If you are a Christian, then your main doctrine is the New Testament, the OT is there to show that the prophecies of the Messiah were true, and to give us an idea of where the roots of our religion come from.
Comparing Samuel to Patrick is illogical, they lived in very different times. Why not compare a scientist of the 1st century to a scientist of the 20th century: they are both scientists, but theories and scientific method are very different.
You stated:And God *is* an angry and vengeful God, whether you are comfortable with that thought or not.
If that is your belief, I feel sorry for you, my God sent his only begotten son to die for us; not very angry and vengeful, is it?
"Islam is criticized as being evil because of the use by fringe elements of death in ways that shock us in the west, and they openly advocate death to those who they percieve as threatening their faith.
And because there is little to no hue and cry against it by "mainstram Islam", the silence if the Imam's and Ayatollahs is seen as tacit approval. BTW: aren't the Ayatollahs and Imams the ones who issue the FATWAS, religious edicts that order the death of people, and groups of people, seen as enemies/blasphemers?
And yet our Christian Bible tells us God commanded people at various times to utterly destroy man, woman and child different tribes; the Caananites and the Amalekites, for example. So for someone to make this argument puts them in a position of indirectly acusing our God of being evil. That is wrong and howver so gentle, it is blasphemous."
OK, now you have me somewhat confused as to what point you are trying to make her. First, there's that old OT hangup again; Second, as I said in my previous post, God's "command" is heard by one person, usually, and is interpreted as to what action to take. Why would God tell man to destroy other men (collectively) when God can easily do it without Man's help. He did just fine with Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot went in to try and save the people.
You seem to be painting the OT God as somewhat wicked with his orders for the destruction of innocents.
Perhaps you are taking the OT too literally. It was not written to be read by ALL, it was written to read by the priests and TOLD to the followers. It has also been translated many times and has changed that way: "Thou shalt not KILL." should read "Thou shalt not MURDER." but a translation changed that.
The lives of the prophets and their actions were written by others, and interpreted by many others. Since Man is a fallible creature, who knows what kind of bias may have crept in over the years.
I seem to recall that Slavery in the US was seen as acceptable because it was in the Bible...do we still feel that way?
So Samuel was evil in telling King Saul to kill the Amalekites and then to strip the kingship away from him because Saul failed to kill all the royal family as well as all the commoner Amalekites?
I can not say if Samuel was evil since I do not kow his motivation, nor do I know if the translation is exact. Again, the OT hang-up, and again, trying to compare it to modern morals and ethics. Saul and Samuel were "products of their times", as were the Amalekites and the Canaanites. Given the choice, neither would have hesitated to destroy the Israelites, because a destroyed enemy can not attack you again: it was COMMON PRACTICE at that point in history.
That's why the cities had big walls around them, and when a city was attacked, ALL able-bodied people helped to defend and support the defenders since they knew they would die if the city fell.
Oliver Cromwell, Puritan, massacred the Catholic citizens of Drogheda and Wexford (Ireland) in 1649, at the behest of his beliefs to destroy Catholics.
People's place in history depends on who writes the history books.
God is presented in the OT similar to the God you say you believe in: angry and vengeful. This is because an "angry and vengeful" God is one that keeps the people under control.
All prayers and requests have to go through the chosen intermediary: priests, imams, etc.
My God, the New Testament God, is not that way, because we are encouraged to read the words of the Lord, and to interpret ourselves, the language is easier to understand than the OT language.
Your comments and comparisons about "Slavery and Subjugation of women" are a bit beyond the pale and they really do not compare.
As for the sex industry in Thailand, it is a Bhuddist country and not Western, regardless of Westerners going there, along with reps from every other race and religion.
In the Islamic world women's status allows them to be raped and treated as sex toys, especially non-Islamic women.
Why go to Thailand when you can be a part of an Islamic rape-gang in Sydney, or Malmo, or Amsterdam.
But it is GOD who is the SOURCE of those laws and moral systems, right?
God is the source of the 10 Commandments, man is the source of the punishments for breaking those commandments, saying that they are "speaking" for God; God is also the source of the "Greatest Commandment": "That you love one another, as I have loved you." The punisment for breaking that one is not going to Heaven.
Has GOD evolved in your opinion?
God cannot evolve, God IS.
Our views of God have evolved, our perceptions of what is expected of us. It is MAN that needs to evolve.
Words fail me, FD. You do our Lord proud.
#182
Best post I've ever seen. Great job!!!
"What is it with your obsession with the Old Testament?"
Someone who is having trouble understanding that it's basically the history of the Hebrews and simply doesn't like Jews?
FD:
As Ari put it---an excellent post.
However, I am wondering how often we will have to explain--over and over--the same point before some of this lot gets it.
Its the same people that miss what the rest of us here clearly understood the first time.
Could it be that they are blind and cannot see---or just plain ignorant.
Dodger, is the God of the Old Testament the same as the God of the New Testment or not?