Is our God a tribal god?

[TheoloJer]

That’s a common argument that some atheists seem to make. That because our God, the god of the bible, is declared the god of Israel, he is merely the god of one country, imprecisely to other gods of other civilizations.

How do Christians object to that claim?

 

[Carolus_Martell]

Who can comprehend the mind of God?

No to derail your topic but at times I’ve wondered if God appealed to other peoples that for what ever reason they rejected him.

 

[WesleyF]

That’s a common argument that some atheists seem to make. That because our God, the god of the bible, is declared the god of Israel, he is merely the god of one country, imprecisely to other gods of other civilizations.

How do Christians object to that claim?

He is also called the God of heaven and earth (Gen 24:3) and the the God of the spirits of all flesh (Numbers 27:16). He was often called the God of Israel in the Old Testament perhaps because no other nation worshiped him or knew him as their God. It might have also been a good way to distinguish God from the “gods” of the pagans. The Jews didn’t prefer refering to God by name out of respect for his name. So it seems that “God of Israel” was used to specify which God was being spoken about.

 

[Gorgias]

Scott Hahn posits a covenant theology – God’s revelation to humanity was something that happened within time and history, and it happened in a way that was ever-expanding: first to a couple, then a family, then a tribe, then a nation… and eventually, to all humanity.

Although, at one point, God’s revelation to humanity was only tribal in scope, it later expanded. We would attribute that strategy to God’s plan for all humanity.

On the other hand, we might look at it sociologically. In the early mid-eastern cultures, gods were perceived to be ‘geographical’ or ‘local’ in nature: a god was thought to have power in a location, but not in another god’s location. So, if God chose to reveal himself to people in a manner that didn’t do violence to their understanding, but allowed them to move from their previous understanding toward greater knowledge… then what’s the problem with that?

 

[meltzerboy]

That’s a common argument that some atheists seem to make. That because our God, the god of the bible, is declared the god of Israel, he is merely the god of one country, imprecisely to other gods of other civilizations.

How do Christians object to that claim?

There is the belief in Judaism, not universally accepted, that G-d presented Himself to other nations before He did to the people of Israel at Mount Sinai, but the other nations rejected Him. IOW, Israel was not G-d’s first choice. That said, Jews believe that G-d is the G-d of all peoples on Earth and of the whole universe (or multiverse). He demands stricter obligations from Jews than He does of others since the Jewish people are thought, according to Jewish teaching, to be G-d’s suffering servant and beacon of light to the nations of the world. However, this does not mean G-d loves them any more than He loves all His people and His whole creation. Nor does the notion of the “chosen people” mean that the Jews are particularly worthy of this title; it is only by grace that they were given this arduous, yet joyful, responsibility.

 

[504Katrin]

That’s a common argument that some atheists seem to make. That because our God, the god of the bible, is declared the god of Israel, he is merely the god of one country, imprecisely to other gods of other civilizations.

How do Christians object to that claim?

A couple of weeks ago, I felt that G0d was far away from me, and I prayed to him he might let me know that he’s still with me. It was kind of a rainy day so I was looking out for a rainbow hoping to see one, but I didn’t. Next day though, when I was driving to school after work, I entered the highway and right there at the end of the highway right across me there was a beautiful rainbow.
Yesterday I felt in a similar way, and I thought to myself, if I ask him to send a rainbow again as a sign it will probably appear to me not now but tomorrow. Today, I was reading a Psalm of King David whom I adore and love with my whole heart. I thought about what I was praying for the day before and something told me to get up and look out of the window. I first dismissed this thought but this urge got greater and so I went to the window and sure enough - for two maybe three seconds only I saw the rainbow. I fell on my knees and I cried there in front of my window praying thanks to the L0rd.

Can you not see rainbows? The rainbow was the very first covenant between G0d and us, between all people, not just people that lived in the area, but between him and all menkind. This is why you , and I , and everyone in this world can see them.

 

[silicasandra]

There is the belief in Judaism, not universally accepted, that G-d presented Himself to other nations before He did to the people of Israel at Mount Sinai, but the other nations rejected Him. IOW, Israel was not G-d’s first choice. That said, Jews believe that G-d is the G-d of all peoples on Earth and of the whole universe (or multiverse). He demands stricter obligations from Jews than He does of others since the Jewish people are thought, according to Jewish teaching, to be G-d’s suffering servant and beacon of light to the nations of the world. However, this does not mean G-d loves them any more than He loves all His people and His whole creation. Nor does the notion of the “chosen people” mean that the Jews are particularly worthy of this title; it is only by grace that they were given this arduous, yet joyful, responsibility.

That is really fascinating; I’ve never heard that explanation before. Most of the Jewish people I’ve been close friends with have not taken this approach, but then again, they weren’t really serious about their religion either.

One of the explanations I’ve heard, and I wish I could remember where I heard it, was that God chose the Israelites because He knew that Jesus would come from them. If you’re going to have a human Savior, he’s going to belong to one people or another. In some ways it was similar to what Gorgias mentioned about Scott Hahn’s idea, which I really like and am going to have to learn more about!

 

[Celticnovice]

That’s a common argument that some atheists seem to make. That because our God, the god of the bible, is declared the god of Israel, he is merely the god of one country, imprecisely to other gods of other civilizations.

How do Christians object to that claim?

Our God desired a relationship with the creation. Christians could argue that through the Messiah the gospel was opened up to the world.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

That’s a common argument that some atheists seem to make. That because our God, the god of the bible, is declared the god of Israel, he is merely the god of one country, imprecisely to other gods of other civilizations.

How do Christians object to that claim?

It’s an argument that relies on simplistic reasoning. A label is applied to something, so it must be correct. Using the reasoning of the argument presented to you, all Bowie knives were owned by Jim Bowie and all Arkansas toothpicks were made in Arkansas. We could also argue that since the scientific theory is European in origin, than it isn’t really universal, just European.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

It’s an argument that relies on simplistic reasoning. A label is applied to something, so it must be correct. Using the reasoning of the argument presented to you, all Bowie knives were owned by Jim Bowie and all Arkansas toothpicks were made in Arkansas. We could also argue that since the scientific theory is European in origin, than it isn’t really universal, just European.

Correrction- change “scientific theory” to “scientific method”

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

That’s a common argument that some atheists seem to make. That because our God, the god of the bible, is declared the god of Israel, he is merely the god of one country, imprecisely to other gods of other civilizations.

How do Christians object to that claim?

The God of Israel is not a tribal god. He is the Aboriginal God.

Let them read on G.K. Chesterton’s The Everlasting Man.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

When it comes to considering Yahweh a tribal god, I would say that non-believers don’t focus so much on what he calls himself but more on how he presented himself only to Israel. While it’s not necessary for a god that is the god of all people to present himself globally, the fact that cultures outside of Israel were made aware of Yahweh in the same way that non-Viking cultures were made aware of Thor and Odin causes some to treat it suspiciously.

Can you not see rainbows? The rainbow was the very first covenant between G0d and us, between all people, not just people that lived in the area, but between him and all menkind. This is why you , and I , and everyone in this world can see them.

I apologize if I’m missing something here. Prior to Noah’s flood did light not refract from raindrops?

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

When it comes to considering Yahweh a tribal god, I would say that non-believers don’t focus so much on what he calls himself but more on how he presented himself only to Israel. While it’s not necessary for a god that is the god of all people to present himself globally, the fact that cultures outside of Israel were made aware of Yahweh in the same way that non-Viking cultures were made aware of Thor and Odin causes some to treat it suspiciously.

G.K. Chesterton actually proposed the thesis that God made Himself known to all peoples, but they somehow forgot about Him, yet traces of Him can still be found in their mythologies. For example, he gave the example of the missionaries meeting a certain group of American Indians:

A missionary was preaching to a very wild tribe of polytheists, who had told him all their polytheistic tales, and telling them in return of the existence of the one good God who is a spirit and judges men by spiritual standards. And there was a sudden buzz, of excitement among these stolid barbarians, as at somebody who was letting out a secret, and they cried to each other, "Atahocan! He is speaking of Atahocan!’

Other examples of this from the top of my head are from the ancient Tagalog in the Philippines. They gave prayers and sacrifices to the anitos (ancestral spirits) and not to Bathala because Bathala is a great lord who lives in Heaven and cannot be reached.

G.K. Chesterton also noted the peculiar observation that individual gods in a polytheistic religion are usually able to stand as a monotheistic god:

t is implied for instance in the fact that even polytheism seems often the combination of several monotheisms. A god will gain only a minor seat on Mount Olympus, when he had owned earth and heaven and all the stars while he lived in his own little valley. Like many a small nation melting in a great empire, he gives up local universality only to come under universal limitation. The very name of Pan suggests that he became a god of the wood when he had been a god of the world. The very name of Jupiter is almost a pagan translation of the words ‘Our Father which art in heaven.’ As with the Great Father symbolized by the sky, so with the Great Mother whom we still call Mother Earth. Demeter and Ceres and Cybele often seem to be almost incapable of taking over the whole business of godhood, so that men should need no other gods. It seems reasonably probable that a good many men did have no other gods but one of these, worshipped as the author of all.

Read G.K. Chesterton’s The Everlasting Man, it is a very interesting read.

 

[Actaeon]

That’s a common argument that some atheists seem to make. That because our God, the god of the bible, is declared the god of Israel, he is merely the god of one country, imprecisely to other gods of other civilizations.

How do Christians object to that claim?

Israel as a theological construct is more than JUST a nation. The word means “the princes of God”. In Christ, the covenant between God an man was fulfilled and the new covenant established… one in which the distinction of the “chosen” jews who made up “Israel” was vastly expanded… we Catholics are ALL new covenant Jews, we are ALL Israel in the theological sense that we are all sons of God.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

G.K. Chesterton actually proposed the thesis that God made Himself known to all peoples, but they somehow forgot about Him, yet traces of Him can still be found in their mythologies.

It’s an interesting take, but it feels to me more like G.K. Chesterton is trying to draw a conclusion based on certain assumptions: That if the stories of culture A have even a threadbare similarity to culture B, that it’s because in the past culture B affected culture A.

The items that you quoted seem rooted in the findings of Joseph Campbell where cultures use a common myth as a way to explain the universe.

That’s not to say that G.K. Chesterton is wrong, but working from a neutral point of view there is no reason to give weight to Judeo-Christianity as the source of these other myths. It just seems more likely (at least to outsiders like me) that it’s part of the monomyth and one of numerous mythologies with localized origins.

 

[carn]

That’s a common argument that some atheists seem to make. That because our God, the god of the bible, is declared the god of Israel, he is merely the god of one country, imprecisely to other gods of other civilizations.

How do Christians object to that claim?

papalencyclicals.net/Paul03/p3subli.htm
“”

"We, who, though unworthy, exercise on earth the power of our Lord and seek with all our might to bring those sheep of His flock who are outside into the fold committed to our charge, consider, however, that the Indians are truly men and that they are not only capable of understanding the Catholic Faith but, according to our information, they desire exceedingly to receive it. Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare by these Our letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, to which the same credit shall be given as to the originals, that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect. "

“[Dated: May 29, **1537]”

Thats the Catholic Church declaring that tribes, race and whatelse people invent to divide mankind are void and at least a 250 years headstart in declaring universal and unconditional human rights for all humans even the ones not yet known to the Church (only life and property and freedom from slavery, but thats already something, the atheist of course being unhappy with the right to hear Gods message).

The pope also identified ideas to the contrary like tribalism as stemming from the devil:
"The enemy of the human race, who opposes all good deeds in order to bring men to destruction, beholding and envying this, invented a means never before heard of, by which he might hinder the preaching of God’s word of Salvation to the people: he inspired his satellites who, to please him, have not hesitated to publish abroad that the Indians of the West and the South, and other people of whom We have recent knowledge should be treated as dumb brutes created for our service, pretending that they are incapable of receiving the Catholic Faith. "

Of course the pope also just said what anyway was teaching from the start:
“Go ye and teach all nations.”

 

[504Katrin]

When it comes to considering Yahweh a tribal god, I would say that non-believers don’t focus so much on what he calls himself but more on how he presented himself only to Israel. While it’s not necessary for a god that is the god of all people to present himself globally, the fact that cultures outside of Israel were made aware of Yahweh in the same way that non-Viking cultures were made aware of Thor and Odin causes some to treat it suspiciously.

I apologize if I’m missing something here. Prior to Noah’s flood did light not refract from raindrops?

Sorry I just right now got back to this thread.

No, prior to Noach there weren’t any rainbows. G0d gave us the rainbow as a reminder of the covenant.
I know I know… I’ve had science in med school and so I know that it sounds kinda like an incredible statement to some, but I believe it must be true as G0d was / is also in charge of science.

 

[Gorgias]

No, prior to Noach there weren’t any rainbows. G0d gave us the rainbow as a reminder of the covenant.
I know I know… I’ve had science in med school and so I know that it sounds kinda like an incredible statement to some, but I believe it must be true as G0d was / is also in charge of science.

No, the Bible doesn’t say that! It doesn’t say “God created rainbows and said, ‘I set my bow in the sky’”…!

It simply says:

God said: This is the sign of the covenant that I am making between me and you and every living creature with you for all ages to come:I set my bow in the clouds to serve as a sign of the covenant between me and the earth.When I bring clouds over the earth, and the bow appears in the clouds,I will remember my covenant between me and you and every living creature—every mortal being—so that the waters will never again become a flood to destroy every mortal being.When the bow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature—every mortal being that is on earth. God told Noah: This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and every mortal being that is on earth.

There’s nothing here that suggests that this was the first rainbow ever; instead, this is the first time that God has used a rainbow as a sign of his covenant. Notice, too, that the “I am making” refers to the covenant, not the rainbow, so you can’t say that this is the proof that it’s the “first rainbow”.

Just because it’s the first time we see a rainbow mentioned in Genesis, doesn’t mean that it was the first rainbow ever…

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

It’s an interesting take, but it feels to me more like G.K. Chesterton is trying to draw a conclusion based on certain assumptions: That if the stories of culture A have even a threadbare similarity to culture B, that it’s because in the past culture B affected culture A.

The items that you quoted seem rooted in the findings of Joseph Campbell where cultures use a common myth as a way to explain the universe.

I doubt it. G.K. Chesterton’s The Everlasting Man was published in 1925, when Joseph Campbell (looking from Wikipedia; I have to admit this is the first time I’ve heard of him) was just finishing his studies. It might be that Joseph Campbell got some of his ideas from this work.

That’s not to say that G.K. Chesterton is wrong, but working from a neutral point of view there is no reason to give weight to Judeo-Christianity as the source of these other myths. It just seems more likely (at least to outsiders like me) that it’s part of the monomyth and one of numerous mythologies with localized origins.

You might be surprised what G.K. Chesterton actually was trying to say That’s why it’s best if you read it, it is available online for free.

 

[uther]

That’s a common argument that some atheists seem to make. That because our God, the god of the bible, is declared the god of Israel, he is merely the god of one country, imprecisely to other gods of other civilizations.

How do Christians object to that claim?

Just to throw another twist into the conversation there are those, with some credible evidence I must say, who look at this from the genetic perspective.

If we look at the times in the Scripture where God either destroyed mankind on a broad basis or ordered the destruction of a group of people, there is evidence in the Scripture that there was or had been a genetic corruption of those people.

When Genesis speaks of Noah as “pure in his generations” this is not a reference to his moral rectitude but a reference to his genetic purity. If the “sons of God” coming to the “daughters of men” were not the sons of Seth mating with the daughters of Cain as many have tried say ever since Augustine and others were mocked by Julian the Apostate, but rather truly angelic beings or “watchers” as they are often called in places like the non-Canonical Book of Enoch, it would seem then more akin to what we know of God through revelation to see him wipe out the entire population of the world. Their humanity was genetically corrupted as well as their moral sense. They were not just evil but genetically polluted by angelic evil ones.

In the time of Joshua, God ordered the people of Israel to wipe out an entire people in the land they were to take, the promised land, but in this instance we note that “there were giants (nephilim) in the land.” Again, the argument is made by some that this was a later genetic corruption on a local scale and that was the reason for the extermination order.

If we are to reflect then on the idea that God chose a particular tribe of people, the descendants of Abraham, to be his people, with genetic purity in mind we must remember that God the Son was to incarnate at the proper time in God’s plan for humanity, and in that sense, the purity of the race as human was critical. We could even speculate further that the genetic corruption of humanity was one attempt by Lucifer to defeat God’s plan to incarnate and lift up the human race, deifying them and actually raising them above Lucifer himself.

Perhaps that is why the people of Israel have always been hated, down through the centuries, even to the present day as the Jews are often irrationally hated. Maybe that was God’s way of protecting them from the corruption of the world, morally and genetically, for that single purpose of being the cradle for the Incarnation. Have not the Jews always been ostracized? It is a blessing and a curse to this very day.

That is an alternate explanation. But it does require that one take what is known as the “angelic view” of Genesis 6, something that was common in the early Church. Remember what the apostle Paul said to the Corinthians about women covering their heads, “because of the angels.”

It is a thought. By the way, if we want to see the wrath of God in our day, just wait until the mad scientists move on from GMO’s to human genetic manipulation. At a certain point there will be literally hell to pay. That is one place where God draws the line on iniquity.