Would God do that?

[creekster]

I don't find this question necessary to my salvation or to my testimony and so I haven't really bothered to try to answer it. I find several of your examples to be very suspect, but I really am not sure if they are to be taken at face value or not. How will taking a side in your little litmus test, publicly or privately, make me a better person? I find the stories useful at several levels, but have not felt compelled to take a position on their literal truth.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

So far the tally is:

Arch: no
SoonerCoug: no
MikeWaters: Sounds like a no, correct me if I'm wrong.
Tag Man: I'll take that as a no.
Adam: Going postal.
Jeff Lebowski: Too busy sucking peanuts.
Johnny Lingo: ?

"Sucking peanuts"?

Adam is right. You are a message board chickenshit, Tex. You do nothing but nitpick and dodge questions that expose your ridiculous logic. And you are sorely lacking in basic intellectual honesty. I have no desire to waste my time in another silly Tex-debate.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by creekster

I don't find this question necessary to my salvation or to my testimony and so I haven't really bothered to try to answer it. I find several of your examples to be very suspect, but I really am not sure if they are to be taken at face value or not. How will taking a side in your little litmus test, publicly or privately, make me a better person? I find the stories useful at several levels, but have not felt compelled to take a position on their literal truth.

This really isn't intended to be a hostile question or litmus test. If you haven't thought about it or don't care, that's fine. I'm simply curious.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

"Sucking peanuts"?

Adam is right. You are a message board chickenshit, Tex. You do nothing but nitpick and dodge questions that expose your ridiculous logic. And you are sorely lacking in basic intellectual honesty. I have no desire to waste my time in another silly Tex-debate.

Not looking to start a fresh debate on the topic. See above.

[Venkman]

I don't know if they're all true. We know every word from the Bible didn't flow from the mouth of God. I tend to take most at face value, particularly Abraham and Isaac and the Lord commanding the Israelites to drive out the Cananites. But it's hard to imagine God commanding them to kill every living creature and it's hard to imagine a prophet hacking some dude to pieces a la Mel Gibson in the Patriot. But I guess it could be true. Like creekster said, it really doesn't matter anyway.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Tex

So far the tally is:

Arch: no
SoonerCoug: no
MikeWaters: Sounds like a no, correct me if I'm wrong.
Tag Man: I'll take that as a no.
Adam: Going postal.
Jeff Lebowski: Too busy sucking peanuts.
Johnny Lingo: ?

You can put me down for a big no. No deity did those things.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Tex

As we've discussed, the Bible contains several stories of commands unusual for a "New Testament" God:

- Abraham commanded to kill Isaac (Genesis 22:2)
- Israelites commanded to drive out peoples of Canaan (Exodus 34:11)
- Joshua commanded to slay all in Jericho (Joshua 6:21)
- Saul commanded to slay all the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15:3), including the prophet Samuel hacking a man to pieces "before the Lord"

And there are others.

I'm genuinely curious. Who on this board, like me, accepts these stories at face value, and who doesn't? I already know Archaea and SoonerCoug don't, though I think they have different reasons.

Who else? Am I the only one?

Either way, aren't we rationalizing to some degree?

I mean, since these actions contradict modern moral conventions, assuming that there is one God, and this God is unchanging, one must either conclude that either

A) God didn't order people to do these things (since God is humankind's buddy in the present day) or

B) God is an asshole and our modern ideas of God's nature/disposition are quite inaccurate.

At any rate, I see little difference contextually between the Hebrew God of the Old Testament and the gods of other Ancient Near East peoples. God is vindictive, jealous, cunning, brutal, and capricious. The best humans can do is perform the rituals and sacrifices to keep him/her/them off their backs.

I kind of feel this way about God - I think God probably has important business to do somewhere and, for the most part, I just want to be left alone. So, not exactly an answer to the question, but I genuinely don't know.

[Indy Coug]

I'm in the camp that they are entirely possible and they can't conveniently be dismissed by simply claiming those events run contrary to our personal understanding of God. None of us have enough information to know the true calculus of God and what the heirarchy of his governing principles are.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Tex

As we've discussed, the Bible contains several stories of commands unusual for a "New Testament" God:

- Abraham commanded to kill Isaac (Genesis 22:2)
- Israelites commanded to drive out peoples of Canaan (Exodus 34:11)
- Joshua commanded to slay all in Jericho (Joshua 6:21)
- Saul commanded to slay all the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15:3), including the prophet Samuel hacking a man to pieces "before the Lord"

And there are others.

I'm genuinely curious. Who on this board, like me, accepts these stories at face value, and who doesn't? I already know Archaea and SoonerCoug don't, though I think they have different reasons.

Who else? Am I the only one?

My God is the Jesus we know in the New Testament and Book of Mormon. The cases of the Old Testament or other accounts that contradict the traits of Jesus of New Testament and BOM, I assume there is something wrong with the account. I have more faith in the New Testament and BOM's direct truthfullness.

I don't know enough to say why the Old Testament stories seem off. I'll assume they are true in the sense that the lessons and morals can be useful to me.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I'm in the camp that they are entirely possible and they can't conveniently be dismissed by simply claiming those events run contrary to our personal understanding of God. None of us have enough information to know the true calculus of God and what the heirarchy of his governing principles are.

But that's an equally sloppy proposition. Of course we can't know the calculus, but if we are to believe God allows records with his dealings with man, we should expect some consistency. And if those inconic events are not paralleled elsewhere, it is more logical to doubt the human record.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Tex

I think I've made it clear that I take the Bible at face value, except where otherwise commented on by church leadership.

Instead of quoting to me every strange or unusual event in the entire book and asking me "Do you believe THIS??", could you just answer the question?

Tex, I think your interpretation of the OT is more evangelical-ish than LDS. Just my take. I have no idea what on your list was exactly the way it was written and what was embellished or rationalized by the authors, but I think it's indisputable that the scriptures while inspired, still passed through human hands. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young have already debunked the notion of scriptural inerrancy. And IMO, the current prophet doesn't have to point out every instance of human tampering with the text or nuance for us to use our brains and read other historical sources and interpretations, as well as the Spirit to help us make sense of it and see how it can apply to our lives.