God In The Old Testament

[altersteve]

I'm currently having a discussion with an atheist on another forum, and he brought up the topic of God in the Old Testament, how God, in the Old Testament, acts "evil, angry, unpleasant, petty, and vain." I have my own answers for this question, but perhaps this topic could be used to discuss these acts of God: His anger, for example, and His "justice system" as outlined within the books of Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

Simply put, why does God seem so "evil, angry, unpleasant, petty, and vain" in the Old Testament?

[LeSellers]

Simply put, why does God seem so "evil, angry, unpleasant, petty, and vain" in the Old Testament?

Because He understands the power of and reasons for covenants.

The people He slaughtered (or had slaughtered) were covenants breakers Although the Bible, as we have it today, does not explicitly identify this, it is apparent that Noah's people had broken covenants. The peoples of Canaan broke covenants, the Israelites broke covenants. The Jaredites broke covenants. The Nephites broke covenants. We, today, are breaking covenants. I fear the"God of the Old Testament" will have little choice but to remind us of the power and reason for covenants, and the He will do it as He did it in the past.

Lehi

[mathilde]

Because He understands the power of and reasons for covenants.

The people He slaughtered (or had slaughtered) were covenants breakers Although the Bible, as we have it today, does not explicitly identify this, it is apparent that Noah's people had broken covenants. The peoples of Canaan broke covenants, the Israelites broke covenants. The Jaredites broke covenants. The Nephites broke covenants. We, today, are breaking covenants. I fear the"God of the Old Testament" will have little choice but to remind us of the power and reason for covenants, and the He will do it as He did it in the past.

Lehi

This view of God -- that he slaughters people -- how is this compatible in any way with a belief in a loving God?

[altersteve]

Because He understands the power of and reasons for covenants.

The people He slaughtered (or had slaughtered) were covenants breakers Although the Bible, as we have it today, does not explicitly identify this, it is apparent that Noah's people had broken covenants. The peoples of Canaan broke covenants, the Israelites broke covenants. The Jaredites broke covenants. The Nephites broke covenants. We, today, are breaking covenants. I fear the"God of the Old Testament" will have little choice but to remind us of the power and reason for covenants, and the He will do it as He did it in the past.

Lehi

This is what I explained to him, but he doesn't understand the concept of "covenants." I guess I need to explain some more things to him.

[altersteve]

This view of God -- that he slaughters people -- how is this compatible in any way with a belief in a loving God?

CFR that God "slaughters people."

[LeSellers]

This view of God -- that he slaughters people -- how is this compatible in any way with a belief in a loving God?

CFR that God "slaughters people."

God does slaughter covenant breakers. That much is quite clear from the scriptures, both biblical and uniquely LDS.

It is, in quality however far removed in quantity, the same thing as excommunication. A former Saint, whose membership has been nullified by excommunication, is no longer under obligation to observe the commandments he once covenanted to obey. But it requires a Priesthood ordinance to end that covenant, just as it was necessary to establish it by baptism. Excommnuication is a merciful application of the law because the person whose covenants are nullified can, from that point onward, continue to live his life of sin without its being accounted to him as sin, the covenant that made those acts sinful no longer applying.

When the Lord, the God of the Old Testament, mercifully terminated the covenants of the slaughtered peoples by the slaughter itself, He ended their sinful lives and allowed them to cease adding to their wickedness. We read, for example, in Genesis, that the iniquity of the Ammorites was not yet full, and would not be, apparently, for another 400 years. So, it was not on a whim that God ended their covenants: He waited four centuries (and probably a lot longer than that) before exercising His right, under the terms of the covenantal agreement, to wipe their iniquity from the face of the earth. He wrote the agreement, to be sure, but they were willing participants to it and to all of its terms.

In the mid-III, there was a heretical sect of Christianity called the Marcionites. Their founder postulated a different God for the New Covenant than the One Whom we find in the OldTestament precisely because he, Marcion, didn't like the "evil, angry, unpleasant, petty, and vain", God he imagined the "Old Testament God" to be. As to all those in the modern world who accuse God of such "crimes", one is left to wonder if they'd like to re-write ecclesiastical history so the Marcionites would be the victors instead of the Catholic/Orthodox churches. Of course, Marcion was a heretic, and rejected a great deal of the Bible (among other things), so they'd probably not enjoy the title, but, for all practical purposes, we see Marcion in our midst even today.

Those who try to impose a terrestrial view on an inherently eternal prospect miss a vital point: God really doesn't care too much about this life. We are here to fulfill a couple of major goals (get a body, learn to obey, make covenants and keep them), and the plan requires that many or most of us live quite a while so new people can come to earth. In the long run, what happens to us is relatively insignificant: we live, we die—it's universal. But what happens to us, or, better, how we react to what happens to us, determines the people we will be throughout eternity.

God is required by His godhood, to punish us for our sins, especially the sin of covenant breaking. His mercy is demonstrated when He ends our rebellion so as to limit the self-inflicted damage we cause, and even more importantly, in a critical area, to damage we could inflict on our children and grandchildren because of that covenant breaking. Covenant breakers are the most unhappy of God's children—He loves them, and wants them to stop. It is obvious to me, at least, that "slaughtering them on this earth is more an optimal choice than permitting them to continue in their perversions.

For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

He does not want us to fail, in spite of our best worst efforts at doing so.

Lehi

Edited February 14, 2012 by LeSellers

[altersteve]

I guess "slaughter" is a bit of a strong word that could be interpreted as synonymous with "murder," and obviously God doesn't "murder" anyone. But I agree with you, Lehi.

[Nevo]

This view of God -- that he slaughters people -- how is this compatible in any way with a belief in a loving God?

I think God has the right to take away life, as well as give it, and I can imagine circumstances in which it might merciful and/or just for God to prematurely shorten someone's mortal probation.

However, I do not share the worldview of those Old Testament writers who pictured God as an Ancient Near Eastern suzerain who brutalizes any and all who fail to pay him sufficient deference, whether they've made a treaty ("covenant") with him or not.

I worship a God who is good, who loves his children and who seeks their welfare. That God is also found in the Old Testament, as well as the New.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Nevo

[zerinus]

Simply put, why does God seem so "evil, angry, unpleasant, petty, and vain" in the Old Testament?

That depends on how you want to look at it. While to some it may appear like that, to others it does not. So perhaps the real question is, Why are people's outlook on that so different.

Edited February 14, 2012 by zerinus

[Nevo]

When the Lord, the God of the Old Testament, mercifully terminated the covenants of the slaughtered peoples by the slaughter itself, He ended their sinful lives and allowed them to cease adding to their wickedness. We read, for example, in Genesis, that the iniquity of the Ammorites was not yet full, and would not be, apparently, for another 400 years. So, it was not on a whim that God ended their covenants: He waited four centuries (and probably a lot longer than that) before exercising His right, under the terms of the covenantal agreement, to wipe their iniquity from the face of the earth. He wrote the agreement, to be sure, but they were willing participants to it and to all of its terms.

There is no record of the Amorites ever entering into a covenant with YHWH (neither is there for the inhabitants of Jericho and Ai, and the Amalekites). Fortunately, the accounts of their destruction are largely fictional.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I'm sorry, but it is complete bull$hit to think that breaking a covenant is worth being brutally murdered. The God of the Deuteronomist histories would be a monster if those histories were accurate. If killing women and children is the only way this supposedly all-powerful deity has found to persuade people to be good, then I'd just as soon worship someone else, such as my atheist family members who don't feel the need to enforce their "covenants" by telling other family members to slaughter each other with blunt preindustrial weapons.

Joshua ordered the destruction of helpless children. The supposedly-righteous priests killed people and piled their charred bones on their altars. It is absolutely terrifying to me when we find ways to excuse some of the horrific violence perpetuated by fanatics in the Old Testament - the God I worship is the one who is working to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of His children, the one who mourns even the deaths of sparrows.

Blessed are the peacemakers. There are beautiful passages by Prophets in the Old and New Testaments, as well as the Book of Mormon, D&C, and Pearl of Great Price about how loving, kind, and reasonable God is, and how His work is to bring to pass eternal life, not killing.

Let's be very clear about what we're talking about here: look up a video of terrorists beheading prisoners. There are plenty online, I'll wait. Listen to the gurgling screams as these people drown in their own blood. Now imagine God commanding worse than that in response to someone breaking a promise.

If you still believe it's just hunky-dory for God to command that, then I gotta say, that's not God you're listening to. It's the other guy.

Edited February 14, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Damien the Leper]

This view of God -- that he slaughters people -- how is this compatible in any way with a belief in a loving God?

Duh! When we upset a loving God, He has no choice but to punish by slaughter. Or maybe the Gnostics got it right in recognizing the God of the OT is actually the Demiurge also proposed by Aristotle.

I actually have no idea. I'd like an explanation...cue Maklelan and Volgadon please!

[Damien the Leper]

In the mid-III, there was a heretical sect of Christianity called the Marcionites. Their founder postulated a different God for the New Covenant than the One Whom we find in the OldTestament precisely because he, Marcion, didn't like the "evil, angry, unpleasant, petty, and vain", God he imagined the "Old Testament God" to be. As to all those in the modern world who accuse God of such "crimes", one is left to wonder if they'd like to re-write ecclesiastical history so the Marcionites would be the victors instead of the Catholic/Orthodox churches. Of course, Marcion was a heretic, and rejected a great deal of the Bible (among other things), so they'd probably not enjoy the title, but, for all practical purposes, we see Marcion in our midst even today.

Lehi

Marcion propogated a belief system that the OT God was evil and inferior to the true God of the NT. He basically condemned the OT and all the Jewish practices and beliefs (anti-semitism in the form of pseudo-theological vomit). He would have also rejected Matthew's Gospel and James' Epistle because the primary audiences were Jewish-Christians or Ebionites.

[Damien the Leper]

I'm sorry, but it is complete bull$hit to think that breaking a covenant is worth being brutally murdered. The God of the Deuteronomist histories would be a monster if those histories were accurate. If killing women and children is the only way this supposedly all-powerful deity has found to persuade people to be good, then I'd just as soon worship someone else, such as my atheist family members who don't feel the need to enforce their "covenants" by telling other family members to slaughter each other with blunt preindustrial weapons.

Joshua ordered the destruction of helpless children. The supposedly-righteous priests killed people and piled their charred bones on their altars. It is absolutely terrifying to me when we find ways to excuse some of the horrific violence perpetuated by fanatics in the Old Testament - the God I worship is the one who is working to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of His children, the one who mourns even the deaths of sparrows.

Blessed are the peacemakers. There are beautiful passages by Prophets in the Old and New Testaments, as well as the Book of Mormon, D&C, and Pearl of Great Price about how loving, kind, and reasonable God is, and how His work is to bring to pass eternal life, not killing.

Let's be very clear about what we're talking about here: look up a video of terrorists beheading prisoners. There are plenty online, I'll wait. Listen to the gurgling screams as these people drown in their own blood. Now imagine God commanding worse than that in response to someone breaking a promise.

If you still believe it's just hunky-dory for God to command that, then I gotta say, that's not God you're listening to. It's the other guy.

Amazingly heart felt post, Jeremy. Thanks for sharing.

[mathilde]

Jeremy, that was one of the most clear and meaningful posts I've read in awhile. Thank you.

[Yep]

To respond to this topic I must explain one of my perspectives on the Scriptures and really on how God has interacted with the Earth and it's inhabitants.

1 - Everything temporal is a type, symbol or other representation of something eternal.

2 - There are multiple layers of understanding to nearly every concept.

3 - It is possible for a given subject to be a representation of two nearly, perhaps completely, unrelated concepts.

To answer this question I often view the scriptures as a parenting/family guide.

As the record progresses through time we can view Man as the child and God as the parent. I view the fall as birth. Man is then an infant and child up until the flood, which is a representation of baptism. Man then enters late childhood and remains there until Moses. At Moses Man enters the teens, the Aaronic priesthood is available to boys. Man reaches adulthood with the coming of Christ and a shift towards motive and philosophical right and wrong.

With regards to the perceived "wrongs" that are committed "by" God, pay attention to the age of Man. When a child/teen/man is being taught and disciplined the method employed differs with the maturity level of the individual. Children often require teaching and discipline often with difficulty in having the child understand that behavior A is incompatible with behavior B, thus behavior B must be punished while behavior A is being taught.

With child penalties for improper behavior often need to be severe to teach the child to stay away from some behaviors. If you study punishment in psychology, you will learn that punishment must be severe. A punishment must be severe enough that the subject cannot tolerate it. Punishment is only a method to suppress behavior, the more severe the punishment the longer the suppression. The longer an improper behavior is suppressed the more time is available to teach the proper behavior.

As a child matures, the method of discipline becomes more teaching and explanation than punishment. Man is currently in the Adult period of his maturity. Life is not the same now as it was then. Life isn't fair, it is often near unbearable. As a child Man didn't know everything Man knows now, Man also didn't have the level of responsibility and freedom that we have now either.

Those punished during other periods will be judged based on their existence and we on ours. Honestly, I often wish I had been born during a time when God needed to be severe with his children, life was much more simple then.

[Grundelwalken]

Because He understands the power of and reasons for covenants.

The people He slaughtered (or had slaughtered) were covenants breakers Although the Bible, as we have it today, does not explicitly identify this, it is apparent that Noah's people had broken covenants. The peoples of Canaan broke covenants, the Israelites broke covenants. The Jaredites broke covenants. The Nephites broke covenants. We, today, are breaking covenants. I fear the"God of the Old Testament" will have little choice but to remind us of the power and reason for covenants, and the He will do it as He did it in the past.

Lehi

I believe that the death of mankind is often considered in the wrong light. Heavenly Father does not see death as a punishment or a part of retribution but rather as an opportunity to bring the offender to a different state where they might be able to continue/begin the process of repentance. Remember, mortality is only one step in the overall plan.

When the flood occurred, God was not destroying the people because he hated them!!! His love is so deep and his knowledge is so sure that He could see further preaching to the wicked would not result in repentance. Additionally, all the spirits who were awaiting birth into mortality were worried about their chances for progression. In order to further the Plan, Father determined that it was time to start afresh. All those souls who were drowned were placed in Spirit Prison and were taught the basics of the gospel in the hope they might accept.

The same would be said for the Canaanites at the time of Moses and the Jaredites and any other culture that was "destroyed" by the Lord. These were acts of love, performed to help His children find some semblance of progression. I am not a believer in a God of vengeance. Ours is a God of love and every action He takes is to show His love. Man's interpretations are not always so loving. MW

[Rob Bowman]

Jeremy,

Before you dismiss the God of the Old Testament as a monster, let me highly recommend the book Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God by Paul Copan (Baker, 2011). Paul also wrote an article that is available free online entitled "Is Yahweh a Moral Monster?" (also available in PDF format). Paul's book has already sparked some spirited debate and gotten many people to consider this subject more seriously.

[blackstrap]

It appears to me that the writers of the Old Testament attributed every event to the will of God,whether that event was good or evil. There was a fire,God willed it,some one was wicked. There was a drought,God willed it,someone was wicked.Even the disciples of Christ followed this logic when they inquired of Christ about the man born blind,who had sinned,him or his parents.God then gets the blame or praise for everything. That seems to be the mindset of the writers. How is it justifiable to destroy a generation of people who are 400 years and what, 15 generations removed from the people who initially made God upset?

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Thanks for the essay, Rob. Alas, I found it utterly unsatisfying.

I definitely agree with the idea that the OT's "is" does not always amount to "ought". The problem is that there are plenty of places (which the essay does not cover) where the "is" really is, quite explicitly, the "ought"!

Because I believe Joseph Smith was even more correct than he knew when he said that "from sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of man, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled," and "Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors," and "to become a joint heir of the heirship of the Son, one must put away all his false traditions," it doesn't bother me to find that the scriptures have been massively corrupted. It was given to people in their weakness. The Book of Mormon says that many plain and precious truths were lost. As Jude said, "certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness."

But even if many parts of the Old Testament are simply fictional, it's still pointing to the existence of a true God. (Counterfeits preserve useful truths, even if they are fundamentally dishonest - if the only record that's been handed down has been doctored, it's still the most precious text in the world.)

The thing is, I have to agree with the New Atheists: there are plenty of reasons not to murder people, and we don't need God to tell us that. The fundamental problem is that because I view God as another Uncreated Intelligence like us, the atheistic "naturalistic" argument is ultimately correct: there is no "meaning" to existence except the meaning we make for ourselves. At the fundamental level, no one was "created" because we have all existed in some form forever, and so no one has authority over another person except through allegiance.

Contra the "final thoughts" in this essay, theism is exactly as unequipped to account for ethical "normativity." "God said so" establishes absolutely nothing. If we are all Uncreated Intelligences, then we simply exist. God breathed us into our bodies for this life, but - much like the evolution vs. creationism question - that just pushes the issue one step back. This essay, like countless others, commits the fallacy of assuming there is a dichotomy between "naturalism" and theism. Which is silly - if the historical claims of theism are correct, then it is a part of nature.

Nature is everything which exists; it's impossible for something to exist "outside" or "above" it, because that is a complete contradiction of terms. (I find the outside-of-time God of most Christianity to be philosophically indistinguishable from atheism anyway. A being with no body or parts or passions is not, in my view, a person at all, it's ... nothingness. Void.)

The entire essay hinges on what is one of the weakest, most insulting arguments in favor of theology, and it's high time we theists kicked it out of collective consciousness, because it seriously damages our standing in the thinking world. "Without God, we won't be able to judge good from evil!" Nonsense. What gives God any more authority than anyone else in saying what is "good"? If anything is truly Good, then it is Good independent of any single person's say-so. The Book of Mormon is clear on this point: if the work of Justice is destroyed, God ceases to be a God worth worshipping.

The essayist wonders "how human value and dignity could emerge given naturalism’s valueless, mindless, materialist origins," which, I'm sorry, shows how completely up theism's butt he is. What else is there except materialism? If something is not "material" in some way, how can it be said to exist at all? All matter is spirit, all spirit is matter. The idea that right and wrong is proved "objective" merely because we're "morally constituted to reflect God in certain ways" is incorrect. If a scientist creates a test-tube baby in a lab and then tortures it, that scientist is not a paragon of morality merely because he created his little creature. Same goes for God.

I'll take a shot: organisms have evolved to feel pain. Pain is unpleasant, because, durr, it's painful. While this cannot be said to be "objectively" evil, I still don't want people to cause me pain. Because I don't want to give people a reason to cause me pain, and because people have historically defended themselves violently when they are subjected to pain, then in order for me not to experience pain, logically I should not cause others pain.

Presto. Golden Rule. Moral society. Whether anyone else follows the rules is a separate question. But why is following God's orders assumed to be moral? There is simply no reason given, it's just a premise masquerading as a conclusion.

I do not trust God merely because without Him I wouldn't exist in some form - I trust Him because I believe that His plan to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of humanity is a good one, independent of Him. I would ally myself with that plan even if He did not exist. Again, I must emphasize: if the work of Justice were to be destroyed, God would cease to be a God worth worshipping; He would have Fallen. God is bound to Law - the Law is not good merely because He says so. He is not the author.

It's fine to say that the historical circumstances surrounding a societal overhaul would be difficult. I agree that there are subtle improvements in the Mosaic codes, from the surrounding ANE, etc. The problem is that there are plenty of other places in the text - which the essay either glosses over, or simply does not engage - where there is absolutely no hint whatsoever that God has societal overhaul in mind. If the text is inerrant, then it explicitly claims that these horrific actions are, in fact, the will of God, full stop. Pointing out the sins of your neighbors does not excuse your own.

Since I believe the authors to be fallible nationalistic historians, I have to filter their bias from the text and look not at what they claim to be good, but rather the actual actions recorded, and judge those independent of the historian's spin.

And there is no circumstance where marrying foreigners is worth the death penalty. Where worshipping a statue is worth the death penalty.

"The 'obliteration language' in Joshua is clearly hyperbolic"? Clearly? What is this guy talking about? Even if it were merely hyperbolic, how is that any better? If there were Canaanites left over, that just means Joshy wasn't successful at annihilating them, not that the language was mere hyperbole.

I don't believe that everything in existence was created by God, and if the only reason He can command Joshua to take life is because there is "a robust sense in which the cosmos belongs to God", then in my book His authority utterly evaporates. A parent who creates a child has no right to kill that child, unless death is the only way to keep the child from killing others. Since God is supposedly all-powerful, there must be a way for Him to prevent the child from killing others without killing the child. To say, as the author of the essay does, that God is somehow morally superior because he takes the lives of Canaanites "indirectly" is sheer nonsense. Hitler is guilty of genocide even if he didn't personally kill all bazillion Jews.

And the "collateral damage" analogy is deeply, deeply wrong. It was not some tragic necessity that women and children were killed - it was a direct command.

Polygamy only allowed because monogamy would have been "difficult to enforce"? This is utterly laughable. Apparently it wasn't "difficult" to slaughter the Canaanites?

On an on like that.

(Of course, this is all just elaborations on the differences between our versions of Christianity - if God is literally all-powerful and the first-cause creator of everything in existence, then He created us Fallen because He created the conditions in which we were capable of the Fall, and for Him to punish us for our disobedience when He Himself created from nothing the very possibility of our disobedience makes Him a totalitarian nightmare. The essay relies on human fallenness to explain away God's deeds towards humanity, but if God was the ultimate first-cause of humanity's fallenness, then this is sheer smoke and mirrors. And then the essay goes so far as to claim that the histories are subversively democratic?)

God [in a resigned, trembling voice]: "Oh, poor, poor, pitiful Me. Israel doesn't love My awesomeness. They committed adultery with other Gods."

" ... I guess that justifies killing nursing women and babies! That'll show my Bride how "deeply and meaningfully committed to marriage" I am!"

I say again: nonsense. If Joe Schmoe said this, you'd back away slowly and call the police. Frankly, I expect the Master of the Universe to have slightly more evolved morals than Joe Schmoe. Pretty pathetic if that's the best example I can find to get my imitatio Dei on.

There's a "compassionate drift" and a "warm heartbeat" in the historical sections? That is some serious grasping at straws, dudes.

I really don't care if Abraham lied to save his skin. Nibley's got a good section in Abraham in Egypt where he shows that that bit is likely ritualistic anyway. That's one of the most minor things I can think of in the Bible, and the fact that we waste any time at all debating it is because we're avoiding talking about the, y'know, blatant genocides.

This all comes off as desperate excuses on God's behalf. Partisanship. Oh, those atheists are so mean and nasty to the Bible. Better find some way to defend the indefensible.

Genesis 34, Simeon and Levi avenge Dinah by murdering every man, woman, and child in the village which produced the one who raped her. Their father Jacob wants them to change their ways, repent, be cleansed and be forgiven, yet they are incredulous: are you calling her a harlot? Their zealous honor was so threatened that they committed genocide and were justified in their own minds for their thirst for blood. But does the evil done to Dinah justify the evil they committed?

Evil to a man like Judah - who sold his own brother, lied about it to his father, blamed Tamar as if she was the reason his sons were cursed, then slept with that same woman who might have been his daughter in law because she tricked him into thinking she was a prostitute, and then wanted to burn her at the stake as a whore until he realized that she was carrying his own twins - might not be evil to God. The scribe who compiled this history claims that Jehovah thinks Er is evil and kills him, yet Jehovah is not actually present. Did Jehovah really kill Onan, or is it the scribe's interpretation of the history that Jehovah must have killed them because he sinned in some way?

Do we frame God into committing atrocities in order to justify our own, like Potiphar's wife, framing Joseph for the sins she wanted to commit by using the very garment that proclaimed his innocence? Are we like Potiphar, trusting a loved one more than those who have shown that they speak the truth?

Maybe we can repent like Judah at his reconciliation with his brother Joseph, or like Joseph's brothers at the death of their father, asking Joseph to forgive the wrongs they did in youth - because Joseph was a man of God, he was able to forgive them and find the good in it, find a purpose that served God.

The Joseph Smith Translation clarifies (as if it wasn't obvious before) that it was not God who hardened Pharaoh's heart - to say so was merely the custom in ancient times to ascribe all events to God, but it doesn't work if we want him to retain free agency. It was his choice to harden his heart.

19:14 "Be ready for the third day [when the Lord comes]: do not go near a woman." Nowhere is it said that this counsel is from God; seems more like Moses' male-dominated society.

Exodus 23:23, Jewish Study Bible: "When My angel goes before you and brings you to the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, and I annihilate them, you shall not bow down to their gods in worship or follow their practices, but shall tear them down and smash their pillars to bits."

23:27 KJV:"I will send my fear before thee, and will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt come, and I will make all thine enemies turn their backs unto thee." He mentions how he will "drive out nations from your path" also in 33:2, 34:11, 34:24, by sending a plague of hornets to them.

JSB, Exodus 32:10: Now, let me be, that My anger may blaze forth against them and that I may destroy them, and make of you a great nation.

On the mountain, Moses is so enraged that he says, in the name of the Lord, "Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor." Yet nowhere is it recorded that the Lord actually said what Moses said he said - in fact, the Lord specifically renounced his initial thought to punish them by walking unprotected among them and burning them with their knowledge of their own infidelity. If anything, Moses is going against his own counsel which he spoke to the Lord. "Satan shall deceive even the very elect." Is killing three thousand people (assuming the number is correct, which is in doubt) according to the Mosaic laws of adultery truly righteous?

The scribe tells us that the LORD sent a plague upon the people for what they did with the calf Aaron made, but we have no idea where he got that notion. The LORD tells us when he makes plagues, like with Pharaoh. He didn't say he'd make a plague for punishing Israel's sins.

When people see someone die, they often automatically jump to saying that "God must have done it!" without thinking about whether it would be going against God's teachings and his established pattern for him to act in such a way.

But not every plague is a sign from God that the people are sinning. Most often, they hit places where people have not even had the Law! When people kill each other and claim it to be in the name of God, they are merely borrowing authority. "Lo, here is Christ, lo, there." God does these things openly, not in secret combinations.

I have no explanation for the deaths of Nadab and Abihu that satisfies me. Was the fire that went out before the Lord intentional on his part? I can't say. In 16, it seems like the Lord is caring and concerned for Aaron's well-being, which might be a point in my theory that God did not "strike them down" but rather was witness to an accident.

Leviticus is a pretty horrifying and brutal book in general - burning harlots and adulterers? 20:10-16, where homosexuality and other sins are punishable by death? Stoning the blasphemer in 24:10? Keeping slaves and treating them as such? True, I think it's important to remember the time and place in which it was written, in which these laws serve a specific function: to keep this comparatively small group of people together despite the stresses of the close-knit, nomadic lifestyle, in a harsh time in history. Yet isn't it just possible that it was a "corrupt and designing priest" who justified these laws by attaching them to Moses and the LORD for authority?

Numbers 11: We don't know whether the fire was from the Lord - it's a guess from those who believe the complainers were sinning, but the actual cause of the fire is unclear.

Frankly, I do not believe God would give someone a skin disease for questioning him, as in Miriam's case. And I hope God has a good reason for leaving her unhealed.

The stories of the man being stoned in 15:32-36 and the earthquake, fire, and plagues starting at 16:25 haunt me. I doubt I'll ever stop being conflicted by them. Yes, the wood-gatherer was defying the law with a flagrant violation - but was stoning really the only way? Yes, there was an insurrection in the camp, but couldn't the LORD have spared the wives and children?

The entire Book of Numbers goes on like that: the people join in the plague-spreading whoring and Ba'al worship, but that worship had damn well better be nothing less than the child-sacrifice mentioned in Deuteronomy 12:31 to justify Jehovah telling Moses to publicly impale all the chiefs and for Phinehas to impale the Israelite and the woman and for the slaughter of the Midianites, the capture of their women and children, burning villages.

Similarly, in Deuteronomy 2:34 and 3:6, is it really the LORD himself who "doomed every town - men, women, and children - leaving no survivor"? Isn't the whole point of the Abraham and Isaac story that God hates child sacrifice? 7:16's call for the Israelites to destroy all the people that the LORD delivers to them is from Moses.

It goes on: the call to kill infidels in Deuteronomy 13:7-12 and burn their town as a holocaust in 13:16-17, the allowance in 20:14 of taking as booty the women, children, iivestock, and everything else in the town. Sure, maybe laws like 21:10, describing the procedure for capturing a woman and possessing her only after a month of prettying her up and letting her mourn are actually vast improvements over whatever the situation was like before, but it's still ghastly. Maybe God was working in a terrible time, and did the best he could without forcing people's wills ... or maybe the Deuteronomist history is a retroactive attempt to bolster authority.

Especially abhorrent is the idea that it's necessary to stone women and men to death because they committed fornication or adultery. No Ammonites or Moabites in the congregation? Nocturnal emissions unclean? Marrying twice abhorrent? God punishing Miriam with plague for her disobedience? Forced marriage? Cut off wife's hand in a fight if she grabs the attacker's genitals (or shave her genitals in a public humiliation, as the essayist claims)? Curses on Mount Ebal for Reuben, Gad, Asher, Zebulun, Dan, and Naphtali? The LORD "delighting" in plagues? Are these God's laws, or the best laws that Moses could come up with? When Christ later reforms them, is it because God changed, or because the earlier scribes had interpolated laws into the historical record which were not originally there?

Joshua: Killing every man woman and child? Stoning and burning Achan? Executing the kings? Makkedah killing everyone? We don't know if Ehud was being righteous or wicked when acting as an assassin for Israel against King Ehud, because we don't know if the Moabites were good or evil. 10,000 of them might be good or bad, and Shamgar's slaying of 600 is similarly ambiguous.

Yes, the people who refused the three hundred men food and water were terrible sinners, but was Gideon justified when he returns and vindictively punishes the people of Succoth with desert thorns and briars, tearing down the tower and killing the townspeople of Penuel?

Did God really send a spirit of discord between Abimelech and the citizens of Shechem after he killed his 70 half-brothers? I side with Jotham, because neither the people nor the ruler were righteous, I side with Gaal who tried to battle Abimelech, who then took his army cut down boughs from the trees and burned the people of the Tower of Shechem when they were hiding in the tunnels. Yet I don't think it was God who killed Abimelech - I think it was the woman who dropped the millstone on his head, regardless of whether or not his armsbearer delivered the last cut. We appropriate God and assume everything that happens is something he did.

In Judges 10:6, the scribe assumes it is because the Israelites worshipped the Baalim and the Ashtaroth that the LORD surrendered them to the Philistines and the Ammonites. Same as in 13:1. Yet we don't know to whom God talked to, or if his words are recorded accurately by the scribe - we don't know that it was because they removed the foreign gods from their midst that God saved them.

Similarly, it is merely the scribe's assertion that it was the spirit of the LORD which delivered the Ammonites into Jephthah's hand. His vow to sacrifice "whatever comes out of the door of [his] tent ... as a burnt offering [to the LORD]," which results in the killing of his own daughter, is not a requirement of any kind of God that I want to worship.

Yes, Samson was preordained to do a work, but was it really the Spirit of the LORD which gripped him when he killed the thirty Philistines merely for winning a bet? What about when he sets the 300 foxes carrying torches into their fields because he was not allowed to marry the woman he despised anyway? Yes, the Philistines were wrong to punish the father and daughter, but does that give Samson the right to take revenge on them with a sound and thorough thrashing? Was it the Spirit of the LORD which took him when he used the jawbone of an *** to kill a thousand men? Was it merely the fact that his Nazirite hair had been cut which caused the LORD to depart from him, or had he Fallen long before? Was it really the LORD who gave him strength to kill all the blasphemers when he caused their temple to crash?

Was it the LORD who blessed the Danites through Micah's Levite priest to take the land of Laish through sword and fire? The same Levite who stole Micah's images, the ephod, and household gods?

I don't think holding the Priesthood makes one immune to sin - was the LORD with the Levite who pushed his concubine out to be raped by the men who wanted him? Was the LORD with him when he cut her up into 12 pieces to send to every territory in Israel? It was the Israelites who were decent enough to listen to the LORD telling them through their weeping to try to stop the men who the Benjaminites would not give up. But do all the thousands they slaughtered bring back the one woman who died? Does it excuse them from taking their 12000 warriors and putting the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead to the sword, women and children included? Taking the 400 virgins as a peace-treaty with the Benjaminites? For encouraging the Benjaminites to lie in wait in the vineyards and seize wives from among the girls of Shiloh? "In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did as he pleased."

The sons of Eli were wicked, but was it the LORD who was resolved that they should die? Did he strike the Ashdodites and give them the plague? Did he strike the 50000 men of Beth-shemesh because they looked into the Ark after it was stolen? Did he cause Saul to threaten anyone who didn't serve in his and Samuel's army with the dismemberment he demonstrated with his cattle? Did He really tell Samuel to tell Saul to kill alike men and women, infants and sucklings? Was it the LORD who watched as Samuel cut Agag down at Gilgal, or was it the evil spirit that had begun to terrify Saul in the name of the LORD? Did He really strike Nabal after he refused to help David?

Was it the LORD who justified David's killing of the Amalekite who finished off Saul? Was it the LORD who killed Uzzah when he tried to stop the Ark of the Covenant from falling? Was it the LORD who afflicted Bathsheba's child with the fatal illness? Was he with Shimei as he punished David? The advice which Ahithophel gave to Absalom to sleep with his father's concubines was accepted like an oracle sought from God in those days, but was it? Was it the LORD who brought about ruin to Absalom, who punished David's reign with three years of famine as "blood-guilt" for Saul's house, which had put to death some Gibeonites? Was he satisfied when David gave the seven men to be impaled by the Gibeonites on the mountain of the LORD?

He is attributed the victory of Shammah, attributed as the angry cause of David's census of Israel and Judah. Gad the seer says that God holds three things above David, which he will have to choose from: a a seven-year famine, a three month flight running from adversaries, or three days of pestilence in the land. Did the LORD send a pestilence on Israel? Did David really see the Angel of the LORD striking down the 70,000 at the threshing floor of Araunah, only to be placated by the altar Gad commanded David to build?

Yes, Shimei had tormented David on his flight away from Absalom, but did the LORD Himself justify Solomon when he carried out his father's vengeance through Benaiah's slaying of Shimei?

In First Kings, the scribe asserts often that "the LORD had given Solomon wisdom", yet there is little that stands out particularly beyond his magnificent building projects. His imposition of forced labor on all of Israel to build a house of the LORD sounds more like Satan's plan than God's, as does his enslavement of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites he was not able to annihilate. Queen Sheba's praises read more as politically-minded flattery to me than genuine honor. It's the assumption of the scribe that it was the LORD who raised up Hadad the Edomite and Rezon son of Eliada to counter Solomon.

I'm not sure that we should assume that Ahijah was a true prophet rather than someone posing as one for political purposes - certainly the very next story shows that "Prophets" are not above lying. (1 Kings 12:29) So neither should we assume that the LORD would really punish the Man of God for daring to go back and eat bread and drink water by not allowing his corpse to rest in the grave of his fathers and having a lion maul him. The scribe portrays the Prophet who fed him as a tragic hero, countering Jeroboam's using the altar in Bethel and the cult places in the towns of Samaria and appointing priests for the shrines from the ranks of the people. Even if Jeroboam is sinning, does that mean all who oppose him are righteous? When Ahijah's son Baasha strikes down the entire House of Jeroboam, without sparing a single soul, in accordance to what "the LORD" had spoken to his father, are we supposed to take this as anything more than political maneuvering? Yes, the scribe can claim that the LORD was vexed, but then, Satan can appear as the Angel of Light.

Was the destruction of the House of Baasha and the death of Zimri on behalf of the LORD just because the scribe says it was?

Is Elijah justified in slaughtering the prophets of Ba'al after their contest, or is he repentant about his violence when he says that he is no better than his fathers? Again, at 19:17, the LORD saying that "whoever escapes the sword of Hazael shall be slain by Jehu, and whoever escapes the sword of Jehu shall be slain by Elisha", leaving only seven thousand people who have not knelt to Ba'al, Ba'al worship had better be pretty damn evil if this is to be justified.

Did the unnamed prophets who spoke to the King of Israel while he fought the Arameans truly speak for God? Does God truly prove himself by whoever wins an unrighteous war, or are the wicked destroyed by the wicked, as in the BoM? In 1 Kings 20:35, a certain man, a disciple of the prophets, tells another, in the name of the LORD, that because he will not hit him, a lion will strike him dead as soon as he leaves, which the narrator says actually happened. Is this truly because of something God did?

Then when he meets another man who is willing to strike him, he uses the injury to fool King Ahab. Perhaps he is no more honest than Jezebel, when she wrote letters in Ahab's name and caused Naboth to die for a false word of the LORD. Are the 400 Prophets who advise the King of Israel to ride into battle to retake land and gore the Arameans with iron horns any better? No, because they are speaking with a lying spirit. Though Micaiah goes along with the false consensus at first, he also concludes by cautioning that he sees all Israel scattered over the hills like sheep without a shepherd, meaning Ahab will likely be destroyed.

Elisha being teased as a "bald-head" is simply not sufficient grounds for sending two she-bears to mangle 42 of the jeering children.

Gehazi, Elisha's servant, lies to the Aramean Naaman in order to get two talents of silver and two changes of clothing - yet he did so "as the LORD lives", so clearly merely invoking the name of the LORD is not enough to prove the righteousness of the act.

Jehu's letters to the elders and officials of Jezreel and to the guardians of the children of Ahab to take the heads of the attendants is not from the LORD. Slaughtered the 42 kinsmen of Ahaziah at Beth-eked. Jehu forced the prophets of Baal to come to feast in order to exterminate them. Though the scribe chastises him and his followers for worshiping the golden calves, he apparently approves of the destruction and genocide, and records the LORD as saying so as well. Priest Jehoiadah gives the command to take Athaliah out and put her to daeth. After sealing the covenants, Jehoiada and all the people of the land went to the temple of Baal, tore it down, slew the priest, etc.

Did the LORD really send lions to those who occupied Samaria after them?

In Jeremiah 13:14, is it God himself who will "smash [the inhabitants of Jerusalem] one against the other, parents and children alike - declares the LORD; no pity, compassion, or mercy will stop Me from destroying them." Or will this happen due to his actions in the world, which will cause people to die by the sword?

51:20, the charming poem in which "God" describes all the ways he has used Babylon as a club to punish people.

On and on and on like that.

Fundamentalists and atheists read the text in exactly the same way: if the text (or any historical figure in the text) claims that God did something, then it must be true, and any attempt to argue against the inerrant, infallible text is a sign of infidelity or hypocrisy. But we worship the living God, not the dead words of a mere book whose epigrams may be taken out of context to form specious proof-texts.

What is the point of all this horror? I think it's what the LORD himself says over and over: "How many times would I have gathered you up, but you would not?" We seem to be perpetually taking the LORD's name in vain by using His authority to justify our own freewill-denying practices, when if we were following the true Priesthood of God, we would know that no power can or ought to be maintained by mere authority, but only by kindness and meekness and longsuffering and love unfeigned. When we attempt to coerce others by force, the Heavens withdraw themselves, and amen to the Priesthood of that man. We rebel against the family of God, and turn this world into the stage upon which we fight our perpetual civil wars.

In our pride, we look for excuses to come up with pretentious shibboleths just like the men of Gilead and slay those who do not pronounce our lying justifications for violence correctly.

42,000 Ephraimites.

We are not somehow arrogant to judge the God-as-written in these terrible passages. We cannot abrogate our responsibility to use the Light of Christ in ourselves to discern truth from falsehood, we cannot shrug these atrocities off and assume they are an accurate representation of God's will, which we simply cannot understand with our mortal minds and therefore accept as if they are not evil. But this is the great strength of the Hebrew Bible - the sheer honesty with which these people were recorded. They are not the perfect divine kings of other ancient records. They have real flaws, yet God works through them, or in spite of them.

Frankly, I cannot believe in much of the Old Testament's reporting of God. Or if it's correct, then I refuse to worship Him. I prefer the Book of Mormon:

“For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.” - 2 Nephi 26:33

I prefer Joseph Smith's teachings:

“We ought always to be aware of those prejudices which sometimes so strangely present themselves, and are so congenial to human nature, against our friends, neighbors, and brethren of the world, who choose to differ from us in opinion and in matters of faith. Our religion is between us and our God. Their religion is between them and their God. There is a love from God that should be exercised toward those of our faith, who walk uprightly, which is peculiar to itself, but it is without prejudice; it also gives scope to the mind, which enables us to conduct ourselves with greater liberality towards all that are not of our faith, than what they exercise towards one another.”

"While one portion of the human race is judging and condemning the other without mercy, the Great Parent of the universe looks upon the whole of the human family with a fatherly care and paternal regard; He views them as His offspring, and without any of those contracted feelings that influence the children of man, causes "His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." He holds the reins of judgment in His hands; He is a wise Lawgiver, and will judge all men, not according to the narrow, contracted notions of men, but, "according to the deeds done in the body whether they be good or evil," or whether these deeds were done in England, America, Spain, Turkey, or India. He will judge them, "not according to what they have not, but according to what they have," those who have lived without law, will be judged without law, and those who have a law, will by judged by that law. We need not doubt the wisdom and intelligence of the Great Jehovah; He will award judgment or mercy to all nations according to their several deserts, their means of obtaining intelligence, the laws by which they are governed, the facilities afforded them of obtaining correct information, and His inscrutable designs in relation to the human family; and when the designs of God shall be made manifest, and the curtain of futurity be withdrawn, we shall all of us eventually have to confess that the Judge of all the earth has done right."

"Sectarian priests cry out concerning me, and ask, 'Why is it this babbler gains so many followers, and retains them?' I answer, 'It is because I possess the principle of love. All I can offer the world is a good heart and a good hand.'"

Edited February 15, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Ron Beron]

I'm currently having a discussion with an atheist on another forum, and he brought up the topic of God in the Old Testament, how God, in the Old Testament, acts "evil, angry, unpleasant, petty, and vain." I have my own answers for this question, but perhaps this topic could be used to discuss these acts of God: His anger, for example, and His "justice system" as outlined within the books of Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

Simply put, why does God seem so "evil, angry, unpleasant, petty, and vain" in the Old Testament?

It has a lot to do with who was writing the description. ANE deities were not the most pleasant beings to be around. Man was simply a servant to the gods. In the Hebrew concept man acchieved an atonement with God, thereby making Him a regal firm deity, but not necessarily a cruel one. I believe that many ancient Hebrews conflated their beliefs of God's strength and virile agression with that of the other deities of the ANE to stake their territory, so to speak. Anything else was probably a justification for their own barbarism, i.e., "God made me do it!". What we see in the later NT is an evolved description of deity hardly like his early characterization. To quote Jessica Rabbit, "God is not really bad, He's just described that way"

[mathilde]

I used to prefer the Book of Mormon too until I started thinking about 3 Nephi 9.

[Rob Bowman]

Jeremy,

Thanks for reading Copan's essay and for sharing your thoughts. It is simply not possible for me to go through each of your objections and criticisms of the Old Testament and provide answers to each one. It is so much easier to yell "Fire!" than it is to show convincingly that there is no fire. Copan's essay is of course just a top of the iceberg of the work that he and many others have done in addressing the types of objections you raise.

You wrote:

Because I believe Joseph Smith was even more correct than he knew when he said that "from sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of man, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled," and "Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors," and "to become a joint heir of the heirship of the Son, one must put away all his false traditions," it doesn't bother me to find that the scriptures have been massively corrupted. It was given to people in their weakness.

Evidently your words "even more correct than he knew" are ironic, because Joseph does not seem to have seen what you see with regard to the Old Testament. The JST shows barely any concern to soften the Old Testament representation of God beyond "fixing" a couple of famous hard sayings (e.g., cf. Gen. 6:6 KJV with Gen. 8:13 JST). Joseph made minor changes to the book of Joshua, showing that he went through it, but nothing of consequence as far as your objections are concerned.

The Book of Mormon says that many plain and precious truths were lost. As Jude said, "certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness."

Jude's statement has nothing to do with questioning the reliability of the Old Testament. He is talking about certain people in the first century who claimed to follow Christ but abused the concept of grace as a license for sin. The verse that you quoted in part ends with the words, "...and denying our only Master and Lord Jesus Christ" (Jude 4). If one continues on reading through the short epistle of Jude, one finds that he shows unbridled confidence in the legitimacy and applicability of the historical narratives in the Old Testament. He accepts the story of the Exodus and affirms that God destroyed the unbelieving generation in the wilderness as is narrated in Numbers (Jude 5). He accepts the accounts in Genesis of the rebellious angels (Gen. 6:1-4) and of God's judgment on the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (Jude 6-7). The point here is not merely that Jude accepts these accounts as historical, although I think that he did; it is that Jude accepts these accounts as teaching truth about God's dealings with people. Yet if I understand your perspective this is exactly what you argue we should not do.

The fundamental problem is that because I view God as another Uncreated Intelligence like us, the atheistic "naturalistic" argument is ultimately correct: there is no "meaning" to existence except the meaning we make for ourselves. At the fundamental level, no one was "created" because we have all existed in some form forever, and so no one has authority over another person except through allegiance.

Wow. Were I to explain the significance of Mormon theology in this way, I would be beseiged with outrage. As it happens, I agree with your interpretation of the implications of the LDS worldview. The point you make here goes to the heart of why evangelicals commonly claim that the LDS Church really is another religion altogether from what historically is known as Christianity. Historically, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all adhere to theism, and what you are describing is of course not theism.

This essay, like countless others, commits the fallacy of assuming there is a dichotomy between "naturalism" and theism. Which is silly - if the historical claims of theism are correct, then it is a part of nature.

Nature is everything which exists; it's impossible for something to exist "outside" or "above" it, because that is a complete contradiction of terms.

Theism by definition asserts otherwise. You may reject it, which of course you do, but if theism is correct then nature is not everything that exists. I don't see how one can argue that it is a contradiction in terms to assert that something exists other than nature unless you simply stipulate that the word nature means "everything that exists." If for the sake of clear discussion we were to use your definition of nature as everything that exists, then the theist would simply have to explain that nature is itself divided into the created and the Creator. In any case, I am philosophically suspicious about deriving such a grand conclusion as that theism is false on the basis of definition of the term nature. That's just too easy, too convenient.

(I find the outside-of-time God of most Christianity to be philosophically indistinguishable from atheism anyway. A being with no body or parts or passions is not, in my view, a person at all, it's ... nothingness. Void.)

You're in good company from the LDS perspective, since this has been a claim made repeatedly by your religious leaders throughout most of LDS history. I respectfully disagree. If I may be so bold, it shows limited imagination to restrict the category of real beings to those with bodies, parts, and passions (especially passions; what, no emotionless beings are possible?).

What else is there except materialism? If something is not "material" in some way, how can it be said to exist at all? All matter is spirit, all spirit is matter.

Ditto what I just said. At this point you are assuming Mormon metaphysics, not showing why it should be regarded as true.

The Joseph Smith Translation clarifies (as if it wasn't obvious before) that it was not God who hardened Pharaoh's heart - to say so was merely the custom in ancient times to ascribe all events to God, but it doesn't work if we want him to retain free agency. It was his choice to harden his heart.

Again, what is striking to me is the fact that this change in the JST stands out, whereas for the most part Joseph left the narratives and editorial comments about God's role in Israel's history unchanged. Overall, Jeremy, I don't think the JST helps you. Practically every other Old Testament text you criticize is left unchanged in the JST.

Fundamentalists and atheists read the text in exactly the same way: if the text (or any historical figure in the text) claims that God did something, then it must be true, and any attempt to argue against the inerrant, infallible text is a sign of infidelity or hypocrisy. But we worship the living God, not the dead words of a mere book whose epigrams may be taken out of context to form specious proof-texts.

The inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible really isn't the issue here, Jeremy. You reject the basic theological outlook of the Old Testament. In practical terms you would have to reject the New Testament and the Book of Mormon as well, because both of those canons accept that basic theological outlook without any qualms. The best you can do is to treat these "mere books" as quaint expressions of a discredited world view from which occasional nuggets of insight and uplifting words can be extracted.

[The Nehor]

On one hand I don't think God takes death nearly as seriously as we do. To us it is an ending (and to some a beginning too). To God it is a change of state. Above someone mentioned the viciousness of beheading. The horror of beheading for the victim ends swiftly. I'm not saying that murder isn't horrible. It's just that death (and birth) are supposed to be at God's discretion. He built into us an aversion for death to keep us from rampant killing (with mixed results) but that death is not as horrific for the victim as we often imagine.

We talk about horrific ways to die involving war, accident, and natural occurrences but everyone who isn't translated dies or alive at the Second Coming dies. In fact I would be more likely to die a quick death with all the pain packed into a short duration in a war or an earthquake then I am to die quickly and with little pain in old age. Given the choice between the two I'd probably pick the former. The horror of death is to the living not the dead. I've heard it suggested that Lazarus might have got a raw deal in having to die twice.

That being said I don't trust the writers of the Old Testament in much of what they say about God. Our Book of Moses makes clear that someone did a cut and paste job on the five books of Moses. The only Old Testament books I trust pretty much completely are the prophets (particularly the two Christ recommends in the Book of Mormon). The rest all seem to have political agendas built in.

The Psalms may have come down without revision but I admit I would not take religious advice from some of their authors. Read Psalm 109. It starts out like any prayer for deliverance. Someone has been lying about the author and making his life hell and he prays for deliverance. Then it gets weird. The writer sets out exactly what he wants God to do to the person:

1. Make him have to serve a cruel and wicked ruler

2. Assign an accuser always be persecuting him

3. Make him be prosecuted and lose in the courts

4. Make his prayer be counted as sin

5. Make him die young and all he has be taken by another family

6. Make his children orphans and his wife a widow

7. Make his children beggars in the streets and not receive enough bread

8. Make him lose what he has to extortion and may his goods be pillaged

9. Make sure no one shows mercy to him or his descendants ever.

10. Destroy his family utterly and make them forgotten for all time.

11. Make sure that you God do not forget what he has done and make him pay and never ever forgive him.

My faith does not allow for the idea of 'progression' in religion over time so I can't use the idea that "we are more enlightened now" as some kind of excuse for this writer. The same people who thought this a worthy song for their canon also chose amongst or altered the older texts that have come to us. I question whether the occupation of Canaan for example was as violent as the writers make it sound (to add glory to history) or whether God commanding it was an after-the-fact addition. Part of the Torah and Joshua seem foreign to the rest of it. It reads more like an Assyrian king's boasting of his conquests rather then the words of a prophet of God. I have no problem with God removing people from the earth but it seems odd he'd order the Israelites (babes in the faith) to march to offensive genocidal war. Nephi had to be constrained to kill. The people of Ammon had to give up violence forever to find forgiveness. If God needed an incumbent people removed for his own purposes why would he poison his own people with violence to do it.

I could be wrong on some point but these are my thoughts on the matter. I have no problem with Noah's Flood or 3 Nephi 9. A large group of people needed to be removed from the earth and God did it quickly and efficiently. I do have a problem with some of the writers in the Old Testament ascribing motives and actions to God I doubt he held or did. I also think God hasn't corrected all of this in the Bible to help teach us. I know Psalm 109 taught me a lot. Particularly how to tell if I'm a revenge-fueled vindictive git.

[wenglund]

I would submit that those who have a problem with the God of the Old Testament are focusing on the physical and temporal, whereas with God all things are spiritual and eternal.

Also, we Westerners tend to read the OT in an overly literalistic way, whereas it was written by Easterners who tend to be more symbolic in their thinking. This isn't to suggest that the events in the Old Testament didn't happen. Many of them did. Rather, the symbolism rest in how the the events are interpreted with the intent of learning and understanding spiritually the things of God.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-