HOME | DD
Nekromanda β 'Well, that was the OLD Testament.'
Published: 2013-03-19 05:05:38 +0000 UTC; Views: 2448; Favourites: 24; Downloads: 8
Redirect to original
Description
Just something that popped into my head after a conversation with someone. They suggested I couldn't name a few things that made God bad. I listed several things that I find particularly "bad" (You know, killing firstborns of all of Egypt, dashing babies apart, ripping open pregnant women, having 42 kids ripped to shreds by two bears for calling a guy bald, killing 70,000 people to punish the city's leader, etc...).The response?
"That's all from the Old Testament.
That's Angry God. After Jesus died for our sins, that all stopped happening."
It got me thinking, what if we applied that thought to other things? Out of that came this drawing, so... yup.
Related content
Comments: 110
Whether or not any of those stories are true isn't what's important (i.e., the kids being killed by the bear). I mean, it's quite implausible. However, it's the truth that it teaches that's what's important; respect for elders. The death of the firstborn was likely true, though, as science can explain. Don't know about the pregnant women part, what's that about?
Although you may be thinking about how horrible that all sounds, it needs to be considered in context. As in, everyone was like that back in those times. I suppose a good analogy would be that nowadays we think of slavery and say "That's horrible!" But back 2000 years ago, slavery was as common as owning a smartphone today. The Old Testament was written by people in those times for people in those times, so looking at it today, it's no surprise there's some rather... interesting material.
π: 0 β©: 1
The problem is that it shouldn't matter what everyone else 'at the time' was like. After all, a God that's truly omnipotent shouldn't care what everyone else is like when handing out rules to his own nation. He could have told them to include all those civil rights successes we have had, but instead told them to do the barbarous stuff everyone else was doing.
π: 0 β©: 1
But it should, because it was a dangerous time back then. We live in such a safe world today where we don't have to worry about war and genocide (at least, most of us, sadly), so looking back, it's easy to criticize. However, in ancient times, it was kill or be killed. With people like Alexander the Great, the Persians, and the Romans, to name just a few, there were always empires looking to dominate. So if he told the Israelites all the civil rights we know today, he'd be leading them to their deaths.
π: 0 β©: 1
You're talking about a god who regularly destroyed cities of people who got in his way. Committed genocide against the Egyptian people to get their leader to release the Israelites. The only reason they got enslaved to begin with was because of their lack of pleasing God, so he allowed them to be enslaved. But when they did please him he killed thousands of their enemies for them. How was it more dangerous for them? And in their security of omnipotent protection, why the hell did he tell them to marry off raped women to their rapists instead of give them independent care and assistance from the community, like with orphans? Why stone homosexuals? Why...well why is the OT so barbarous when it didn't need to be?
π: 0 β©: 1
Destroyed cities of people who "got in his way"? As for the Egyptians, they did not enslave the Israelites because they weren't pleasing God. And the Egyptians committed genocide, too, you know; Pharaoh ordered all male babies to be killed. And if you actually read the Bible, it states explicitly that the Pharaoh was afraid of how large the Israelites were becoming, so he enslaved them out of fear. And again, that's how everyone back then was. Imagine today if God told the U.S. to make cell phones, computers, and cars illegal. Would we adhere to that? The Israelites certainly wouldn't, because God didn't give them a king (as he intended for himself to be their king), but they wanted one so badly that God appointed one, only because "everyone else" had a king.
It was barbarous because the time was barbarous. If you read 2 Maccabees 7, it shows that the invading forces of Alexander the great did much more barbarous things than anything the Israelites did. They seized a mother and her seven sons, and cut out their tongues, scalped them, and cut off their hands and feet. Alive. And then they fried them. If you study any culture in those ancient times, the differences between them and the Israelites makes the Israelites seem like saints.
π: 0 β©: 1
"Destroyed cities of people who "got in his way"?"
Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, Jericho, Hesbon, and so on.
"Egyptians, they did not enslave the Israelites because they weren't pleasing God."
No, God allowed the Israelites to be enslaved for not pleasing him. Just as he had punished the Israelites for disobedience many times. (In actuality there is absolutely no evidence of Israelite slaves of Egypt but narrative-wise...)
" And the Egyptians committed genocide, too, you know; Pharaoh ordered all male babies to be killed."
And we all know that two wrongs make a right. And that it wasn't Pharaoh that should be punished but all those innocent Egyptian children.
"Imagine today if God told the U.S. to make cell phones, computers, and cars illegal. Would we adhere to that?"
Considering Christians do all manners of stupid things because of their interpretation of the scriptures I would say, yes, yes they would. Especially after having recent reminders of all those executed cities.
"The Israelites certainly wouldn't, because God didn't give them a king (as he intended for himself to be their king), but they wanted one so badly that God appointed one, only because "everyone else" had a king."
So that excuses giving monstrous instruction like stoning gays? Just because other people were doing it? Why not just tell them what's what and then punish them when they disobeyed? He has no problem with that. Even at one point saying that if they disobeyed he would cause cut-throats to go in and "slay old men, young men, maidens, little children and women."
...Maybe that's why the Israelites disobeyed so much. Who'd want to take orders from such a sadist!
"They seized a mother and her seven sons, and cut out their tongues, scalped them, and cut off their hands and feet. Alive. And then they fried them."
So what? The Israelites told a ruler he would be given a woman as a wife and accepted by the Israelites if they all circumcised themselves. Then, while they were reeling in pain, came in and slaughtered them all.
David collected 200 foreskins from slain Philistines as a dowry for marriage.
While we're talking about baby killing and King David, God punished Bathsheba and King David for their adultery by directly causing the resulting baby to suffer for seven days until it died.
π: 0 β©: 1
"Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, Jericho, Hesbon, and so on."
Those cities were either destroyed because they were rather disgusting places (the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to rape the two that entered Lot's hosue) or were part of the conquest of Canaan, which was normal for the time; conquering cities and annihilating the people. The Babylonians came in centuries later, killed one third of the population, enslaved another third, and left the remaining third to pick up the pieces. Yet we're not throwing the book at them, are we?
"No, God allowed the Israelites to be enslaved for not pleasing him. Just as he had punished the Israelites for disobedience many times. (In actuality there is absolutely no evidence of Israelite slaves of Egypt but narrative-wise...)"
Where does it say that God allowed the Israelites to be enslaved because they weren't pleasing him? And there actually is evidence of Israelites being in Egypt (inscriptions dating back to 1220 B.C. give credence to this).
"And we all know that two wrongs make a right. And that it wasn't Pharaoh that should be punished but all those innocent Egyptian children."
It's called punishment for wrongdoing. You kill someone, you go to jail. You murder thousands, jail isn't enough. Should the Israelites have just up and left and have the Egyptians go unpunished? Never mind the thousands of babies of the real victims thrown into the Nile, let's just focus on one side of the coin.
"Considering Christians do all manners of stupid things because of their interpretation of the scriptures I would say, yes, yes they would. Especially after having recent reminders of all those executed cities."
Well nowadays, yes, because we live in a world that's (mostly) tolerant of religious/nonreligious beliefs. But back in ancient times, you could die simply for what you believed. Early Christians were persecuted all the time simply for being Christian, not having committed any crime. Even today it still happens in the Middle East.
"So that excuses giving monstrous instruction like stoning gays? Just because other people were doing it? Why not just tell them what's what and then punish them when they disobeyed? He has no problem with that. Even at one point saying that if they disobeyed he would cause cut-throats to go in and "slay old men, young men, maidens, little children and women."
...Maybe that's why the Israelites disobeyed so much. Who'd want to take orders from such a sadist!"
Because in those times, having children was important, so homosexuality was very frowned upon, and it was considered a great taboo. Should they have been executed? I don't think so, no. Exiled, maybe. But that was the norm at the time, as it has been up until recent centuries.
As for the slaying old men and whatnot, you need to give the location of that in the Bible for it to be credible and to be given proper context.
"So what?"
Hold up. You say that merely stoning homosexuals is "monstrous", but cutting off someone's tongue, feet, and hands, and then frying them alive gets only a "So what?" This is absolutely hypocritical.
"The Israelites told a ruler he would be given a woman as a wife and accepted by the Israelites if they all circumcised themselves. Then, while they were reeling in pain, came in and slaughtered them all."
Yes, because that ruler had raped their sister and they were upset. And this wasn't a command from God; there's no mention of him in that story. This was the plan of those men alone. Their father, Jacob, told them it was wrong afterwards.
"David collected 200 foreskins from slain Philistines as a dowry for marriage."
Again, cultural differences, and that wasn't a command of God.
"While we're talking about baby killing and King David, God punished Bathsheba and King David for their adultery by directly causing the resulting baby to suffer for seven days until it died."
In no way was it just adultery. David, after having the affair, had the woman's husband placed on the front lines of the military, sending him to his death so that he may have the woman to himself. This is the punishment for that: murder AND adultery. Back then, jail wasn't considered a real form of punishment. Something serious was.
You seem to only focus on the act itself and not the cause, forgetting the wrongdoings of others that have warranted these actions. Your dismissal of the inhumane, torturous death of the mother and her seven sons especially shows that you're being very biased and hypocritical.
π: 0 β©: 1
Those cities were either destroyed because they were rather disgusting places
Then the Israelite nation should have been destroyed ten times over. Except I don't condemn innocent families for the politics of some.
"the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to rape the two that entered Lot's hosue"
A group of citizens, not the entire two cities. And the supposedly only righteous man offered up his daughter to be raped instead.
"Where does it say that God allowed the Israelites to be enslaved because they weren't pleasing him?"
Psalm 106:34-43
" And there actually is evidence of Israelites being in Egypt (inscriptions dating back to 1220 B.C. give credence to this)."
"It's called punishment for wrongdoing. You kill someone, you go to jail. You murder thousands, jail isn't enough."
So killing innocent children is justified huh?
"let's just focus on one side of the coin."
Which is what you're doing. Ignoring all the other innocent children killed, or worse, calling the abominable practice of child murdering 'justice' when it's god doing it.
"Should they have been executed? I don't think so, no. Exiled, maybe."
So you disagree with a direct command from God then?
Ezekiel 9:5-7 (NLT)
"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all β old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told."
"Hold up. You say that merely stoning homosexuals is "monstrous", but cutting off someone's tongue, feet, and hands, and then frying them alive gets only a "So what?"."
Actually I'm saying "So what" to dismemberment you described being all that shocking compared to the penis-cutting, stoning, disembowling, dismemberment, beheading and other gruesomeness of acts done by the Israelites. In that paragraph I was not talking about things God ordered (except that last one). Though he has blood on his hands aplenty.
"This is the punishment for that: murder AND adultery. Back then, jail wasn't considered a real form of punishment. Something serious was."
Like torturing and killing an infant? Again, there is just no excuse for this.
" the wrongdoings of others that have warranted these actions."
Except they didn't warrant those actions. And only a bloodthirsty maniac would think so.
" Your dismissal of the inhumane, torturous death of the mother and her seven sons"
My dismissal of it being more shocking than the inhumane torturous death that God himself has done, more like.
π: 0 β©: 1
"Then the Israelite nation should have been destroyed ten times over. Except I don't condemn innocent families for the politics of some."
They practically were. The Assyrians, Babylonians, Alexander the Great, the Romans, and more conquered them.
"A group of citizens, not the entire two cities. And the supposedly only righteous man offered up his daughter to be raped instead."
"Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodomβboth young and oldβsurrounded the house." (Gen. 19:4) So yes, the entire city (Gomorrah wasn't any better, and I'm sure they'd do the same if not for the distance) and no, not innocent families. As for Lot's offering of his daughters, was that right? Absolutely not. But again, context. Back then, women were treated as property. This was also not a command of God, which makes this pointless.
"Psalm 106:34-43"
That's about when they were in Canaan, not when they were in Egypt, as verse 38 explicitly says.
"The only inscriptions are a second hand account of a incredulous claim by Josephus (who so often uses forgeries in his writing.)"
That's not what I'm talking about. I said 1220 B.C., Josephus was in the first or second century A.D.
"So killing innocent children is justified huh?" ... "Which is what you're doing. Ignoring all the other innocent children killed, or worse, calling the abominable practice of child murdering 'justice' when it's god doing it."
And you're ignoring the innocent children killed by the Egyptians, calling "murder" when that suffering is dealt back to them. Is killing innocent children good? No. But Egypt brought it upon themselves by being the first to do it. And again, this is an ancient form of justice. There's no United Nations back then. No sanctions to put on them, no sort of justice as we know it. What alternative would you offer?
"So you disagree with a direct command from God then? Ezekiel 9:5-7 (NLT)"
That's has nothing to do with homosexuality, but rather idolatry. There was large idolatry being practiced in God's temple, so he was upset, of course. And if you notice the "everyone whose forehead isn't marked" part, that means that those who were not guilty were spared. The guilty were, however. Was it pretty? No. But that's how things were back then. If these people were merely detained, then no one would see it as justice. Today we would, but back then, no. Death was the only justice for them.
"Actually I'm saying "So what" to dismemberment you described being all that shocking compared to the penis-cutting, stoning, disembowling, dismemberment, beheading and other gruesomeness of acts done by the Israelites. In that paragraph I was not talking about things God ordered (except that last one). Though he has blood on his hands aplenty."
Then that means you are indeed a hypocrite. You're saying that because the Israelites were the ones being dismembered, it's okay. But the things the Israelites did like the circumcision (done to avenge the rape of their sister) and stoning (the common form of execution in those days). I don't recall the Israelites ever disemboweling/dismembering anyone. But you're brushing aside the absolutely brutal deaths of eight INNOCENT people because, I guess, you say the Israelites are guilty of the same thing? But then wait, why are you calling me out above on the Egyptian deaths when they enslaved the Israelites and killed their babies?
"Like torturing and killing an infant? Again, there is just no excuse for this."
Implying the infant was tortured. And as I said, there's jail wasn't considered a real punishment back then, so it's not like they'll just put David in a prison cell. Was it nice? No. Did the child deserve it? No. Did David deserve it? Yes. Do I agree with what was done? No. But people were different back then, so different things must be done to get the message across.
"Except they didn't warrant those actions. And only a bloodthirsty maniac would think so."
So what would you propose should have been done? Do you have a better answer? Imagine yourself back in a time before there was globalization with solid governments and nations. Imagine you're in a time where everyone's first reaction is violence. Judging the past by today's standards is a very ridiculous thing to do.
"My dismissal of it being more shocking than the inhumane torturous death that God himself has done, more like."
Which proves that you have a huge double-standard and that I cannot take your words seriously. I'm trying to listen with an open mind, but you're constantly taking things out of context and openly stating that you're being a hypocrite because you're saying that if the Israelites do it it's an unforgivable crime, but if it happens to them than it's okay. Which then contradicts your judgment of me about the Egyptians being punished by having their children killed as they killed the Israelites' babies.
I can no longer take your words seriously or be open-minded because of how hypocritical and self-contradictory you're being. If you ever end your hypocrisy and stop being so intolerant of others, I might start to listen to you again.
Good day.
π: 0 β©: 0
<= Prev |