Richard Dawkins: "The God of the Old Testament..."

Great Debates
41

[QUOTE=Polycarp]

The Bible, if it is anything other than a collection of one people’s religious literature, is the history of the evolution of Jewish and early-Christian understanding of God. It’s not that He changed; it’s rather that over time, they refined their understanding of him, from the mysterious spirit the nomads told stories about around the campfire to the entity who worked through Isaiah, Josiah, Cyrus, Jesus, etc.

[/QUOTE]

First, many of the prayers I said were to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, so it is the same god. Second, an alternate understanding could be the evolution of the fictional character of God, to match the ethics and scientific understanding of the believers of the time. The god of a nation who felt that massacring everyone in a conquered town was okay would feel it is okay, the god of a nation on the bad side of the massacre might be a bit more lenient.

For the Bible to represent the evolution of understanding of an actual God, you’d have to say either that God had never revealed himself in the early days, or he did and those recording the inspired words lied or misunderstood it, or that God gave different messages at different times.

Neither requires a literalist interpretation - the message we get from the stories is far more important than if the stories actually happened.

42

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Pure nonsense. I can point out that the God of the bible did things that any half-rate Institutional Review Board would immediately forbid today, or that would violate any number of laws without having anything to say about the inconsistencies or factual basis of that record. That is simply because, like it or not, the Bible has not changed, regardless of what you would have us believe about the understanding of God. I can’t say anything about people’s understanding of God because there is no common record to evaluate.

But the Good Book persists as a sacred text, worthy of swearing oaths of office and truthful testimony upon. It is held up as the standard by which many judge others’ behaviors, and determine that homosexuals and non-believers shall roast in hell. Words and phrases are routinely cut and pasted - I see many of them every day on signs with interchangable plastic letters out in front of churches.

So, you tell me which God is which, but ultimately it doesn’t matter, and your denial of the bible as an important reflection of current beliefs about God really doesn’t match with the reality of the presentation of religion, at least in America.
[/QUOTE]

We’re supposed to be combatting ignorance here, not perpetuating it.

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible1.html
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible2.html
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible3.html
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible4.html
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible5.html

No wonder “it’s taking longer than we thought”! :smack:

43

[QUOTE=Nature’s Call]
On God vs. Tarkin: Tarkin’s actions must be viewed from a galactic perspective. Blowing up one planet amongst hundreds/thousands is the moral equivalent to blowing up one city. Compare that to God’s eradication by flood of all known life, save a handful!
[/QUOTE]

Not only that, but at least the Emperor admitted he was on the Dark Side.

44

[QUOTE=Polycarp]
We’re supposed to be combatting ignorance here, not perpetuating it.

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible1.html
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible2.html
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible3.html
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible4.html
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible5.html

No wonder “it’s taking longer than we thought”! :smack:
[/QUOTE]
How does your response have anything to do with what I said, snarkfactor 10 or not?

I’ve explicitly said that it is irrelevant how it was put together. It doesn’t matter if it was edited by a group of Oompa Loompas and again by the editors of Newsweek and then Mad Magazine. I don’t care. That has no bearing on what it represents and how it is portrayed as a representation of religious beliefs.

45

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
How does your response have anything to do with what I said
[/QUOTE]
I was kind of wondering that too, Poly.

:: checks title page of Bible to see if the phrase “The Usual Gang of Idiots” appears :: :slight_smile:

46

[QUOTE=Mellivora capensis]
I’m busy reading Dawkins’ book, “The God Delusion”, and I came across this paragraph:

Now, I’m a born-again atheist (since we, in fact, were all born atheists :wink: ), but when I read this passage out loud to my SO, it struck me that it was quite an indictment of the Abrahamic God, and being a Doper, I called out loud, “Cite?” All I got was an odd look from my SO.

My Bible knowledge is dangerous to say the least, and so, could someone spare me a lot of work by pointing to a Biblical reference/story for each of these adjectives? (I’ve listed the adjectives below, and inserted my Sunday School recollection)

jealous - “Thou shalt have no other God but me”?
petty -
unjust -
unforgiving control freak -
vindictive -
bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser -
mysogynistic -
homophobic -
racist - “the Chosen People”?
infanticidal - I think I recall someone was told to barbecue his son?
genocidal - Sodom and Gomorrah?
filicidal -
pestilential - Something about locusts?
megalomanical -
sadomasochistic -
capriciously malevolent bully-
[/QUOTE]
Without going into the specifics, God’s bringing all those plagues to Egypt because He himself causes Pharaoh to refuse the Israelites departure covers a lot of the list.

47

If I can make the point without snark, “the God of the Bible” is much like “the monolithic liberal media stance” – an entity that is far more often perceived than extant.

Yeah, they all claimed to be speaking about the same Dude, YHVH Elohim, “it’s the LORD, Noah”. So, allegedly, did Mohammed, Joseph Smith Jr., Baha’ullah, and a herd of others.

My point is that (1) the perception of what God was and what He wanted evolved over several hundred years, during which a variety of authors, editors, redactors, commentators, etc., lived; (2) each of these people had a different understanding of Him and what He wants; and (3) both rabbinic tradition and the mainstream Christian Church has been alive to this truth for virtually its entire existence. The idea of a divinely dictated or quasi-verbatim inspired “Word of God” as a single monolithic entity which is a precise indicator of what the God who supposedly inspired or dictated it word for word, every jot and tittle, is a 20th Century construct. My grandfather was already a Presbyterian Deacon when The Fundamentals of the Christian Faith first saw print.

It’s possible we’re talking past each other, but I am saying Dawkins is setting up a strawman by buying into the evangelical/fundamentalist “unitary scripture” bit, and everybody is having a great deal of fun with it. And that in itself doesn’t bother me – but if you look at the history of discussion on Christianity on this board, you’ll find that there’s been a lot of presumptions that the clowns against whom Der Trihs rightfully fulminates are the sole people proper to speak for Christianity – in fact, I got it in your post, which is why the snark – and that those of us who represent the majority of Christians who don’t subscribe to their Bibliolatric doctrines, by failing to speak out against them, were somehow guilty of a sin of omission – letting the noisy fundies be taken as the sole spokesmen for Christianity. And yet when we do, we get nailed for having the temerity to suggest that the Jesus Used Car Salesmen are not the real deal, and that Christianity has a longstanding tradition of attempting to deal with rather than deny the world around us.

Oh, well. Too much to expect that a message board supposedly devoted to combatting ignorance might want to work with the facts rather than strawmen.

48

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Looking at it purely in terms of literature, there’s no reason to look at the God of the OT or NT over the God of Genesis or Matthew. But there isn’t really any reason why not to, either; after all, it’s all the Bible, and it all purports to talk about the same character. I think you could legitimately compare the God of any particular section to the God of any other section.
[/QUOTE]
Question: Is the God of the Old Testament (if not of the entire Old+New)—looking at it purely in terms of literature or otherwise—portrayed consistently? Or do we see God doing things in one place that are totally out of character for how God is described in another place?

I think it’s at least apparently the latter. And as I see it, that means that either
(1) There’s a way of reconciling the apparent contradictions, which may involve re-evaluating and re-interpreting some of the passages that seem to make God look bad, and/or those that seem to make God look good, so that together they paint a coherent portrait, or
(2) We can’t talk about the God of the Old Testament, without skipping the bits that describe a different God than the one we want to talk about (which may be what Dawkins is doing, albeit no worse than some on the “other side” that want to see a God that’s all sweetness and light).

49

[QUOTE=Polycarp]
If I can make the point without snark, “the God of the Bible” is much like “the monolithic liberal media stance” – an entity that is far more often perceived than extant.
[/QUOTE]
Sure there are many different takes on God by the various authors and in the various sources of the Bible.

However, there is a rather widely accepted Old Testament and a God that is referred to in that tome. Whether or not it is many authors working on their own or all of them divinely inspired, it seems to me that God exhibits a great number of the traits that Dawkins lists.

50

[QUOTE=Lush Puppy]
I found this link somewhere on SDMB sometime ago… EvilBible.com
[/QUOTE]
The trouble with that site, and other things like it that I’ve seen, is that they go way overboard. Rather than be content to give a few legitimate examples of Godlydickery (thanks, Shawn1767), they throw in everything they can think of and wind up with a lot of “examples” that, if you look deeper, are easily explained away, if not downright ludicrous. You get references that don’t say anything about God at all (see post #6 of this thread for example), that are taken out of context, that are based on a questionable translation or a non-standard interpretation of the passage in question, etc.

There are indeed things in the Bible that bother me, things that make God genuinely look bad. But these kinds of lists also typically go on to include lots of other things that don’t particularly bother me at all.

51

[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink]
Question: Is the God of the Old Testament (if not of the entire Old+New)—looking at it purely in terms of literature or otherwise—portrayed consistently? Or do we see God doing things in one place that are totally out of character for how God is described in another place?

I think it’s at least apparently the latter. And as I see it, that means that either
(1) There’s a way of reconciling the apparent contradictions, which may involve re-evaluating and re-interpreting some of the passages that seem to make God look bad, and/or those that seem to make God look good, so that together they paint a coherent portrait, or
(2) We can’t talk about the God of the Old Testament, without skipping the bits that describe a different God than the one we want to talk about (which may be what Dawkins is doing, albeit no worse than some on the “other side” that want to see a God that’s all sweetness and light).
[/QUOTE]
I think there’s a third option. Inconsistency has levels. If I talk about Hamlet the decisive warmaker, then I think everyone would agree i’m talking about a totally different character than the original. Only superficial similarities would remain. With God, OTOH, the inconsistencies aren’t so character-shattering. If he was described in one part as the omnipotent Lord of all, and then in another as a small mallard duck, I think it’d be reasonable for us to take them as two seperate characters. But if we have the God of one section being the omnipotent Lord who isn’t bothered about inter-ethnic marriage, and the omnipotent Lord who’s very much against it, I don’t think that’s a large enough inconsistency that we can’t talk about them as the same general character.

There’s also the point that inconsistencies themselves may be the only things we can’t generalise. I mean, in each book God’s still the all-powerful guy upstairs. If I say “The God of the OT is all-powerful” i’d say that was a reasonable thing to say. Like you suggest, I might not be able to say “The God of the OT is for/against this specific thing” but we can still generalise characeristics from those things which aren’t inconsistent.

52

[QUOTE=Musicat]
I don’t think the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible has been referenced yet in this thread. You should find everything you want cross-referenced there under headings like cruelty, injustice, intolerance, absurdity, contradictions, women, science, sex…
[/QUOTE]

darn, came in here just to mention that. I should have known it would already be in there. It’s a great reference for specifically these kinds of things.

53

[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink]
You get references that don’t say anything about God at all (see post #6 of this thread for example)…
[/QUOTE]
:confused: I must have misunderstood who turned Lot’s wife into salt? Who decided that a person worthy to be saved from the destruction visited upon Soddomites is one who would offer up his daughters to be raped? One might exclude the incest from having any bearing upon God, since it isn’t clear that he approved or disapproved, as far as I know, except to say that they weren’t smoted. But clearly, God, as depicted in that story, values (or at least excuses) offering one’s daughters for rape, and believes that a just punishment for curiousity is death by crystalization.

54

[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink]
There are indeed things in the Bible that bother me, things that make God genuinely look bad. But these kinds of lists also typically go on to include lots of other things that don’t particularly bother me at all.
[/QUOTE]
But those things might bother someone else, so by including every little nitpicky complaint about the bible, everyone can find something they are interested in. Some people, such as those who know a biblical literalist, care about minor textual inconsistencies.

55

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Dawkins gives several of his own examples as the book progresses. Read on in The God Delusion to see.

However, I found his examples eye opening enough that it made me wonder if anyone has put together a compendium of “heinous behavior by God in the Bible”. It would be a handy reference and a good read.

A couple of examples that Dawkins does describe: I didn’t realize that there are two versions of the story of Lot. In both of them, a male visitor or visitors come to the house, and the residents of the community are so hot for fresh meat that they just have to come to the house and get some from the new dudes. In the Lot version, he offers up his own daughters as a substitute for the dudes, but fortunately that does not come to pass. Instead, Lot gets to leave with his family, except that his wife is wiped out because she is curious about the fireworks behind her. Lot and his daughters go off to a cave where, on subsequent nights, they know their father (apparently without his consent) and become pregnant by him. Nice.

The other version, I don’t remember the name of the “protagonist,” but he offers up a daughter and a female companion of the visitor. They do go out, and are so thoroughly and roundly known by the ass-horny residents of the town that the female companion of the visitor dies on the doorstep of the household. Upon discovering her in the morning, the visitor decides that she must be cut up into pieces and sent to different parts of the country. Nice.
[/QUOTE]

That second story has nothing to do with Lot, but appears to be a somewhat confused retelling of the account of the Levite’s concubine in Judges, chapter 19. (Not that I’d justify either story as particularly moral.) This dates to several hundred years after Lot in Sodom – how many, depends on what dating system you subscribe to for the “captivity in Egypt” (if in fact you believe that was factual) and the timing of the Exodus and rule by the Judges.

No big huhu relative to the rest of the thread, but a factual correction worth noting.

56

[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink]
Question: Is the God of the Old Testament (if not of the entire Old+New)—looking at it purely in terms of literature or otherwise—portrayed consistently? Or do we see God doing things in one place that are totally out of character for how God is described in another place?

I think it’s at least apparently the latter. And as I see it, that means that either

[/QUOTE]

I agree that God behaves somewhat different in different parts. But completely out of character, can you explain how you get this?

57

[QUOTE=mr. jp]
I agree that God behaves somewhat different in different parts. But completely out of character, can you explain how you get this?
[/QUOTE]

Well the character of God according to most Christians is that of a loving father. That Father may occasionally have to smack a disobedient child, but the character remains a loving Father.

Now contrast that with the God of the OT, who kills and tortures innocents, condones rape and slavery and demands geneocide. Those are not the actions of a being that is a loving father to humanity. Hell he didn’t even act like a loving father towards towards the Israelites.

The only way that you coudl say that God wasn;t atcing out of character is by refusing to say what his character is. I’ll throw out a challenge: You describe what you believe to be the character of God and I will find you an example in the Bible of God acting contray to that character. Up for it?

58

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
With God, OTOH, the inconsistencies aren’t so character-shattering. If he was described in one part as the omnipotent Lord of all, and then in another as a small mallard duck, I think it’d be reasonable for us to take them as two seperate characters. But if we have the God of one section being the omnipotent Lord who isn’t bothered about inter-ethnic marriage, and the omnipotent Lord who’s very much against it, I don’t think that’s a large enough inconsistency that we can’t talk about them as the same general character.
[/quote]

What about the God of one section being the omnipotent Lord, and the God of another section being unable to defeat iron chariots?

What about the God who is so powerful that no man can not look at his face without dying in one chapter, and the God of another section having tea and biscuits with with a man?

What about the God who never changes his mind in one section, and then in the next section changes his mind again, and again and again?

To me these aren’t trivial distnctions, they are major discrepancies between the characters every bit as dramatic as Hamlet the decisive warmaker. It seems to me that if we can excuse (or more often try to explain away) these sorts of discrepancies then we might as well say that any two characters in fiction are the same provided they are the same species.

Except in all those cases where he clearly isn’t, like his inability to defeat iron chariots, or his inabilty to expunge original sin without sacrifice.

Now you will probbaly tell me that you can explain those discrepancies away, but the problem is that you need to create tortuous extra-textual methods of doing so. If we allow that then Aragorn and the Artful Doger are the same basic character, we just need to epxlain away those few discrepancies between the characters.

Can you list 8 characteristics that you can generalise from the OT that aren’t inconsistent with other section of the Bible?

I say 8 because “male”, “favours Jews pending messiah” and “misogynistic” are gimmes. That leaves just 5 other generalisations for you to draw.

59

[QUOTE=Polycarp]
It’s not that He changed; it’s rather that over time, they refined their understanding of him, from the mysterious spirit the nomads told stories about around the campfire to the entity who worked through Isaiah, Josiah, Cyrus, Jesus, etc.
[/QUOTE]
One may take the view that the Bible is the word of God, written via His inspiration in the hearts and minds of various men and therefore stamped with His authority. Or one may take the view that the Bible is a miscellaneous selection of old texts, each of which is a mortal writer’s imperfect recollection or impression of some historical events that may or may not have happened. If one takes the former view, then the indictments stand as listed in this thread, and it is not difficult to show that God indeed has the characteristics ascribed to Him by Dawkins and others. If one takes the latter view, then there is no reason to regard the Bible as either accurate or authoritative, either historically or as the source book for a moral code of any relevance to contemporary life. You cannot have it both ways, opting to worship the ‘nice bits’ God and ignoring the ‘nasty bits’ God. Or rather, you can, but only by knowingly choosing to adopt beliefs that are internally inconsistent and therefore make no sense.

60

[QUOTE=Blake]
Well the character of God according to most Christians is that of a loving father. That Father may occasionally have to smack a disobedient child, but the character remains a loving Father.

[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I meant: Where are the inconsistancies in the OT God? That is what we are discussing, but I forgot to mention.