1/4 of The Old Testament Still Matters Debate
If there's one thing that gets me upset when arguing about the Bible, it's when people say, "Well, that's the OLD Testament" Seriously, this is the laziest and most incorrect excuse that pretty much every Christian I've talked to has brought up. This mindset precipitates into a couple of other horrible arguments:
- That was the culture at the time!
- This is out of context!
- You're just cherry-picking!
Let's begin with the first point: "That was the culture at the time!". My response is, "Yes. Yes it was the culture at the time." This argument is accurate, but the implication is deeper than they realize. For reference, here is one use of the argument:
This little bit I took from the same paragraph as the example I used for number one. Don't talk in absolutes. When claiming that ALL of my quotes from the OT are out of context, then you have to show the true context for all of them, which you don't do.
Number 3 is the funniest because of how ironic it is. The great thing about disproving a book or God that claims to be absolutely anything is that all I have to do is cherry-pick one contradiction or immoral act and I'm good to go. Telling me that I'm cherry-picking is like saying "Yeah, God is immoral here, but he isn't immoral over here!" It doesn't matter; the problem is that he's immoral at all! That's why my entire job is to cherry-pick! And remember, who's cherry-picking depends on perspective. To me, you cherry-pick the good and leave the bad, but to you, I cherry-pick the bad and leave the good; the bad is all I need to prove my point.
The last two points usually fall under number 1, in that the context is the culture, or that I'm cherry-picking events that are solely caused by the culture. But once again, and I've stated this many times before, the Laws of the Old Testament were made by God himself. The Law that says women are twice as unclean as men? God, not the culture. The one that implies women are property and is flawed for the previously stated reasons? God, not the culture. The one that sanctions priest-led abortion? God, not the culture. The ones that endorse slavery, genocide, and the killing of innocent infants, livestock, and pregnant women? Yet again, God; not the culture.
The stories of God and the Israelites also holds value in the Old Testament. They show us God's thought process through his actions, which turns out to be very, very, evil. Like, this guy tells the Israelites to straight up murder the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites-basically all the nearby people-for potentially corrupting Israelite culture. Sounds eerily similar to a certain dictator I know of...
The Old Testament DOES matter. It matters because it is a timeline of God's actions and decrees. The Mosaic Laws are his commands. Israel's actions are his commands (at least whenever they obey him). Even if you don't derive your lifestyle from his commands-and hopefully you don't-extreme value can be found in knowing God! So stop telling me, "Well, that was the Old Testament, and the culture was different at the time", because unless God changes to fit the culture at the time (hint: he doesn't), his mindset in ancient times is the same today. That argument is extremely short-sighted, and unless you can show me how I misquoted something or any other reason that it was the culture and not God, then don't claim that I took something out of context, and don't blame the culture. Blame God.
*I will revisit the aforementioned passages with more detail and analysis in future blog posts. I just had to bring them up to show my point that all of these things are literally God's commands. Yes, they are terrible, evil things. But hey, as long is you still believe God is omni-benevolent...well, have fun justifying slavery, genocide, and baby/livestock/pregnant women killing!*
*For the sake of this example, let's ignore my entire argument on why this implies women are property.*
This claim is made in response to this Law, and it's very true. Virginity in this culture was very important, and the Law based around this idea makes sense when put in this cultural context. My main problem with this is Why does God conform to the culture of primitive desert people? I've been over this argument with another Christian, and it makes zero sense as to why an omni-everything God would make a Law that penalizes both the rapist and his victim rather than just the rapist. In fact, I made up a Law that would solve this whole problem instantly:
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, the man who has done this shall be put to death, and the woman declared a virgin, for the man has taken that which the Lord has given her. Any virgin who has been raped has their virginity restored to them, because what the Lord has given once, he can also give again."
There we go! Rapists die rather than marry their victims forever, and raped virgin women get their status back! Stop putting God in a box; he doesn't have to conform to the culture at the time! This in itself is problematic, because although it was the culture at the time, there is no reason at all why God should forfeit setting up a new, infinitely better culture in favor of modifying the existing one. Like, for real; God could've changed up the culture to have a perfect system of justice and economy, but instead he creates a system where people are murdered for being unproductive, wearing cloth of two different fabrics, and planting two different crops on the same field. Doesn't that set off an alarm in any of you? That we have made current laws that are more good, more correct, and more justifying than God's laws? "That was the culture at the time!" is a horrible excuse, especially when using it to justify God's thought process and mindset on justice. It only lets us label his sense of justice as horribly flawed and primitive.
Number 2 on my list is "This is out of context!" This is a valid argument if used correctly, and it is usually used with number 1 as context of the culture. Context is key, and all things can be taken out of context, but when someone says "This is out of context!" and fails to give any reason why, then why believe them? If you're going to claim that something I used was out of context, then please enlighten us on what the true context is. (Phillip's context on the passage from Deuteronomy is spot-on; it's just that it shows how God is super bad at even the slightest critical thinking.)
Number 3 is the funniest because of how ironic it is. The great thing about disproving a book or God that claims to be absolutely anything is that all I have to do is cherry-pick one contradiction or immoral act and I'm good to go. Telling me that I'm cherry-picking is like saying "Yeah, God is immoral here, but he isn't immoral over here!" It doesn't matter; the problem is that he's immoral at all! That's why my entire job is to cherry-pick! And remember, who's cherry-picking depends on perspective. To me, you cherry-pick the good and leave the bad, but to you, I cherry-pick the bad and leave the good; the bad is all I need to prove my point.
 |
| I had this one titled "Baby-Spiking" in my notes LOL Psalm 137:9 |
The last two points usually fall under number 1, in that the context is the culture, or that I'm cherry-picking events that are solely caused by the culture. But once again, and I've stated this many times before, the Laws of the Old Testament were made by God himself. The Law that says women are twice as unclean as men? God, not the culture. The one that implies women are property and is flawed for the previously stated reasons? God, not the culture. The one that sanctions priest-led abortion? God, not the culture. The ones that endorse slavery, genocide, and the killing of innocent infants, livestock, and pregnant women? Yet again, God; not the culture.
The stories of God and the Israelites also holds value in the Old Testament. They show us God's thought process through his actions, which turns out to be very, very, evil. Like, this guy tells the Israelites to straight up murder the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites-basically all the nearby people-for potentially corrupting Israelite culture. Sounds eerily similar to a certain dictator I know of...
 |
| "Kill the Jews!"- Hitler "Kill the |
The Old Testament DOES matter. It matters because it is a timeline of God's actions and decrees. The Mosaic Laws are his commands. Israel's actions are his commands (at least whenever they obey him). Even if you don't derive your lifestyle from his commands-and hopefully you don't-extreme value can be found in knowing God! So stop telling me, "Well, that was the Old Testament, and the culture was different at the time", because unless God changes to fit the culture at the time (hint: he doesn't), his mindset in ancient times is the same today. That argument is extremely short-sighted, and unless you can show me how I misquoted something or any other reason that it was the culture and not God, then don't claim that I took something out of context, and don't blame the culture. Blame God.
*I will revisit the aforementioned passages with more detail and analysis in future blog posts. I just had to bring them up to show my point that all of these things are literally God's commands. Yes, they are terrible, evil things. But hey, as long is you still believe God is omni-benevolent...well, have fun justifying slavery, genocide, and baby/livestock/pregnant women killing!*
Comment: Part 1
ReplyDeleteYou have once again made some valid and well-written points in this post, and I commend you for that. And in truth, I agree with you a bit. The Old Testament DOES matter! However, I disagree with many of your “contradictions” found in the Old and New Testaments, along with some of your arguments in this post. Bear with me, there might be some nitpicking.
At one point you said: “Instead he creates a system where people are murdered for being unproductive, wearing cloth of two different fabrics, and planting two different crops on the same field.” I read the links you posted, and I would like to know in what verse it says that people are murdered for the fabric and crop sins. I see that the unproductive one results in death, but the punishment for the fabric and cop-planting does not appear to be death. Sorry to nitpick, but if you could clarify this, that would be great.
Now here’s the main part of my comment about the Old Testament. I feel like what is misunderstood is God, specifically his motives, commands, and actions. I’ll try to keep this relatively short, but we need to start in the beginning for this to make sense. So God created Adam and Eve, and then they sinned, and the punishment for sin is death. God’s original plan of creating perfect people failed, but luckily, God always has like a dozen or infinity backups. (If you question the idea of God creating perfect people who are able to sin, feel free to ask me. I have something of an explanation but I don’t feel like putting that entire essay in this comment.) You see, God sees all that has happened, all that is happening, all that can happen, and all that will happen. So He knew right off the bat that creating perfect people with free will would eventually lead to sin, so He would have to create a way for people’s sins to be absolved if they were to join Him again. Some people were righteous, but most were sinful, evil, and unremorseful, so then the Flood happened, water and rain and doves and civilization and etc. Then God, having started again, decided to create a brand new society from scratch, begun in Him, and with Him as the leader, so He made a covenant with Abram/Abraham, whose descendants were the enslaved Israelites in Egypt. God sent in Moses who performed miracles in the name of God to free the Israelites and further their trust in Him. They escaped from people, water was split, and then God started the commandments, which is where a lot of your contradictions come in with some of these “immoral” commands. And to be fair, a lot of the commands don’t make sense to us now, and many seem outdated. But here’s the context, or the background needed to understand the commandments: God needed the Israelites to not get themselves killed while wandering in circles for 40 years and then living in Canaan. His overall plan hinged on the Israelites staying alive and establishing a society through which Christ could be born, teach, spread the Word, and give all people a chance to be with God. God needed the Israelite culture to survive for many, many years until the time was perfect for Him to send His Son. So God needed to set up a system with order, respect for parents, and respect for Him. God wanted to set up a system with Himself – the only perfect ruler out there – in charge. I don’t want to generalize all of the laws, but He was making sure that the Israelites had a backbone from which they could build their society, with God as the leader. He wanted everyone to contribute, to avoid foods that could result in disease, to respect their God and the heads of the households (men, in this case), and to make sacrifices to atone for sin. Specific debates about those laws that seem immoral to us today can be left for another time, but those were the general reasons (I think, but I’m not God) that God had for creating those laws.
(Comment Continues to Part 2)
Comment: Part 2
DeleteAfter the laws and wandering, God commanded Joshua and the Israelites to be more morally ambiguous by our standards and commit genocide against the people living in Canaan, the land God promised to Abraham. Now, there are multiple reasons for this commandment, one of which you already stated in a Hitler comparison. For one, God did not want the Israelites to be corrupted by the sinful ways of the current occupants of Canaan, and they were sinful people. If the Israelites tried to capture them or convert them and add them to the Israelite culture, then these Canaanites would still have lingering influences of these sinful ways, which would inevitably spread throughout Israelite culture and destroy any holiness it had. That’s why humans were killed and animals and crops sacrificed to God as thanks for His continual providing of victories. Of course, the Israelites did turn away from God many times, but it was BECAUSE they were founded in God and lasted for years with Him alone at the helm, without corruption from other cultures, that they were able to turn back to Him and keep the culture alive until Jesus. Another reason for the killing could be similar to Sodom, Gomorrah, and the Flood: sin. Now, sin’s punishment is death, but repentance of sins and turning away from sinful ways allows for life. The Canaanites were very sinful people, who showed no remorse for their sins and definitely WERE NOT willing to turn from their sinful ways. Therefore, their punishment would be death, which the Israelites delivered. Finally, by killing the other nations in Canaan, the Israelites built up a reputation for themselves and for God. Surrounding people, during the times of conquering and of kings (you might want to fact-check me on that), would often surrender or leave in fear. Many times, the Israelites’ seemingly invincible nature caused others to acknowledge God, as seen with Rahab. The Israelites’ conquest, as odd as it may sound, actually served to spread God throughout the world, and caused people to acknowledge and believe in God. Now, I am not trying to justify what some may call genocide, I am simply going through a few reasons God may have had for commanding the Israelites to kill the people of Canaan. So, to conclude: God is NOT Hitler.
Now, to actually conclude, I do agree that the Old Testament is still very important. However, for Christians the issue is more about having a relationship with God rather than following every one of His commands, which is why some extraneous commands like not eating animals who chew cud have been discontinued. We still need to study the Old Testament to know the history and character of God, and to be able to ask and answer questions relating to His goals, morality, commands, and actions. Good job with the blog and keep up the good work, because it is really bringing to the surface important issues that are best discussed rather than forgotten.