A sickening example of religious vampirism

by expatbrit 80 Replies latest jw friends

SixofNine

On the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16) , two goats were offered during the temple sacrifice. The first was sacrificed as an "atonement" for sin. In essence, God was saying, "You have sinned, and you deserve punishment. However, I don't want you to take that punishment upon yourselves. Instead, I will let this sacrifice be your substitute. It will take upon itself the penalty for your sin."
But God did more than this. After the first goat was sacrificed, the priest placed his hands upon the second goat. He symbolically placed the sins of the people on this second goat, then led the goat out to the wilderness to wander far away from camp.
This second goat was called the "scapegoat". God this time was saying, "Not only will I not punish you for your sin. I will take the issue of sin away from you and count your sins against you no more."
AH! Now I understand!
rem

I tend to take a much broader view of the God of the Bible
I could take a 'broad view' of Hitler's life as well and conclude that he was a pretty cool guy. Yes, Hitler did some really good things for his economically impoverished nation. But that does not discount the horrible things that he did. You'd be hard pressed to find people today who think he was a great guy - no matter what good things he accomplished - because his murderous acts were inexcusable.
The same is true of the god of the Bible. When you say you take a broader view, what you are really saying is that you choose to only look at the good and ignore the bad. Well, I can make Satan look like a good guy that way too! (In fact it is easier to make Satan look like the good guy in the Bible). What that shows rational people, like myself, is that you are deluded with your romantic illusions of the god of the Bible.
Also, you keep throwing red herrings into the argument with irrelevant topics such as the acts of men who did horrible things in the name of god. We are not talking about that - we are talking about god and his own acts as recorded in the Bible.
As long as you continue to only look at the good and ignore the bad, we will correctly call your beliefs irrational.
rem
"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
dickelentz

I don't think I'm skirting the issues. I'm trying to place the issues in the context of the Bible as a whole. It's the proverbial "can't see the forest for the trees". I'm trying to describe the forest. You want me to focus on one tree.
Take the issue of the scapegoat. The key problem addressed in the Bible is separation from God caused by sin. God is a just God and must prescribe consequences for sin. But God is also a merciful God and does not want us to have to pay that penalty personally. Thus the importance of the "scapegoat" and the "lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world." God placed the penalty and issue of sin solely on Jesus. Jesus in affect took the penalty for our sin so that God would no longer take account of our sin.
You used words like "intellectual dishonesty" to describe your previous experiences with JW. I would say that to be rational and intellectually honest, a person must consider the Bible as a whole and not use one single issue as indicative of all of it.
Nevertheless, I will take time from looking at the whole to discuss one part of it. Give me a specific passage where you feel God acted unjustly and I'll tell you what I think. Please limit it to one passage so we can focus on an individual incident. Also please provide the reference so we can all be on the same "page".
When we have both have had our say, then I would like to ask for a similar discussion on a passage I will present.
Sound fair?
If so, then it is your move..............
dedalus

For example, I can't answer how an all-knowing God would give Adam and Eve a choice knowing they would make the wrong choice.
If you can't answer this, or the broader implications behind it, then you must stop using words like "rational" and "logical" to describe your belief in a God you can't explain.
It's just that simple.
Now, as for this thread -- I don't even know what it's about anymore. I can say that every time you explain what Jesus did for us, or employ hollow platitudes to justify God's inconsistent behavior, you're telling a story or offering excuses we've been told since we were children. We understand what you're saying. Saying it over and over again isn't going to persuade us.
It's the proverbial "can't see the forest for the trees". I'm trying to describe the forest. You want me to focus on one tree.
If you take away enough trees, you don't have a forest. Remove even one tree, and the forest isn't the same as it was before. Quantitative changes result in qualitative changes. But really, Mr. Lentz, is this the best you can do? "Can't see the forest for the trees." It's as if I'm arguing with a Hallmark card.
Go ahead and pick your Bible verse. I sense this is all an exercise in futility, but what the heck, go ahead. Only, no more blather about the "big" picture, about how even though God has temper tantrums and commands his people to kill men, women, and children (I suppose the children of those nations were "evil" and deserved to die, right?) and keep young virgins for their own sexual urges, still, despite all this, he's basically a good God. Stop doing that, especially since you don't understand his principal qualities.
Dedalus
dickelentz

Dedalus:
You and I are in agreement on this very important issue: If you want to understand the forest, you can't ignore the individual trees. I would agree even further that if you take away any tree, the forest is diminished.
That in my opinion is the problem with most religions. They take things away from the Bible and base their beliefs on what is leftover. Or, they focus on a specific issue here in there and ignore the things they wish not to take into consideration.
JW is like like. It ignores passages that talk about the divinity of Christ and end up misunderstanding the passages that deal with the need for an "atoning" sacrifice. Catholicism traditionally has ignored passages on grace and focused on verses dealing with earning your way into God's favor. The Pentecostal movement emphasizes gifts, especially that of tongues, ignoring verses that contradict their point of view. And many denominations have said you must be baptized to be saved and simply throw out the verse that says "you are saved by faith alone, apart from works of the law" (Romans 3).
All beliefs that ignore a part of scripture are being intellectually dishonest.
That doesn't mean we can make sense of every part of the Bible or explain every verse. I cannot. But that doesn't cause me to give up and throw in the towel and say none of it makes sense. I try to understand the things that are clear and go from there.
This does tie into this thread. My whole contention with the Columbine issue is that violence of this kind has spiritual roots. If we ignore the spiritual side of this issue, we simply aren't seeing the whole picture.
So, lets talk about the trees. I would like to itentify one (a passage, please, not just a statement). If I can give you an answer I will.
rem

dickelentz,

It's difficult to even know where to start. There is no one 'tree', but many 'trees' or instances of the god of the Bible's injustice and downright despicable behavior. You can't hardly read a few pages through the OT without tripping over something cruel, disgusting, unjust, or just stupid that is attributed to the god of the Bible. To see what I mean, check out the Skeptics Annotated Bible at this link:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

Some of the most disgusting passages are where god feels it is necessary to kill innocent children for the sins of their fathers (Exodus 34:7). And he even threatens to send wild animals to kill children if the parents disobeyed (Leviticus 26:22). God seems to have a thing about killing little babies (Psalms 137:9). He doesn't seem to have much compassion for the elderly either (2 Chronicles 36:17). Other times, god killed innocent people of the land because their King took a census (2 Samuel 24:15-17). Even King David - the one who took the census - said, "Lo, I have sinned, and I have done wickedly: but these sheep, what have they done?" Apparently god sees nothing wrong with killing innocent people - something that even humans can clearly see is unjust.

But this is just one of many many types of injustice in the Bible. We haven't even gone into the Israelite's treatment of their neighbors as commanded by god - such as when they were commanded to kill all of the men and women, except for the virgin girls (Numbers 31). And other times they were to completely destroy every man, woman, and child indiscriminately (Deuteronomy 2:30-34; 3:3-6; 32:23-25; Joshua 6:21, 8:24-26, 10:28-29, 10:32-33, 10:35-40, 11:8-21; 1 Samuel 27:8-11). Many times in addition to all of the innocent women and children even the animals were destroyed or disabled - what sin did they commit? (Joshua 11:6, 9; 1 Samuel 15:3). God does not even seem to look down upon using torture to prepare the land for his people (2 Samuel 12:31).

I know you only asked for one passage, but there seems to be a clear pattern of conduct here. If these actions were attributed to any human leader, we would rightly assume that he was a genocidal dictator - no matter what good things he may have done for his country. To ignore these passages, and many more, in the Bible and only emphasize the good is irrational special pleading - the likes of which neo-nazi skinheads and historical revisionists of the holocaust are notorious for doing regarding their favorite genocidal maniac.

rem
"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
dedalus

I can think of nothing to add, Mr. Lentz. I hope your answer will be as specific as Rem's post was.
Dedalus
dickelentz

I took at look at some of these passages. I agree. They do not
represent a single tree but rather many trees. I can't possibly deal
with all of them in one post. But let me try to tackle a couple.
Exodus 34:7 says this: "he punishes the children and their children
for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."
To understand this passage, I went to it's origin in Exodus 20:1-26.
In this passage, God is trying to impress upon Israel the importance
of obedience to Him. He reminds them that He is the God who brought them out of Egypt (vs. 2), summarizes the 10 commandments and points out the consequences of disobedience (vs. 3-18), then reminds Israel that the purpose of these instructions and warnings is not to create fear but to keep them from sinning (vs. 20.)
One of the biggest dangers Israel faced at that time was the negative influence of the pagan nations around them. As God's representatives, the were to live lives different and apart from the
world that surrounded them. They were also to reflect God's nature and His holiness in their lives. They had to be extremely careful lest they get vacuumed up by the evil in the cultures that
surrounded them and become just like them.
God knew that their stubborn nature would make it easy for them
to fall away and disobey him. God identified the consequences of
sin so they would be motivated to avoid the pitfalls of turning their
backs on him. Some of these consequences were the natural result
of letting sin reign in their lives. But the Jewish mindset really
never separated natural consequences of sin from deliberate acts of
God. They were often considered one and the same.
Exodus 20:4-6 indicates that adopting the religion of the
idol-worshippers that surrounded them would have a negative
affect upon their children. In affect, God identified a "rule of
society" that parents' behavior and choices will affect their children.
The bad news is that the wrong choices or bad character of parents
can influence several subequent generations. The good news is that
this is limited. God doesn't say that these negative influences will
last "forever". But the better news is in verse 6. It states that God shows "love to a thousand generations of those who love me and
keep my commandments." God promises that the choice of obedience will influence others positively for hundreds of times longer than the affect of bad choices.
So I don't see this passage as judgement at all, but simply a
statement of fact. Bad character will affect others negatively for a
limited time. But good character will affect others positively for an
immeasurable amount of time.
The next verse, Leviticus 26:22, needs to be taken in context with
all of Leviticus 26. Once again, God is describing the rewards of
obedience and contrasting this with the results of disobedience.
I think the key verses are 11-13. God said that if Israel obeyed,
then "I will put my dwelling place among you and will not abhor
you. I will walk among you and be your God, and you will be my
people. "
These verses are consistent with the verses in the Bible that talk
about God's desire to have a personal relationship with people. If
Israel chose to have this relationship with God, they were promised
blessings, peace, protection, and fruitful lives (vs. 3-10). On the
otherhand, if they chose to turn their backs on God, then God said
that He would remove his blessings and they would have to fend for
themselves, suffering drought, turmoil, loss of protection, and
wasted lives (vs. 14-39).
One specific promise was that Israel would be protected from the
wild beasts of the land if they obeyed God (vs. 6). If Israel chose to disobey God, then God said this protection would be removed and
their children would be taken away by wild beasts (vs. 22).
Leviticus 26 is a prophesy about what life would be like without
God's protection. The sad thing is that Israel didn't listen to this
warning and eventually suffered the consequences this loss of
protection. Much what is described in Leviticus 26 eventually took
place.
One thing I try to keep in mind when reading passages like this is
that Israel had (and many feel continues to have) a covenental
relationship with God. This means that God had some unconditional promises he made to Israel on their behalf. But they did have a choice to break the covenant by rejecting God and trying to live life without him. Leviticus 26:40-45 reminded Israel of this
covenant and God's promise to remain their "protector" and
"savior" if they would simply turn away from their sin and come
back to Him.
So those are some of my thoughts about the first two passages.
What are yours? And would you like me to continue on with some
of the others you've listed or are you ready to give some thoughts
to one of mine?
rem

Mr. Lentz,
Thank you for your reply. I have a couple comments:
So I don't see this passage as judgement at all, but simply a
statement of fact. Bad character will affect others negatively for a
limited time. But good character will affect others positively for an
immeasurable amount of time.
I might be able to accept that explanation if it wasn’t for the active language god uses. He is not saying that if his people disobey, he will just sit back and allow them to face the inherent consequences of their actions. He is threatening an active judgment against the sinner’s progeny. Here is the text of god’s pronouncement at Exodus 34:7:
maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation. (NIV)
Notice the active language used here. God will punish the innocent children down to the fourth generation. This is not a passive statement. And I don’t see how contrasting this statement with others showing that god will show love to thousands of generations who love him justifies his punishing innocent people. The former is something that he should be doing anyway, if he is a loving father. The latter is simply unjust, no matter how you slice it.
Now on to the next one:
One specific promise was that Israel would be protected from the
wild beasts of the land if they obeyed God (vs. 6). If Israel chose to disobey God, then God said this protection would be removed and
their children would be taken away by wild beasts (vs. 22).
Here I believe you are being a bit disingenuous. Again you seem to be trying to change the language of the verse to make it sound passive instead of active. This does not have to do with god’s removal of protection, but, instead, his actively sending wild beasts to devour innocent children. Let us consider the verse in Leviticus 26:22:
I will send wild animals against you, and they will rob you of your children, destroy your cattle and make you so few in number that your roads will be deserted. (NIV)
Notice here that god is not threatening to simply remove protection, but is warning that he will actively send wild animals to kill the children. Why not send the wild animals against the ones who are actually sinning? That would be just, if not a bit brutal.
It seems to me so far that your strategy has been to change the tone of the scriptures, or to reinterpret the texts to make them sound less offensive. You have presented god as an innocent bystander, just watching from on high as his people either choose to obey or disobey and the consequences of their actions become manifest. I think the scriptures are clear, though, that god threatened to have an active role in punishing innocent children if his people disobeyed. I have looked up the passages in many translations and the language is clear. God was threatening to take an active role in punishing innocent children for the sins of their parents, and in some cases grandparents, and great grandparents.
You may continue on the other verses if you wish, or if you would like to comment on my response, you may. Or if I bore you, we can stop now :). It’s up to you.
rem
"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
dickelentz

You make some very good points, Rem. I don't find them the least bit boring. In fact, the passage you've cited (Leviticus 26) and the questions you've posed have caused me to give a little more thought to why I come to a different conclusion.
You are right. The tone of the statements is active and not passive. So the question is why do I conclude that some of these judgements are more passive than active?
I didn't come to this conclusion overnight. It came through considerable study of the Bible and trying to make sense of the whole so that the various parts fit together.
Your questions warrant more than just a quick or general response. If you don't mind waiting, let me do a little more thinking on this and I'll get back to you in a day or two.
In the meantime, the passage I would like to deal with is Romans 5. The questions I have for you on this passage are this:
1. What problem is the passage dealing with?
2. What is the source of the problem?
3. What solution does God offer?
4. What, if anything, does this have to do with Leviticus 26?
You don't have to respond to this right now. Just think about it. If you don't mind, I'd like to have a chance to respond to your last post before we move on.

A sickening example of religious vampirism

Share this