The Evangelical Universalist Forum

The Commands Of The Monster God Of The Old Testament


There’s no need to say it’s the only reason; it’s the only reason the Bible gives. Therefore it’s reasonable to assume it’s the only reason.


The Bible would say I’m punishing them just for retribution. It doesn’t. In fact when we look at another example of where the innocent is punished for others sins (Christ) we find at least 50 justifiable reasons for retribution on the innocent. God is a being infinite in wisdom and knowledge and logical explanations are infinite in number. Moreover, all events in the past lead up to the cross and culminate at the cross. Therefore, we look at all the justifiable reasons at the cross. Moreover, Job underwent suffering and had no idea why.


FWIW My personal conscience sympathizes with Qaz’s that ANY using of the sins of others to justify brutalizing little children or the innocent appears to conflict with any intelligible sense of righteous justice. I love the 50 things that Jesus’ willingness to absorb the wrongful punishment of sinners accomplishes, but have no idea how his loving submission would show that it can be morally good for the righteous to brutalize the innocent. But I admire Hollytree’s willingness to try to explain why such acts appears appropriate to him.


Still waiting for the argument Bob. I wouldn’t blaspheme the Holy God of the Bible over an intuition.


As I confessed Hollytree, I personally am not willing to deny or sear my conscience, and if you need an argument for how anyone’s conscience could be troubled by exalting the brutalizing of innocent children, yours functions differently than we who you know that our Lord despises.

But I reaffirm that I admire your willingness to go to bat that you are convinced our Father and his Scripture has told you this and that it is blasphemy to question it. I was raised and served many decades in that tradition and understand and salute you for seeking to be genuinely faithful to the view of morality that you recognize as\ plainly valid.


I think that Monty Python had a GREAT idea…for folks looking for an argument. :wink:


Here’s a few quotes from Rudolf Otto in The Idea of the Holy: An Inquiry Into the Non-Rational Factor in The Idea of the Divine and it’s Relation to the Rational, chapter 2, pp. 5 and 6. We will see that Bob has misunderstood Otto and completely misunderstands the Supra Rational

Holiness - the holy - is a category of interpretation and valuation peculiar to the sphere of religion. It is, indeed, applied by transference to another sphere - that of ethics - but it is not itself derived from this. While it is complex, it contains quite a different element or ‘moment’, which sets it apart from ‘the Rational’ in the meaning we gave to that word above, and which remains inexpressible - an ineffable - in the sense that it completely eludes apprehension in terms of concepts.

The fact is we have come to use the words holy, sacred in an entirely derivative sense, quite different from that which they ordinarily bore. We generally take ‘holy’ as meaning ‘completely good’; it is the absolute moral attribute, denoting the consummation of moral goodness. But this common usage of the term is inaccurate. It is true that all this moral significance is contained in the word ‘holy’ but it includes in addition - as even we cannot but feel - a clear overplus of meaning, and later or acquired meaning; rather ‘holy’, or at least the equivalent words in Latin and Greek, in Semitic and other ancient languages, denoted first and foremost only this overplus: If the ethical element was present at all, at any rate it was not original and never constituted the whole meaning of the word.

But this ‘holy’ then represents the gradual shaping and filling in with ethical meaning, or what we shall call the ‘schematization’, of what was a unique original feeling response, which can be in itself ethically neutral and claims consideration in its own right. And when this moment or element first emerges and begins its long development, all those long expressions mean beyond all question something quite other than ‘the good’. This is universally agreed upon by contemporary criticism…Accordingly, it is worth while, as we have said, to find a word to stand for this element in isolation, this ‘extra’ in the meaning of ‘holy’ above and beyond the meaning of goodness.


Any human being who brutalizes little children would be legally charged and probably imprisoned. To say that it is a righteous act if God does it, is ludicrous.

Even non-Christians recognize that goodness is goodness no matter who does it! The same with evil.

“To say that God’s goodness may be different in kind from man’s goodness what is it but saying, with a slight change of phraseology, that God may possibly not be good?” ~John Stuart Mill



Your making a categorical mistake when you compare humans to God. As I said in the OP:

The Bible tells us that God is holy. Holiness when applied to God not only refers to moral purity but to everything that separates God from His creation and His creatures. There are ways we are like God and ways we are not. He’s distinct. For example: God in infinite in wisdom and knowledge and sees all circumstances past, present, and future. He’s in a privileged position. He’s all-knowing, all-powerful, self-sufficient, Sovereign over the universe and omnipresent. We are none of these things. God is in a category all by Himself and cannot be compared to anything or anybody. To do so is to make a categorical mistake. Thus, God’s love is a holy love. His justice is a holy justice. This isn’t the same omnibenevolence and goodness that we try to ascribe to God. Because of Divine revelation we are justified in saying the God of the Bible is holy. We don’t say that since God is good He couldn’t have commanded such and such. But because God’s essence is holiness or because God is essentially holy He has justifiable reasons for commanding the killing of the innocent, etc, etc, in particular and utterly unique (Holy) circumstances.


No, that is just what Calvinistic theologians want you to think. Jesus compared us to God in his sermon on the mount. We didn’t fair as well as God the father, did we? And yet, you would tell Jesus “You are making a categorical error, Jesus!”. The statement that I quoted from you is, quite simply, the arrogance of intellectuals who have closed off their tiny sandbox to others who might be able to make better sand-castles or other well built structures. To be clear, there are no real discussions where one side can solely define what a categorical error is…


I already stated that there’s ways we are like God and ways we are not and then gave the examples for this specific context. It is a categorical error. You twist the Bible Gabe because you have blasphemed the holy. You call the God of the Bible unjust and evil as well.




My new favorite emoji!!


Hollytree keeps insisting that some philosophers support his belief that slaughtering innocent children can be fine. I have no investment in Rudolf Otto’s infallibility, but still cannot see where he calls such treatment of children righteous at all. But if Holly’s interpretation of Otto were correct, it would be irrelevant to my view that such a morality would align him with the understanding of the most pagan religions, and their approach to precious little ones. I find this less moral than the way Jesus approached infants & children.



I can answer Pipers’ question!!
NOTHING makes it ok.
We are once again back in the OT and arguing about it.
Will any amount of explanation that Jesus Christ is the exact radiant expression of the Father, ever draw our eyes away from being transfixed by our misunderstanding of the OT as it describes God?
“This is my beloved Son: listen to HIM”


Thanks for sharing such a straightforward example of this dogma. John and I took every seminary class together for 3 years where we were taught this assertion that slaughtering innocent children is good becauseeverything God does is right.”

It takes awhile when fundamentalism insists on ignoring Jesus’ approach to realize that this circular logic is how every world religion’s fundamentalisms justify every claim their tradition asserts, no matter how abysmally it violates the conscience of those who embrace love as the “one commandment which fulfills God’s entire law” (Galatians 5:14)…


And from days ago: :grimacing:
Bob, not to de rail your very cognitive posts on your view,
Let’s re vamp or rephrase my point, that as man evolves, God’s way of dealing with them has done so. So you say God may not be evolving, and I can roll with that but I would say that it is possible that God’s dealings with man may well constitute a greater awareness of us humans than we ourselves have, and that God being God, there is a realization He has that how he deals with this part of creation might well ebb and flow, just like His allowance for us to progress in our spirit and intellect is growing.

Just a thought.


MM, yes I agree and assume God’s way of dealing with us would change when taking into account our changing conditions. I just don’t see what has so fundamentally changed about human nature and worth to make slaughtering innocent children wickedly immoral now if it was a righteous kind of deed in earlier days.


Bob just to be clear - you’re not saying that God has a different way of saving mankind, other than through faith and repentance?