This really belongs in the "Christian apologetics," forum or another forum, because that is what it was intended for. Except I don't have enough posts to put it in other forums and I'm not a Christian, so I can't create topics there. And this isn't just a defense of "Christianity," persay, but in defense of the morality of the Old Testament, period, which is just as relevant to a Jew as it is to a Christian. I'm not a Jew, but I tend to believe in Jewish Theology. I won't get into my beliefs about Christ, because I'm not interested in that debate right now. In any case, since none of the passages in this post involve the Messiah, what I say here is fully compatible with Christianity. It's also relevant to "Liberal Theology," in that my interpretations here fall more in line with Liberal Theology than Conservative.
One reason why I was never a Christian (or had any regard for the Bible at all) was simply the poor explanations for scripture. Sure, the Gospels all seemed fine and great. Jesus was an all-loving, all-forgiving hippie that did crazy stuff, and was really kind, philosophical, and wise. But then, looking through the Old Testament, "DEATH! MURDER! AAAAHHH!!" It was like half of the Bible was like the Book of Revelation. And no one could ever explain it. I suppose it's just simply because the average man, including the average believer, is ignorant. Plain and simple. I'm sure if I'd spoken with the right rabbi or priest, much of this would've been clarified.
But even then, the traditional Jewish response to immorality in the OT is, "God said so, therefore we can't question it," bringing up the story of Abraham being asked to sacrifice Isaac. And the traditional Christian response to immorality in the OT is, "Oh, that's just the old covenant. It doesn't apply to today."
In both cases, it was unacceptable. I am not a Jew and it will be at least a decade or two before I convert, if I ever even convert to it at all, but I do tend to believe in its theology. It's difficult to explain why. I mean, Buddhism is certainly more logical than Judaism, but it seems like there's little substance to it, all wisdom and no divinity. Judaism just in a way seems, feels special. Unique.
One large part of that is that I feel it's grounded far more in reason. Its heritage of agnosticism, acceptance of different interpretations, and highly philosophical nature are what distinguish it from all other religions. In my opinion, there is no Jewish text or belief which does not have some sound justification in reason. It's just that, in many cases, we haven't discovered the reasoning yet, and may never know the full truth, so much of it must be accepted on faith. But this shouldn't stop people from asking the question: Why is it true? Why is it right? Provided that the question is asking for clarification and not criticism, it's a good thing. Because it is a religion's foundation in reason, its adherence to experience itself which makes it not only easier to understand, therefore easier to encourage faith in, but more truthful as well.
The purpose of this is not to debunk all of the criticisms of the Old Testament, but simply the main ones which are most often difficult to explain and aren't explained properly at all. Because an entire book could be written (and likely has been written) on Old Testament apologetics. This simply gives my own take on the matter and how the Old Testament can be justified and rationalized, to remain logical, consistent, and fully compatible with modern morality. The only exception, however, is homosexuality. I consider homosexuality wrong, of course, because the Old Testament says it is and the claims by the GBLT community that "it was just homosexual pagan prostitutes," just quite frankly isn't credible, when you look at the culture at the time. I'm certain it's not the all-encompassing, unforgivable blasphemy that Pastor Fred Phelps and Jerry Falwell paint it to be. But I'm just ambivalent on it, so I have no answer for it, at the moment.
But as for the rest of the Old Testament, it's all explained here, and I welcome any criticism.
#1. You can't prove that God exists. - The existence of God is on faith alone. There is no proof God exists, no philosophical argument to prove God exists, but it must be taken upon faith alone. If the truth about God could be proven by science and perception, then faith wouldn't exist. It wouldn't need to. Therefore, faith itself necessitates ignorance. And there is no proof God exists, but there is also no proof God doesn't exist.
Some Atheists argue, therefore, that the burden of proof rests upon the religious. Because Occam's Razor would dictate that the simplest answer, that there is no God, is true. However, from a utilitarian standpoint, this is false. Science has proven several times that religion is a very positive thing. Just one look through the Journal of the Psychology of Religion, they enumerate several dozen positive consequences of being religious and that it, indeed, benefits a person's entire being. Among Holocaust survivors and Vietnam POWs, the main factor in determining whether or not a person survived or not was whether or not a person was religious. Philosophically, religion also brings a person meaning and hope.
Therefore, the burden of proof for God's existence rests upon atheists, not on the religion. Because religion has scientifically-proven positive consequences, atheism's positive consequences of "knowing the truth," are unknown. Therefore, faith in God is frankly logical and it is why even the non-Christians who founded America believed in God.
#2. God is immoral for knowingly condemning some of us to hell or he can't be all-powerful if he gave us free will. - This is one main charge against Judaism and Christianity, which is that God's omnipotence and omniscience couldn't be compatible with free will, for the same reason that philosophers argue human beings could never create true "artificial intelligence." If God knew exactly how everything in the world were designed, including us, then he'd know exactly how the world would play out. This is what Calvinists call "predestination."
But on the other hand, the Bible clearly says that we have free will. And logically, it would be immoral for God to "predestine" some of us to go to hell, and then punish us for what he caused us to do.
Therefore, both predestination and absolute free will cannot be possible. Predestination makes God immoral and absolute free will implies God isn't all-powerful. So, what's the truth, then? A reconciliation of both.
In discussions on free will, philosophers refer to this as "soft determinism." In Theology, it's referred to as "semipelagianism." The idea is that, being both positions determinism and indeterminism are irrational, the only possibility, then, is something in between the two: we partially have free will and we partially are bound by causation. This is the view that Jews hold, reflected in the saying, "The more you bend your will towards God, the more that God bends the will of the world towards you."
It's difficult to understand, not quite as simple as determinism or indeterminism. But it's best explained like this: Move your hand right now. Yes, I mean that literally. Move your hand, in any way, left, right, whatever. Just move your hand.
Now, did you move your hand because I asked you to, my words were sent to your ears, then your brain, which then caused you to move your hand? Or did you choose to move your hand?
Neither.
In other words, if I hadn't asked you to move your hand, you wouldn't have moved your hand. Because there was no cause, no reason to do so. However, after I'd asked you, you still had the choice whether to move your hand or not (you might not have even done it). So, even though the choice required a cause to exist, the choice itself still exists. Thus, fate and free will aren't incompatible, but parallel processes that complement eachother.
Furthermore, God could not have given us this power without partially giving up some power of his own. God, in his omnipotence, has the power to give up his omnipotence, just as Christians believe he did so when he sent Jesus. Thus, we were created "in the image of God," in that we were near-equal to him. We are the only beings, aside from God, with the power of choice. But our power of choice, of course, can never win over the power of God, destiny. He knows the ultimate outcome, but that unfathomable outcome is ultimately good. That "God exists" and "God is good," are both fundamental truths of religion.
#3. God "made a mistake" with flooding the Earth, and killing animals and children. - Some claim that God, being omnipotent and omniscient, should've been able to know that his creations would've eventually turned against him, so some say that God can't be omniscient in the Bible, or else he would've gotten it right the first time.
Now, first of all, let me clarify that much of the Torah is not literal. Both Catholics and Jews accept this, and so do many Protestants. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that it's "literal," but simply that it's true. Well, the truth of the Bible could be metaphorically true just as much as it could be literally true. And the lines which some Christian denominations make do not rely upon any standard system of interpretation, but whether it's in accord with their doctrines and traditions. If you were to hold that the Bible should be literally interpreted, then in translating the Messianic prophecies, Jesus would not be the Messiah. Because the very basis for Jesus being the Messiah is highly metaphorical. This is one interpretation Jews question, saying Christians' interpretation is so highly metaphorical that it renders the prophecies meaningless (and several people could be the Messiah).
Hence, Christianity cannot condemn metaphorical interpretations and it would, in fact, be hypocritical to do so.
I support a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis because it would be irrational to believe otherwise. Evolution and Cosmology have shown that the Earth is far more than a few thousand years old. A literal interpretation of the Bible does not explain how multiple races came about. And by using pure logic alone, if we were to attempt to build Noah's ark today, with two of each animal, it would be literally impossible. Especially for only a few men to do, in such little time.
I believe that religion should be founded in reason and that, Christians or Jews who know in their hearts that they are being illogical, but are spreading lies which they, themselves, believe because they couldn't emotionally deal with the idea that there isn't a literal being hovering over the Earth, that this is immoral. The only "fundamentals" of doctrine should be truth, honesty, and love. And, of course, faith that is grounded in the above three.
Furthermore, using pseudoscience to justify false doctrine, in fact, hurts the faith. If you are honest and say, "Yes, that's not how it literally happened," it seems reasonable and rational, appealing to most people. But if you say, "No, that's how it DID happen, and this poorly done, biased scientific study proves it!" even asserting that humans and dinosaurs walked side-by-side, then it paints Judaism and Christianity as an irrational, silly, crazy religion, causing people to ridicule it and turn away from it. This is what I think has happened to Christianity and it needs to stop. After all, in Judaism, the emphasis on our acts in this life, not historicity. And in Christianity, the emphasis is on our faith in Jesus and our acts in this life, once again, not the historicity of the Torah.
In any case, back to Noah...
Being that the story of Noah is metaphorical rather than literal, it in no way attacks God's divinity. What's important is not the historicity of the text, or the moral implications of it if it's literally true, but the moral message that we draw from it. And there are profound messages to be drawn from Noah: First of all, that we are God's "final draft," that we are so good, so as to be worthy of mercy. Second of all, the flood is referred to as "the Flood of Noah," because Noah never intervened on mankind's behalf. Noah could've said, "But wait, God, please spare mankind," but he chose not to. The story demonstrates that we should always appeal to God in such circumstances. Therefore, the blood of the people at that time fell upon Noah, not God.
#2. There was genocide against the Canaanites (Deuteronomy 7:1-2, Joshua 6:21, Joshua 10:40-41, etc.)
I found a page (by a Christian, I believe) that explains this rather clearly. I can't post the link yet, because I'm under 15 posts, but I can PM you the link to it, if you like.
And parts of this were taken directly from the site.
Now, first of all, let me clarify that I disagree with the traditional Jewish and Christian interpretation that, "God commanded their genocide, therefore, they had to do it, and also the Canaanites were a cursed race."
Because that basically does say that it was a racist, evil, genocidal act, but that it's okay because God says so.
Now, it also needs to be clarified that the Canaanites were a grossly immoral people. Now, that's not to say that two rights make a wrong, but to put it into context. In many, many ways, the deaths of Canaanite women and children would've been better than having to live in a Canaanite society. Both Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18:16-19:29) were in Canaan and swarms of Canaan barbarians would attack people and rape them (including gay rape) just for fun. The tribe of Benjamin later picked up this behavior as well (Judges 18:9-21). Historians also now know that the Canaanite religion involved sacrificing live babies by setting them on fire on a burning altar. So, as I said, in many, many ways, death was preferable. As the saying goes, "There are some things worse than death." In this way, the invasion of Canaan was for the few innocent Canaanites what the atomic bomb was for Hiroshima. Many Japanese, after the event, said it was a tragic event, but, in fact, a blessing.
Furthermore, God did not specifically command "genocide." God issued two specific commands concerning the Canaanites east of the Jordan River (Deuteronomy 2:26-36, 3:1-11) and six commands concerning Canaanites in general (Exodus 23:31-33, 34:11-16, Numbers 33:50-56, Deuteronomy 7:1-5, 12:2-3, 20:10-18). The two specific commands were for the conquest of the kingdoms east of the Jordan. Of the six general commands, only Deuteronomy 7:1-5 demands the total destruction of the Canaanites. Deuteronomy 20:10-18 qualifies this by specifically mentioning the destruction of Canaanite cities. The other four concern driving them out, destroying their idols and not making any treaties with them.
(...continued...)
One reason why I was never a Christian (or had any regard for the Bible at all) was simply the poor explanations for scripture. Sure, the Gospels all seemed fine and great. Jesus was an all-loving, all-forgiving hippie that did crazy stuff, and was really kind, philosophical, and wise. But then, looking through the Old Testament, "DEATH! MURDER! AAAAHHH!!" It was like half of the Bible was like the Book of Revelation. And no one could ever explain it. I suppose it's just simply because the average man, including the average believer, is ignorant. Plain and simple. I'm sure if I'd spoken with the right rabbi or priest, much of this would've been clarified.
But even then, the traditional Jewish response to immorality in the OT is, "God said so, therefore we can't question it," bringing up the story of Abraham being asked to sacrifice Isaac. And the traditional Christian response to immorality in the OT is, "Oh, that's just the old covenant. It doesn't apply to today."
In both cases, it was unacceptable. I am not a Jew and it will be at least a decade or two before I convert, if I ever even convert to it at all, but I do tend to believe in its theology. It's difficult to explain why. I mean, Buddhism is certainly more logical than Judaism, but it seems like there's little substance to it, all wisdom and no divinity. Judaism just in a way seems, feels special. Unique.
One large part of that is that I feel it's grounded far more in reason. Its heritage of agnosticism, acceptance of different interpretations, and highly philosophical nature are what distinguish it from all other religions. In my opinion, there is no Jewish text or belief which does not have some sound justification in reason. It's just that, in many cases, we haven't discovered the reasoning yet, and may never know the full truth, so much of it must be accepted on faith. But this shouldn't stop people from asking the question: Why is it true? Why is it right? Provided that the question is asking for clarification and not criticism, it's a good thing. Because it is a religion's foundation in reason, its adherence to experience itself which makes it not only easier to understand, therefore easier to encourage faith in, but more truthful as well.
The purpose of this is not to debunk all of the criticisms of the Old Testament, but simply the main ones which are most often difficult to explain and aren't explained properly at all. Because an entire book could be written (and likely has been written) on Old Testament apologetics. This simply gives my own take on the matter and how the Old Testament can be justified and rationalized, to remain logical, consistent, and fully compatible with modern morality. The only exception, however, is homosexuality. I consider homosexuality wrong, of course, because the Old Testament says it is and the claims by the GBLT community that "it was just homosexual pagan prostitutes," just quite frankly isn't credible, when you look at the culture at the time. I'm certain it's not the all-encompassing, unforgivable blasphemy that Pastor Fred Phelps and Jerry Falwell paint it to be. But I'm just ambivalent on it, so I have no answer for it, at the moment.
But as for the rest of the Old Testament, it's all explained here, and I welcome any criticism.
#1. You can't prove that God exists. - The existence of God is on faith alone. There is no proof God exists, no philosophical argument to prove God exists, but it must be taken upon faith alone. If the truth about God could be proven by science and perception, then faith wouldn't exist. It wouldn't need to. Therefore, faith itself necessitates ignorance. And there is no proof God exists, but there is also no proof God doesn't exist.
Some Atheists argue, therefore, that the burden of proof rests upon the religious. Because Occam's Razor would dictate that the simplest answer, that there is no God, is true. However, from a utilitarian standpoint, this is false. Science has proven several times that religion is a very positive thing. Just one look through the Journal of the Psychology of Religion, they enumerate several dozen positive consequences of being religious and that it, indeed, benefits a person's entire being. Among Holocaust survivors and Vietnam POWs, the main factor in determining whether or not a person survived or not was whether or not a person was religious. Philosophically, religion also brings a person meaning and hope.
Therefore, the burden of proof for God's existence rests upon atheists, not on the religion. Because religion has scientifically-proven positive consequences, atheism's positive consequences of "knowing the truth," are unknown. Therefore, faith in God is frankly logical and it is why even the non-Christians who founded America believed in God.
#2. God is immoral for knowingly condemning some of us to hell or he can't be all-powerful if he gave us free will. - This is one main charge against Judaism and Christianity, which is that God's omnipotence and omniscience couldn't be compatible with free will, for the same reason that philosophers argue human beings could never create true "artificial intelligence." If God knew exactly how everything in the world were designed, including us, then he'd know exactly how the world would play out. This is what Calvinists call "predestination."
But on the other hand, the Bible clearly says that we have free will. And logically, it would be immoral for God to "predestine" some of us to go to hell, and then punish us for what he caused us to do.
Therefore, both predestination and absolute free will cannot be possible. Predestination makes God immoral and absolute free will implies God isn't all-powerful. So, what's the truth, then? A reconciliation of both.
In discussions on free will, philosophers refer to this as "soft determinism." In Theology, it's referred to as "semipelagianism." The idea is that, being both positions determinism and indeterminism are irrational, the only possibility, then, is something in between the two: we partially have free will and we partially are bound by causation. This is the view that Jews hold, reflected in the saying, "The more you bend your will towards God, the more that God bends the will of the world towards you."
It's difficult to understand, not quite as simple as determinism or indeterminism. But it's best explained like this: Move your hand right now. Yes, I mean that literally. Move your hand, in any way, left, right, whatever. Just move your hand.
Now, did you move your hand because I asked you to, my words were sent to your ears, then your brain, which then caused you to move your hand? Or did you choose to move your hand?
Neither.
In other words, if I hadn't asked you to move your hand, you wouldn't have moved your hand. Because there was no cause, no reason to do so. However, after I'd asked you, you still had the choice whether to move your hand or not (you might not have even done it). So, even though the choice required a cause to exist, the choice itself still exists. Thus, fate and free will aren't incompatible, but parallel processes that complement eachother.
Furthermore, God could not have given us this power without partially giving up some power of his own. God, in his omnipotence, has the power to give up his omnipotence, just as Christians believe he did so when he sent Jesus. Thus, we were created "in the image of God," in that we were near-equal to him. We are the only beings, aside from God, with the power of choice. But our power of choice, of course, can never win over the power of God, destiny. He knows the ultimate outcome, but that unfathomable outcome is ultimately good. That "God exists" and "God is good," are both fundamental truths of religion.
#3. God "made a mistake" with flooding the Earth, and killing animals and children. - Some claim that God, being omnipotent and omniscient, should've been able to know that his creations would've eventually turned against him, so some say that God can't be omniscient in the Bible, or else he would've gotten it right the first time.
Now, first of all, let me clarify that much of the Torah is not literal. Both Catholics and Jews accept this, and so do many Protestants. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that it's "literal," but simply that it's true. Well, the truth of the Bible could be metaphorically true just as much as it could be literally true. And the lines which some Christian denominations make do not rely upon any standard system of interpretation, but whether it's in accord with their doctrines and traditions. If you were to hold that the Bible should be literally interpreted, then in translating the Messianic prophecies, Jesus would not be the Messiah. Because the very basis for Jesus being the Messiah is highly metaphorical. This is one interpretation Jews question, saying Christians' interpretation is so highly metaphorical that it renders the prophecies meaningless (and several people could be the Messiah).
Hence, Christianity cannot condemn metaphorical interpretations and it would, in fact, be hypocritical to do so.
I support a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis because it would be irrational to believe otherwise. Evolution and Cosmology have shown that the Earth is far more than a few thousand years old. A literal interpretation of the Bible does not explain how multiple races came about. And by using pure logic alone, if we were to attempt to build Noah's ark today, with two of each animal, it would be literally impossible. Especially for only a few men to do, in such little time.
I believe that religion should be founded in reason and that, Christians or Jews who know in their hearts that they are being illogical, but are spreading lies which they, themselves, believe because they couldn't emotionally deal with the idea that there isn't a literal being hovering over the Earth, that this is immoral. The only "fundamentals" of doctrine should be truth, honesty, and love. And, of course, faith that is grounded in the above three.
Furthermore, using pseudoscience to justify false doctrine, in fact, hurts the faith. If you are honest and say, "Yes, that's not how it literally happened," it seems reasonable and rational, appealing to most people. But if you say, "No, that's how it DID happen, and this poorly done, biased scientific study proves it!" even asserting that humans and dinosaurs walked side-by-side, then it paints Judaism and Christianity as an irrational, silly, crazy religion, causing people to ridicule it and turn away from it. This is what I think has happened to Christianity and it needs to stop. After all, in Judaism, the emphasis on our acts in this life, not historicity. And in Christianity, the emphasis is on our faith in Jesus and our acts in this life, once again, not the historicity of the Torah.
In any case, back to Noah...
Being that the story of Noah is metaphorical rather than literal, it in no way attacks God's divinity. What's important is not the historicity of the text, or the moral implications of it if it's literally true, but the moral message that we draw from it. And there are profound messages to be drawn from Noah: First of all, that we are God's "final draft," that we are so good, so as to be worthy of mercy. Second of all, the flood is referred to as "the Flood of Noah," because Noah never intervened on mankind's behalf. Noah could've said, "But wait, God, please spare mankind," but he chose not to. The story demonstrates that we should always appeal to God in such circumstances. Therefore, the blood of the people at that time fell upon Noah, not God.
#2. There was genocide against the Canaanites (Deuteronomy 7:1-2, Joshua 6:21, Joshua 10:40-41, etc.)
I found a page (by a Christian, I believe) that explains this rather clearly. I can't post the link yet, because I'm under 15 posts, but I can PM you the link to it, if you like.
And parts of this were taken directly from the site.
Now, first of all, let me clarify that I disagree with the traditional Jewish and Christian interpretation that, "God commanded their genocide, therefore, they had to do it, and also the Canaanites were a cursed race."
Because that basically does say that it was a racist, evil, genocidal act, but that it's okay because God says so.
Now, it also needs to be clarified that the Canaanites were a grossly immoral people. Now, that's not to say that two rights make a wrong, but to put it into context. In many, many ways, the deaths of Canaanite women and children would've been better than having to live in a Canaanite society. Both Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18:16-19:29) were in Canaan and swarms of Canaan barbarians would attack people and rape them (including gay rape) just for fun. The tribe of Benjamin later picked up this behavior as well (Judges 18:9-21). Historians also now know that the Canaanite religion involved sacrificing live babies by setting them on fire on a burning altar. So, as I said, in many, many ways, death was preferable. As the saying goes, "There are some things worse than death." In this way, the invasion of Canaan was for the few innocent Canaanites what the atomic bomb was for Hiroshima. Many Japanese, after the event, said it was a tragic event, but, in fact, a blessing.
Furthermore, God did not specifically command "genocide." God issued two specific commands concerning the Canaanites east of the Jordan River (Deuteronomy 2:26-36, 3:1-11) and six commands concerning Canaanites in general (Exodus 23:31-33, 34:11-16, Numbers 33:50-56, Deuteronomy 7:1-5, 12:2-3, 20:10-18). The two specific commands were for the conquest of the kingdoms east of the Jordan. Of the six general commands, only Deuteronomy 7:1-5 demands the total destruction of the Canaanites. Deuteronomy 20:10-18 qualifies this by specifically mentioning the destruction of Canaanite cities. The other four concern driving them out, destroying their idols and not making any treaties with them.
(...continued...)
