The Old Testament of the Bible: A Depressing Paradigm

First of all, you're right about Saul. I slipped on that. Sorry. Yes, he fell on his sword so he wouldn't be killed by...the Amalekites? Some people of that mold anyway. Again, sorry for the slip-up. As to animal sacrifice, I stand by what I said earlier: once the animal is dead, nothing cruel can be done to it. That's just common sense. The word "cruel" implies that the passive party is hurt in some way. A dead animal cannot be hurt, therefore nothing is cruel. That does not mean that "raping" a dead body is acceptable. It merely means that the being that inhabited the body is not around to be hurt, and therefore it is not "cruel." It is repugnant, and sinful, but you can't call it cruel. You say that eating a dead animal has a "beneficiary." I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that, but if sacrificing an animal washes our sins away, albeit in an imperfect way because perfection would not have sinned in the first place, then doesn't animal sacrifice have a "beneficiary" as well? The very idea of animal sacrifice still makes me squeamish, but again, it was a harsh remedy for a harsh crime in harsh times. Animal sacrifice, as a way of atoning for your sins, is now gone. Caput. Jesus Christ died on the cross to save us from our sins. However, the Vikings sacrificed to false gods and did so hundreds of years after the death of Jesus. That does not prove anything except that their dogma made them sacrifice animals. They didn't get any "heavenly reward" from it. Regarding Job, he was God's faithful servant. He didn't resent being tested by the devil; he regarded it as an essential stumbling block on the path to salvation. There is nothing immoral about God's actions. Job did not resent them, who are we to argue with him? Ah, sarcasm. I'm sorry it had to come to that. I was enjoying an intellectual debate. Well, so you did mean what you said as an indictment of all religious texts. What of it? Any "altruism" in nature is instinct, instilled in it by God. Any morality in humanity is the remnant of our pre-Fall selves, and therefore perfection. There is no evolutionary basis for morality, nor for self-awareness. By altruism in nature, I assume you are referring to things like the motherhood instinct, which appears in even the lowest animals (although humans have been giving it a pretty heavy beating since Roe v. Wade.) The Motherhood instinct is just that--an instinct. There is nothing moral about it. It may seem moral to humans, or at least positive, but that is because we share the instincts. Morality is the conscious or unconscious act of a conscious being. Non sentient beings--every known being on Earth besides humans--cannot do anything "moral." That is obvious. You say that the Old Testament is a "depressing paradigm." Why? Because the God of the universe stood by his creation even after it rebelled against him, repeatedly and continually? Because God did not destroy us, as he could have--we certainly deserved it--but saved us from our sins? Because God did not kill Job, but after his trial gave him the desires of his heart? Because God welcomed Prodigal Man back into his fold? I find nothing depressing about these things.