My thought is that there must be some ontological reality binding humans one to another, i.e. that we are not merely individuals. Hence God, in creating humans, did not create a set of individuals, but actually also created a whole, and there is a concern for the whole qua whole (which does not deny a concern for the parts). If one buys into the Western notion of individualism too deeply, then traditional Christian doctrines such as Original Sin make little sense.

I am inclined to agree, except wouldn’t it be juridical and not ontologically?

- I think the ontological reality would ground juridical judgments, such as those in question. In traditional, pre-Reformation Christianity God does not make juridical judgments if there is no ontological basis for the judgments.

But how would that ontology work? How would we all be ontologically tied together when we don't even exist in the same time?

- Some examples of accounts that have been given in the past are spiritual accounts and also genetic accounts. The basic idea is that humankind is more than just a number of irremediably separate individual parts; that there is a real interconnection. I am not exactly sure of the mechanism, but in fact this idea is quite common historically, and especially outside of strongly individualistic cultures like our own. In Christianity the idea is taken for granted when it is said that at the Incarnation God took on human nature, and thus elevated all humans in that event.

but I am finding the choices and actions God makes in the Old Testament to be littered with blatant atrocities. I would like to get other peoples' opinions on it. — Bob Ross

it's really hard to know what went through the minds of people who wrote ancient documents, but the old testament was likely part of some ruling class's doctrine on why they are superior; one part of the old testament that supports this is how Lot's daughters got him drunk in a cave and had sex with him to continue the bloodline of their family. It's a blatant appeal to lineage.

there are of course logically consistent and different theories:

1. The existence of a jealous, controlling, and evil God. Whether or not this makes sense is entirely up to you, it's not exactly a comforting belief in my opinion.

2. The people who wrote the old testament were simply crazy and delusional.

3. The documents representing the "Old Testament" are not being translated properly, and we impose our modern ideas and agendas on these ancient people. Lots of people talk about the bible as it is truth, but i have little sense of what the sources are. I think translation error is pretty unlikely because jewish people have been passing down these ideas as traditions. Maybe things got distorted along the way for selfish purposes.

I think it has to be a combination of my theory on it being used as part of a social control scheme and number 2#.

The old role of myth making also wasn't to speak the truth bluntly, but people seem to have a need to condense things into narratives. If you have observed children, you'll see that they have spontaneous imaginations: when humanity was early, they just didn't have access to the type of accumulated knowledge we have today, so they stayed more childlike in terms of belief and explanation.

It's not even that interesting of a question, really. Anyone with eyes to see can tell that the teachings of Christ are completely incompatible with the Old Testament, and that the two should have never been conjoined in the way they have been. — Tzeentch

this is a pretty interesting point; i remember in christian school the logic was that "Jesus fulfilled the word of God", but seems pretty empty, no? What the hell does that even mean? In 6th grade, at a 7th day adventist school, i was confused about how enternal hellfire could be a just way to punish the wicked. They were nice enough that they set up a meeting for me with the preacher so I could talk to him, and he could clarify what their religion. The preacher said it was the Catholics who believed in that, but THEY believed that the hellbound are currently in some sort of holding pattern until the next return of Christ, and the wicked would simply be obliterated while the fallowers would join God in heaven. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are simply too nonsensical for me to take them seriously.

The basic idea is that humankind is more than just a number of irremediably separate individual parts; that there is a real interconnection. I am not exactly sure of the mechanism,

Well biologically we are all clones (I know there is sexual and therefore genetic diversity, but this is merely a means of introducing a mechanism for individual diversity between clones). So we are a colony of clones. This would suggest much more of a common ground between us than would outwardly appear to be the case. Extend this to a transcendent soul and Bob’s your uncle (excuse the pun).

The old role of myth making also wasn't to speak the truth bluntly, but people seem to have a need to condense things into narratives. If you have observed children, you'll see that they have spontaneous imaginations: when humanity was early, they just didn't have access to the type of accumulated knowledge we have today, so they stayed more childlike in terms of belief and explanation.

More than this, people in those days didn’t think rationally as we do. They thought in allegory, it was much more like the dreamtime of the Australian aborigines. In a real sense the narrative of a story would convey a unique morality, applicable only to the story being told, magic and sorcery were real and archaic power structures were still in play.