|
SeekingTruth
|
|
Posted 08/05/12
|
Reply with quote
#1
|
|
|
Genesis 19
5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. 6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, 7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. 8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
So basically, after this event, Lot was warned by the two angels - the agents of God - to quickly leave the city as it will be destroyed given how evil it's people were. I'm sure you know the rest of the story with the pillar of salt thing (which also does not sound like a forgiving God) and his two daughters that get Lot drunk and have sex with him in the course of two separate nights.
Now, my question is of honest inquiry. Please refrain from trolling. I only copied these passages because they perfectly illustrate some of my concerns - the question in the title is not just about this specific passage.
Let me clarify the question: The God of the Old Testament seems to be vastly different than the God of the New Testament. He seems to be less forgiving, more judging and doesn't seem big on the whole "equality" thing either.
This is something I struggle with, so I'm happy to be proven wrong.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
TheProblemOfAtheism
|
|
Posted 08/05/12
|
Reply with quote
#2
|
|
|
What's there to reconcile exactly?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
SeekingTruth
|
|
Posted 08/05/12
|
Reply with quote
#3
|
|
Okay, I realize I wasn't clear in the exact nature of the question, so let me get back to it and edit it. Check back 5 minutes later. 
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
hamlet
|
|
Posted 08/05/12
|
Reply with quote
#4
|
|
The University of Notre Dame has the Center for Philosophy of Religion. They held a conference a few years back that had some of the leading analytic, Christian philosophers discussing this very question. All the video is up at their youtube page here. Check it out. I think the best one is Peter van Inwagen's, which is numbers 14 and 15 on the list there. Nicholas Wolterstorff's is more focused and maybe even better; it starts at number 62. Richard Swinburne's starts at 54; he talks about how the Church Fathers understood the Old Testament. I think it more likely that a seeker after truth would find answers from people like that than from message board people (nothing against them, for I'm one of them).  Tell me what you think of van Inwagen's paper. |
|
Loading...
|
|
|
MorleyMcMorson
|
|
Posted 08/05/12
|
Reply with quote
#5
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by SeekingTruth
Let me clarify the question: The God of the Old Testament seems to be vastly different than the God of the New Testament. He seems to be less forgiving, more judging and doesn't seem big on the whole "equality" thing either.
This is something I struggle with, so I'm happy to be proven wrong.
I think the differences vanish when you note the difference between 'forgiving' as a present active participle and 'forgiving' as an adjective. The former denotes an activity, the latter a quality. I would argue that the OT features less participial forgiving but just as much adjectival forgiving. The same basic thing with judging; the OT has more participial judging, but the NT has just as much adjectival judging.
Another thing you need to consider is that the OT and NT don't contain all truth. If the NT had a book which focused on hell, for example, this discussion would either never start or would actually be reversed, that the NT God is more harsh than the OT, since hell is normally thought of as worse than basically anything in the OT. Hell, however, is a clear feature of the NT, and so it adds to God's adjectival punishment if not his participial judgment.
So, in short, just think about the fact that these are selective representations of God.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Equestions
|
|
Posted 08/05/12
|
Reply with quote
#6
|
|
|
There's an excellent book on God in the OT titled "Is God a Moral Monster" that I highly highly recommend. This will help you better understand the 'whys' behind the OT.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Archsage
|
|
Posted 08/05/12
|
Reply with quote
#7
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by SeekingTruthThe God of the Old Testament seems to be vastly different than the God of the New Testament. He seems to be less forgiving, more judging and doesn't seem big on the whole "equality" thing either. This is something I struggle with, so I'm happy to be proven wrong.
I'm not sure exactly that I'm seeing what you're seeing? Can you explain how He is less forgiving and more judging and less on equality? You should compare and contrast what you know about God from both the "Old" and "New" Testaments. And then you can tell us where the discrepancy is?
Because right now, you're question is very vague.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
SeekingTruth
|
|
Posted 08/05/12
|
Reply with quote
#8
|
|
I admit my question is very vague. Basically, a "first look at" type of thing rather than one I've put serious thought into. But that's why I made this thread, so people can come and recommend books, videos etc. on the matter and share their opinions, not just for me, but for everybody who is interested, which then can lead to the beforementioned serious thinking.
"Can you explain how He is less forgiving and more judging and less on equality?"
Well, I'm generally not big on words, so the best course of action I could take is to find all the certain passages of the OT that bother me at some level because of my morality and copy them here so that a decent argument could be made. Unfortunately, it would also take extensive knowledge of the Bible to do so and I don't think I have it in me (I'm currently in the process of carefully reading the Bible, it's just that I'm reading the NT). But, perhaps definite examples are not necessary, since I'm sure all of you know what kind of things a person refers to at times like this.
Let's take the example passage I provided though, perhaps it can kick off a more "general" conversation.
"8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof."
Lot was supposed to be a righteous man in the eyes of God, wasn't he? If not, why would He save him instead of also destroying him with the city? Yet he literally thrown his daughters (who were not even sinful of mindless fornication, the Bible spells out they were virgins) into the arms of the mob for the sake of unknown men who've travelled to him. Doesn't this speak volumes of Lot's view on equality of genders? Yet, he was deemed righteous (I think?).
Also, God turned his wife into a pillar of salt for looking back on the destruction of the city. Now, this act doesn't seem to leave much wriggle-room for achieving forgiveness, does it?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Mae
|
|
Posted 08/05/12
|
Reply with quote
#9
|
|
|
Revelations seems to be just as violent and brutal as anything in the old testament to me. I would say though that the core of what Jesus and Paul had to say differed from the violence of the old testament and Revelations. This is not a problem for me, as I simply reject the understanding of God as one who orders genocide and the like.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
TheProblemOfAtheism
|
|
Posted 08/05/12
|
Reply with quote
#10
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Equestions
There's an excellent book on God in the OT titled "Is God a Moral Monster" that I highly highly recommend. This will help you better understand the 'whys' behind the OT.
I've heard great things about that book.
It's made Copan a few enemies among liberal NT interpreters, which is a ringing endorsement for the book if you ask me.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
KeithS
|
|
Posted 08/05/12
|
Reply with quote
#11
|
|
Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, we can only surmise why God destroyed these cities, but Young's literal translation suggests possibilities:
for we [the angels] are destroying this place, for their [whose?] cry hath been great before the face of Jehovah, and Jehovah doth send us to destroy it.'
If these cries were from the victims of forced homosexual rape, it is easy to see why God would put an end to it in a hurry. Based on the aggressive sexual demands alone, it is not hard to believe that God had morally sufficient reasons to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.
Concerning the old vs. new testament actions of God, we live under a different covenant now, so God deals with people differently now. Not because God changes, but because people have been changing. Under the New Testament the Holy Spirit was made available as a teacher/counselor/comforter. The teaching of the Holy Spirit has changed Christian societies view of morality a lot in the last 2000 years. Christians were responsible for the development and proliferation of hospitals (many still bear Christian names in the US) and created the universities that gave birth to most scientific discoveries (I'm pretty sure all the Ivy league Colleges). Christians started virtually all the movements that ended slavery (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism), and so on.
On the other hand, keep in mind that God allowed himself to be treated with contempt, severely beaten, and then crucified. In terms of suffering, He is not asking more from us than he was willing to endure himself.
I think we tend to worry about death more than we should. From a Christian perspective death is leaving this fallen and corrupted world full of evil and suffering to join Him.
Concerning the question of equality, Lot offering his daughters to the men was perhaps culturally acceptable at the time, but this is not presented in the account as an example of good moral behavior.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
emailestthoume
|
|
Posted 08/06/12
|
Reply with quote
#12
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by SeekingTruth
Let's take the example passage I provided though, perhaps it can kick off a more "general" conversation.
"8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof."
Lot was supposed to be a righteous man in the eyes of God, wasn't he? If not, why would He save him instead of also destroying him with the city? Yet he literally thrown his daughters (who were not even sinful of mindless fornication, the Bible spells out they were virgins) into the arms of the mob for the sake of unknown men who've travelled to him. Doesn't this speak volumes of Lot's view on equality of genders? Yet, he was deemed righteous (I think?).
The original language of the OT, as you may know, is Hebrew. And though the english translations usually render it "two men," while the Hebrew word translated as "men" here is actually the word used for angels (melek, if I remember correctly). It seems to me that these were probably 2 angels sent to check out the city just as Joshua sent two people to spy on the promise land before it was invaded and two angels to check out Sodom and Gommoroah before they were destroyed. (the Old Testament has a lot of parallels) In each case, I think the word is actually the Hebrew word for angel.
Quote: Also, God turned his wife into a pillar of salt for looking back on the destruction of the city. Now, this act doesn't seem to leave much wriggle-room for achieving forgiveness, does it?
It was a different time period before Christ when people more got what they deserved than the grace and forgiveness that they do not deserve. It is also the case that I think there is a deeper explanation in that "turning back" might have had a deeper significance in the Hebrew, and perhaps also the symbolic significance of choosing to dance with the devil by desiring evil (represented by the area God was destroying) and gazing at it lustfully and willingly. I don't remember, but if God commanded her directly not to look back, it would also be significant. Imagine if God literally spoke to your from the heavens and you disobeyed what he said.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
peter7
|
|
Posted 08/06/12
|
Reply with quote
#13
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by KeithS
Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, we can only surmise why God destroyed these cities, but Young's literal translation suggests possibilities:
for we [the angels] are destroying this place, for their [whose?] cry hath been great before the face of Jehovah, and Jehovah doth send us to destroy it.'
If these cries were from the victims of forced homosexual rape, it is easy to see why God would put an end to it in a hurry. Based on the aggressive sexual demands alone, it is not hard to believe that God had morally sufficient reasons to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.
Not that i think rape is particularly nice but is ok genocide and mass murder a little extreme especially when other options are available.
Do you honestly think its morally ok to kill all in a city including babies and children based on "aggressive sexual demands alone".
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Damoksta
|
|
Posted 08/06/12
|
Reply with quote
#14
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by SeekingTruth
Well, I'm generally not big on words, so the best course of action I could take is to find all the certain passages of the OT that bother me at some level because of my morality and copy them here so that a decent argument could be made. Unfortunately, it would also take extensive knowledge of the Bible to do so and I don't think I have it in me (I'm currently in the process of carefully reading the Bible, it's just that I'm reading the NT). But, perhaps definite examples are not necessary, since I'm sure all of you know what kind of things a person refers to at times like this.
My advice is to basically study the Four Gospels + Acts to give you the foundational knowledge of Christianity - because it contains all you need to know about who Jesus is. The Bible is like a map - sometimes, to use it in full, you need to figure out exactly where you stand on it.
The problem with reading the OT is that it wasn't intended as a document written in a vacuum. Most Christians, let alone seekers, wouldn't have a clue on the cultural practices of Baal-Asherah and Molech, let alone ANE rheotorical language or the significance of Gilgal. This is not to say the OT is to be ignored - it contains rich lessons about Man's wretchedness and God's graciousness even prior to Jesus. But fundamentally, the Four Gospels is where the money is at for us Gentiles; and the rest of the NT informing both young and old believers how to conduct themselves.
Quote:
Lot was supposed to be a righteous man in the eyes of God, wasn't he? If not, why would He save him instead of also destroying him with the city? Yet he literally thrown his daughters (who were not even sinful of mindless fornication, the Bible spells out they were virgins) into the arms of the mob for the sake of unknown men who've travelled to him. Doesn't this speak volumes of Lot's view on equality of genders? Yet, he was deemed righteous (I think?).
Also, God turned his wife into a pillar of salt for looking back on the destruction of the city. Now, this act doesn't seem to leave much wriggle-room for achieving forgiveness, does it?
The God of Christianity is one that looks at the heart. The same reason why Lot is considered righteous is the same reason why Rahab is listed on the Hall of Fame of faith of Hebrews: these people may had been wrong in their expedient actions and line of thinking; but their intent was in the right place. I think you'll find this approach to righteousness by God consistent across the OT and the NT, even in Jesus (e.g. the woman at the well vs the Pharisees in general).
As for Lot's wife, judging by what the daughters did I'll say the apples don't fall far from the tree.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
depthcharge623
|
|
Posted 08/06/12
|
Reply with quote
#15
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Equestions
There's an excellent book on God in the OT titled "Is God a Moral Monster" that I highly highly recommend. This will help you better understand the 'whys' behind the OT.
I also highly endorse this book. I am confused that you are endorsing it, Equestions, since it advocates Accommodationism which you seemed to reject in our discussion about Genesis 1 and 2. Thoughts?
PS. Any word back from Chisholm yet? I haven't heard anything.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
