 pointr/Christianity

There is scientific evidence that what I am saying is true. It's Historical in nature (and History is a science right?)

Christianity has been the seedbed for every Scientific revolution, Isaac Newton, Mendel, Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, all believed in the Christian God and therefore found justification for their scientific pursuits in that belief.

Also, the kind of free Government we enjoy in western Nations was born after the Reformation under the watchful eyes of the Baptists, Anabaptists and the Puritans.

The ethic behind these movements was completely Christian, and religious freedom could only have been born under Christianity.

If you want to talk about the Old Testament and its laws, a simple way of seeing it is that Jesus fulfilled the law's demands as our the federal head of God's people. He purchased his children and redeemed them and so the Mosaic law now stands as a testimony to God's graceful forgiveness.

There's a whole lot written on the subject. If you like you can read this book to clarify some things for you. You can get a paperback or kindle version.

u/BearCutsBody · 1 pointr/Christianity

I have been struggling with the same exact things...My eyes were opened by this article about Pauls perception of the Old Testament God. This is also a very common struggle amongst many Christians.
http://sojo.net/magazine/2012/01/way-peace-and-grace

Also, a really good recent book is out called "Is God a Moral Monster" by Paul Copan.
http://www.amazon.com/Is-God-Moral-Monster-Testament/dp/0801072751

Both of these are definitely worth reading.

u/FA1R_ENOUGH · 1 pointr/Christianity

I'd recommend that you take time to investigate a few resources. These objections have been addressed, and there are very good reasons to believe that the God of the Bible is indeed moral.

I take issue with your concept that God created Hell. Although this sounds like semantics, I think it is important to note that God didn't create Hell, but rather, he created the opportunity for people to go to Hell by creating free creatures. Read Jerry Walls's article about Hell in this book. Also, I would recommend reading C. S. Lewis's chapter about Hell in The Problem of Pain and The Great Divorce to understand the nature of Hell.


As for the alleged evils of God in the Old Testament, I recommend Paul Copan's Is God a Moral Monster?

Lastly, the statement "I find it hard to believe your God is morally good" is one of the most ironic statements I have ever read. Morality needs God to exist. Without a higher being, how can there be a higher standard? Read the first part of C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity for a look at the Moral Argument for God's existence.

u/kingofharts · 1 pointr/exmormon
  1. How much "masonic influence" do the temple ceremonies have?

    Joseph and his contemporaries were well aware of the similarities to Masonry. Most of them, as I understand it, are related to a few gestures and symbolic matters. The meaning is not at all the same, and the theology involved is (of course) totally different, partly because Masons don't have a theology. We have a bunch of stuff on this here:

    The question of "influence" is a difficult one to answer. What do we make of the affinities? Are they direct borrowings? Did Joseph use them as convenient symbols that were ready at hand with which his audience of Saints was already comfortable and familiar (if so, this seems a strange way to commit fraud--using symbols that Joseph had encouraged them to become familiar with, since he strongly encouraged involvement in the Masonic Lodge prior to teaching the full endowment).

    Others have seen them as parallel matters--things revealed to Joseph that also had affinities to ancient practices and Masonic ones. Others see a combination effect. I don't think that it really matters--any symbol can be repurposed; they are all the time.

    Anyway, I'm not an expert, but see here:

    http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_Freemasonry

  2. Why was Joseph Smith arrested so many times? Was it really because all of the mobs were serving Satan? Or are there legitimate reasons?

    People had complaints against Joseph. Some no doubt thought they were legitimate. Others seem to have been naked examples of simple harassment. I don't think you need an "either/or" answer to this. Some people doubtless thought they had a legitimate claim against Joseph, but were also stirred up by Satan. Some acts were clearly diabolic (regardless of whether you believe in Satan). Some may have been completely legit.

    There's the Joseph Smith Papers project that handles legal matters--we'll know more as these all get published. But, this is how law works--people with grievances bring suit, the suit takes place, and you see what happens. Joseph was almost always found innocent--which should tell us something. Despite the hostility against him, he generally prevailed in court. Is he the sole exception to "innocent until proven guilty"?

    But, I think a definitive answer to this question will probably need to await more data--they're reportedly finding lots more legal documents involving Joseph than we've known about--and he comes out ahead in (almost?) all. For some info by someone involved in the matter, see:

    Joseph I. Bentley, "Legal Trials of the Prophet: Joseph Smith's Life in Court" (2006 FAIR Conference presentation) FAIR link (Key source)

    See here too:

    http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Legal_issues



  3. What's up with Joseph Smith and the Nauvoo expositor? Did that bring about his demise?

    See here:

    http://en.fairmormon.org/Nauvoo_Expositor

    The Expositor itself did not bring about Joseph's death. It could not have--it was a civil, not criminal matter, so at worst he would be liable for a monetary fine, which he repeatedly said he and the city council were willing to pay if they were found guilty. He was released on bail to await the arrival of the "circuit rider" judge. That should have been the end of it, until the judge arrived later.

    Joseph ended up in Carthage Jail because a justice of the peace (who was also a minister, and the leader of the Carthage Greys militia) then immediately gave a writ for Joseph's arrest for treason against Illinois. (Joseph had, under the legal powers given him, called out the Nauvoo Legion to defend Nauvoo against possible attack--they attacked no one, but this was said to be treason. After Joseph's death, the Saints were again driven by armed force out of Nauvoo, proving that such things did happen repeatedly--it already had in Missouri.)

    This treason charge allowed him to jail Joseph, and then lead the men who murdered him (the Carthage Greys were the ones, remember, who stormed Carthage Jail--200 men or so against 4 prisoners armed with pepperbox pistol and a cane).

    So, the Expositor provided the initial pretext and furor, but it isn't the whole story. Once again, there are complexities to any historical tale. Joseph knew that going to Carthage to answer again for the Expositor (which he had done twice already, once before a Mormon and once before a non-LDS judge, and been found not-guilty both times) was going to be trouble.

    And, Joseph and the city council's actions with the Expositor were legal under the law of the day. Critics don't usually tell you that. :-)



    Here are some more open ended questions that I don't really expect a straight answer to. Just worries/concerns that I come across while reading scriptures.

  4. Why so much destruction? Yes there are beautiful verses, but the scriptures seem to be dominated by war and hatred.

    I think the scriptures give us people as they are, generally, not people as we would like them to be. If they are historical, then this must be the case. The Book of Mormon never glorifies war.

    The Old Testament is a bit of a different case--but, we don't believe it inerrant, and clearly a lot of editing has gone on with the OT. So much of the 'praise' of war may well be later editors inserting their own gloss on it. A non-LDS author treats these OT matters in great detail here:

    http://www.amazon.com/Is-God-Moral-Monster-Testament/dp/0801072751/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1344139877&sr=8-1&keywords=god+a+moral+monster

    But, I like what C.S. Lewis said about such matters:

    The two things one must not do are (a) to believe on the strength of Scripture or on any other evidence that God is in any way evil (In Him is no darkness at all) (b) to wipe off the slate any passage which seems to show that He is. Behind the shocking passage be sure there lurks some great truth which you don't understand. If one ever does come to understand it, one sees that it is good and just and gracious in ways we never dreamed of. Till then it must just be left on one side . . . Would not a revelation which contained nothing that you and I did not understand, be for that very reason rather suspect? To a child it would seem a contradiction to say both that his parents made him and God made him, yet we see how both can be true. [Letters of C.S. Lewis, edited by W.H. Lewis, (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1966), letter of 8 August 1953, 253.]
    Since LDS don't believe in perfect scriptures (esp. the Bible, and ESP. the OT, I would say) we would say the same thing in even stronger terms.



  5. This is more of a silly question. After Nephi killed Laban, he put on his clothes correct? Wouldn't they have been covered in blood? He smote off his head. I hate to be a literalist, or assume too much, but this has always confused me. I guess this one is more of a joke question than anything else.

    At FAIR, we even do joke questions. You see, the Wiki Knows All:

    http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Nephi%27s_killing_of_Laban/Blood_loss_from_decapitation
u/civilized_gent · 1 pointr/Christianity

>You cannot separate the old and new testament as the word of God. If you believe one, you believe the other, and one is so full of death, destruction, anger, hate, and just plain vile stories that it simply cannot be divinely inspired.

I agree with you in that they are the exact same God. The God of the new testament and the God of the old testament, so if you believe in one, you believe in the other because they are one in the same. I'm not going to try to explain it, because it's such a broad topic, and I don't feel I have a good enough command of the english language to get my point across, but I can believe the actions of God in the old testament can be fairly easily rectified. This book helped to reconcile my beliefs when I needed answers about the very same topic. And after a quick google search, I found this a youtube video of a radio interview with Paul Copan, the author of that book.

As far as being good without God, from a worldy view, this is definitely possible, but not so much from a Christian view. There is nothing good in me. On my own, I am capable of no good need. I am human, I am corrupt, and evil by nature. God is the only thing in me that is good, and every time I complete a good action, it is solely because of Him. In a secular sense, you can be good without God, because even though you may not believe in God, you still live in His world. There is still an ultimate moral standard, that everyone agrees upon, yet has no natural explanation. You can most certainly have more 'goodness' than a christian from the perspective of completing more 'good' acts.

I don't believe God stacked the evidence against Himself when he created the universe. There is just as much scientific evidence for biblical creation, as there is for a natural creation. In fact, it's the exact same evidence! The evidence that atheists use to proclaim the nonexistence of God, is used by Theists to proclaim His existence! The same evidence is just interpreted differently by two different groups of people. The problem is, everyone has a world view, so it's impossible to look at the evidence and be completely neutral. If you begin examining the evidence believing one thing, you will most likely draw a conclusion similar to your prior beliefs. A world view is like a colored lens. If you wore green glasses everywhere, you might suspect everything is green. Not because it is, but because the glasses make it seem so. So really the proof in whether or not there is a God, comes down to determining which world view is correct. Fortunately, all world views separate from Christianity conflict themselves somewhere, thus proving they can't be the 'correct' view. Most of them lead to the conclusion that we shouldn't be able to know anything about the universe that we live in, or that day to day actions of anyone without God, are completely unexplainable. This is because Christianity is the only world view that can accurately account for the preconditions of intelligibility, or the conditions that must exist before we can know anything. Atheists cannot account for these conditions, and have to actually rely on the Bible, before they can argue against it. I'm not going to give a super thorough explanation here, but I would suggest looking into Presuppositional apologetics, and the preconditions of intelligibility.

u/TheDavidKent · 1 pointr/Christianity

Ok that was longer than a few moments, but here we go!



Well, for one thing, we have to understand that there is a vast cultural rift between 2012 America/Canada/Europe/whatever and the 1500ish BC Middle East.

Some of Old Testament regulations regarding slavery, marriage, etc. may seem harsh to us, but compared to the brutal cultural norms of that era, they were actually quite liberating. For the Bible to say that women, children, slaves, and foreigners had any rights at all was a revolutionary idea.

Still, the Old Testament commandments were not necessarily intended to illustrate God's vision of a perfect society.

Rather, they were intended to restrict evil as much as was reasonably possible within a somewhat barbaric culture (though they might say the same of our culture in many ways!), and ultimately to show them that their own attempt to perfectly follow every part of the law was hopeless- that as lawbreakers they needed a righteousness that went beyond mere behavior modification. That's where Jesus comes in.



Here is a link multiple links to a talk by Dr. John Dickson (PhD in Ancient History) that touches on a lot of your concerns (specifically violence in the Old Testament):

Part 1 http://www.rzim.org/resources/listen/justthinking.aspx?archive=1&pid=2531

Part 2 http://www.rzim.org/resources/listen/justthinking.aspx?archive=1&pid=2532

Part 3 http://www.rzim.org/resources/listen/justthinking.aspx?archive=1&pid=2533

Part 4 http://www.rzim.org/resources/listen/justthinking.aspx?archive=1&pid=2534




And here is a gigantic unorganized pile of some other somewhat relevant links. I can't absolutely vouch for everything, but they should be generally helpful.



http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2011/11/30/what-about-genocide-in-the-old-testament/

http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2009/08/did-god-condone-slavery.html

http://www.thevillagechurch.net/the-village-blog/what-are-christians-to-do-with-old-testament-law/

http://carm.org/why-do-christians-not-obey-old-testaments-commands-to-kill-homosexuals

http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/stone-woman-not-being-virgin

http://carm.org/slavery

http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/you-may-buy-slaves

http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2011/02/02/was-the-mosaic-law-meant-to-be-permanent/

http://carm.org/why-do-christians-not-obey-old-testaments-commands-to-kill-homosexuals

http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2010/08/13/does-god-condone-slavery-in-the-old-testament-part-1/

http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/stone-rebellious-son

http://carm.org/questions/about-bible

http://carm.org/questions/skeptics-ask

http://carm.org/god-of-old-testament-a-monster

http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy

http://carm.org/introduction-bible-difficulties-and-bible-contradictions




Also, here are a couple of books you might be interested in. I have not personally read them, but I've heard good things.


http://www.amazon.com/God-Behaving-Badly-Testament-Sexist/dp/0830838260/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801072751?tag=apture-20



I hope that helps! Thanks for your honest and respectful questions. :)

u/whitaker019 · 1 pointr/Christianity

Read Paul Copan's Is God a Moral Monster? for more info on all these Old Testament laws and traditions. Context is key! Can be purchased here: http://www.amazon.com/Is-God-Moral-Monster-Testament/dp/0801072751/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1372794710&sr=8-1&keywords=is+god+a+moral+monster

u/ScotchMalone · 1 pointr/DebateReligion

>Exhibit A: The Flood
>Exhibit B: The Amalekites
>Satan makes good points.

I would primarily direct you to this book Is God a Moral Monster? by Paul Copan as it uses respected scholarly information to help explain the appearance of a wicked Old Testament God.

As for the flood, supposing that God is real and authoritative, doesn't he have the responsibility to be just? Sin requires punishment, so God as the righteous judge enacts that punishment when he deems fit. Every instance of judgment (including the flood) is preceded by many attempts by God to get people turn back from evil and trust in him.

>Inasmuch as "you have the 'free will' to prostrate yourself before God (the architect of exhibits A and B above) or be punished" goes, I suppose.

Hell is commonly described as punishment but it is simply God giving us exactly what we want, total separation from him.

u/rabidmonkey1 · 1 pointr/Christianity

You do realize it was the trend in Mesopotamia to exaggerate all war passages, right? In fact, nearly every Mesopotamian texts do it. Quite simply, "genocides" are nothing of the sort. In fact, there's been a whole book written about it. You should read it, especially if you plan to evangelize to Christians (otherwise, you're going to look really, exceedingly ignorant). Here's a debate the author did on the radio as well: http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid={BD4A5C6A-9C16-417C-8C3D-5D833B5F654C}

As far as the church is concerned; I don't see what your point is. That's like saying all atheists are ignorant for following atheism because Stalin murdered millions through his atheistic regime. In fact, the 20th century was by far the bloodiest in the history of humanity, when you aggregate all the murderous actions of the secular regimes it saw, killing into the near countless millions (which, I may remind you, is far more than the church ever killed). Moreover, I don't defend those actions of the Church (I'm not even Catholic!), and clearly Biblical texts are decisively aligned against that sort of action. If anything, I can say they were not acting as a Christian should act, and have a moral ground for condemning murder universally.

And let's not even get into the basis for your morality (which, let's be honest, is probably heavily borrowing from a Western, Judeo-Christian ethic, more than anything else).

Your criticisms are overly simplistic, pedantic talking points crafted with very little thought or care, other than to just sound good in the ears of the uneducated listener. I'm trying not to be too incisive here, but really; these arguments, when you, for instance, read the book I listed, just don't hold water. The truth of the matter is that many religious people do think about these things; we don't just ignore them and sweep them away 0000as though they're just an unfortunate cousin at a family reunion. But the fact that you treat them like we do right from the get-go shows your determined and established bias on the matter. I don't think you're interested in a real exploration of the subject as much as you are in proselytizing in the name of your atheistic cause.

u/PhilthePenguin · 1 pointr/Christianity

From the comments I've read here so far, I think people don't yet understand the problem before coming up with a solution.

Justifying God killing someone isn't a problem, it's just that some don't like the answer. God kills everybody, some through fire and brimstone and others through cancer. Death is a part of (our current) life. The problem isn't how we justify God in these actions, the problem is why does God command humans to commit these actions in the OT? How can God tell us to love our neighbors one day then go to war the next?

There are two solutions that I know of:

Covenant theology points out that the Jews were part of a direct covenant with God where they could serve as his direct agents. In return for their devotion, they got special privilege over other nations. But they still had to be moral towards each other and towards any foreigners who followed God's ways. (There's actually a great deal of Jewish commentaries on this stuff, which I'm not familiar with, but you may want to pop into /r/judaism and ask them about it). Jesus however established a new covenant in which there is "no longer greek or jew, man or woman, slave or free." This covenant with all mankind means that we don't have the right to just harm anybody; the prerogative to give and take life away remains solely with God.

The progressive revelation interpretation basically says that early Jewish views about God were not correct, that they originally conceived of Yahweh as a war god who supported them in their battles and only later through the prophets and Christ did we learn more about the true nature of God.

There's a book on this stuff, by the way, Is God a Moral Monster. There are also some links in the FAQ about OT violence.

u/feelsb4reals · -1 pointsr/DebateReligion

> It's all bronze - age myths copied from other bronze - age

The New Testament was written well after the Bronze Age. It is mid-antiquity.

> a frankly terrible plotline about a deity who's worse than Stalin, Pol Pot, and Hitler combined

Read Is God a Moral Monster?. While I can't endorse all of the hermeneutics employed by the author, I can definitely say two things:

(1) It's difficult to blame God for using violence when violence is sometimes just. In fact, pacifism is evil because it's completely unjust.

(2) Most of the Old Testament is poetry and therefore has very little violence.

> I'm not going to accept anything you can tell me about it until you prove to me that the entire document is literally true and faithfully depicts events. Which you can't.

No historian accepts the admissibility of documentation under that criterion. I can show you that much of the Bible is corroborated by external sources and is reliable history, but I can't prove every. single. statement by means of external sources, especially given that much of the Bible concerns Israeli politics, which doesn't have much interest among other nations that would have survived for 3000+ years.

u/Frankocean2 · -3 pointsr/Christianity