Is the Abrahamic God Moral?

[Popeyesays]

I was referring to more than that, and there were other murders I didn't refer to, all of them committed by Baha'u'llah's followers -- although several unsuccessful attempts were made on Baha'u'llah's life by his opponents.

I'm not sure how that makes things better.

I agree that the number of Azalis killed by Baha'is pales beside the number of Baha'is killed by Muslims, and I don't really want to get drawn into a long discussion about the Baha'is and the Babis. I agree that Baha'is have been far less violent than the other Abrahamic religions, and what I said about authoritarianism, sexism, and homophobia would probably have sufficed.

Okay, though I wonder where there is authoritarianism today, since there is no single authoritative figure in the faith. I also wonder how you can reasonably claim sexism. And there is no limit to homosexuals being Baha`i, so I wonder what the basis for homophobia is.

But I will suggest that the thread on what is wrong with Baha`i is probably the best place to discuss that.

Regards,
Scott

 

[rojse]

Who says he hasn't set the story straight a million times or more? That doesn't stop man from twisting the story a million times as well. Look at Jesus' message: LOVE EACH OTHER. Then came the crusades and the inquisition. How on earth can ANYONE say THOSE actions are consistent with Christ's teachings?

The love eachother message came after quite a few religious wars and such in the bible. The Bible also has wonderfully enlightening passages, such as "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."

If you wish to ask how loving each other is consistent with the crusades and so forth, I would like to ask, in reply, how smiting your enemies, slaughtering unbelievers, and killing the firstborn of the Egyptians is consistent with this philosophy of love.

 

[Scuba Pete]

The love eachother message came after quite a few religious wars and such in the bible. The Bible also has wonderfully enlightening passages, such as "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."

It pains me to read you twist things so effortlessly. Have you EVER read the NT??? With an open mind?

Matthew 5:38 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. NIV

Now, for those who say that Jesus believed in the OT, how do you explain this? All of these were DEPARTURES from OT teachings.

If you wish to ask how loving each other is consistent with the crusades and so forth, I would like to ask, in reply, how smiting your enemies, slaughtering unbelievers, and killing the firstborn of the Egyptians is consistent with this philosophy of love.

There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see. If you aren't willing or able to comprehend what I have been saying, then there is no need for me to continue this dialog with you. Maybe ignorance is bliss for you.

 

[kai]

i see your frustration scuba pete but your very good argument only stands for Christians, the OP says the abrahamic god so the old testament is very much his testament. he may have stopped the slaughter and has been rehabilitated since the new testament but the jury is still out

 

[Scuba Pete]

i see your frustration scuba pete but your very good argument only stands for Christians, the OP says the abrahamic god so the old testament is very much his testament. he may have stopped the slaughter and has been rehabilitated since the new testament but the jury is still out

God does not need rehabilitation. WE DO! When Flip Wilson says "The Debil made me do it!" we laugh. Here we have a TRIBE saying "God made me do it!" and we blame GOD? It's LAUGHABLE that we would be so easily deceived by such a claim.

 

[kai]

God does not need rehabilitation. WE DO! When Flip Wilson says "The Debil made me do it!" we laugh. Here we have a TRIBE saying "God made me do it!" and we blame GOD? It's LAUGHABLE that we would be so easily deceived by such a claim.

i was thinking more of the deluge and soddom and gomorah type thing

 

[Scuba Pete]

i was thinking more of the deluge and soddom and gomorah type thing

Of course, let's just blame God for EVERYTHING. You DO realize that the tsunami from a couple of years ago was to punish gay people right? SURELY you buy into the insane logic that AIDs is much the same? Some whacko religionist made that claim, so it MUST be true.

 

[doppelganger]

Of course, let's just blame God for EVERYTHING. You DO realize that the tsunami from a couple of years ago was to punish gay people right? SURELY you buy into the insane logic that AIDs is much the same? Some whacko religionist made that claim, so it MUST be true.

Good points, Pete. That's why I say it depends on who it is who thinks they speak for "God" as to whether I think "God" is moral.

 

[rojse]

It pains me to read you twist things so effortlessly. Have you EVER read the NT??? With an open mind?

I have tried to read the Bible several times, starting from Genesis, (I thought it might improve my understanding in religious discussions here on RF) but if I wanted to read a snuff book, I would get the novelisation for a movie such as Saw or The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I am sorry, but that is the best way to describe my attempts to read the book, and my opinions of what I tried to read.

Even disregarding the extremely erronous science from Genesis (I would have, too - I have done that often enough before when reading older SF novels), when reading about the floods and how God decided every single person in the entire world, except for Noah and his family were sinners, and would kill them all through a worldwide flood was enough for me.

I asked myself: "Every single person in the world was sinful? Including the babies in arms? And what about all the animals killed in that single judgement?" And my best reply for that was either God could not save those that were innocent, which is quite a damning response.

Matthew 5:38 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

NIV

Although it is good that you can supply a good response to that, many Christians use the "eye for an eye" quote to defend, for example, capital punishment. I don't hear the second one mentioned as often, but this fact speaks both for you and against them.

Now, for those who say that Jesus believed in the OT, how do you explain this? All of these were DEPARTURES from OT teachings.

There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see. If you aren't willing or able to comprehend what I have been saying, then there is no need for me to continue this dialog with you. Maybe ignorance is bliss for you.

I do comprehend, but I am telling you that a perspective based on the New Testament is outweighed by both the scope, the size and volume of books that are in the Old Testament, and the use of these books in the Christian faith. Genesis, for example, is often mentioned in Christianity, so is Psalms, and quite a few other books are also used.

It is also just as easy to disregard the New Testament as the Old.

 

[kmkemp]

It pains me to read you twist things so effortlessly. Have you EVER read the NT??? With an open mind?

Matthew 5:38 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. NIV

Now, for those who say that Jesus believed in the OT, how do you explain this? All of these were DEPARTURES from OT teachings.

I don't deny that Jesus has clear teaching that are contrary to what is in the OT. You are taking it a step further in saying that he is 'correcting' the OT, however. Jesus came to fulfill the law (Matt 5:17), not to destroy it. That doesn't in any way imply the OT is not a factual document or that Jesus thought such things of it. In fact, all evidence points in the other direction. I have looked into this theory recently because I think that it would be a very good explanation of a lot of things, but I just don't see the evidence. Perhaps you can reply to the numerous NT passages such as this one from the gospel of John:

10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
10:38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

Here, it appears that our savior is making an argument to the Jews with the authority and truth of the OT as his very basis. I don't see any way around the fact that Jesus considered the scriptures to be truthful. Even without this and similar scriptures, I cannot fathom a reason that Jesus would not have made a big deal about how wrong the OT was if that, in fact, was the case. You say that passages such as the one you quoted state that he thought that, but it doesn't seem to be consistent with Jesus' teachings on the whole.

 

[kai]

Of course, let's just blame God for EVERYTHING. You DO realize that the tsunami from a couple of years ago was to punish gay people right? SURELY you buy into the insane logic that AIDs is much the same? Some whacko religionist made that claim, so it MUST be true.

do you mean he didnt do it? i am only blaming him for things in the OT , did some whacko make that claim? because thats exactly what i think too

 

[Azakel]

In my eyes? Nope. But then, I don't really think blood sacrifice, genocide, and the basic toying with people and their lives to be moral actions.

I agree here with Draka. Though I would like to had that I don't expect much from a tribal god that can't get his way.

 

[McBell]

God does not need rehabilitation. WE DO! When Flip Wilson says "The Debil made me do it!" we laugh. Here we have a TRIBE saying "God made me do it!" and we blame GOD? It's LAUGHABLE that we would be so easily deceived by such a claim.

Oh my goodness!
Letting God take the credit for the things God did?!?!
What the hell where we thinking!?

Next you will claim that it is OUR fault that God punished ALL MANKIND for the sins of Adam and Eve.
Or perhaps you will deny that children are punished for the sins of the parents as decreed by GOD, not man, but GOD. Deu 23:2
Interesting how MAN back then could make it rain for 40 days and forty nights, but today there are places with severe drought...

So did MAN create the universe or are you going to actually let God have the credit for that?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Let me see if I can help you out here Mestemia... you seem confused as usual.

Create the Universe... God, but not in the way man describes it.
Invade Iraq... Man, even though Shrub contends this is God's will.

Earthquake... This is the natural order of our planet which God created.
Wiping out the Hittites... Man, even though Man contends this is God's will.

Now, as for that foolish idea that the sins of the father are visited upon the sons, it appear that this ****** of God SO much that he sent us some knee-mail.

Ezekiel 18:1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 "What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel:
" 'The fathers eat sour grapes,
and the children's teeth are set on edge'? 3 "As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. 4 For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son—both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die. NIV

It goes on to explain that the sins of the Father are NOT visited on the son. I thought you should know.

But hey, it sounds as if you want to blame God for all the ills in the world. How's that working for you? Is it making you understand life better?

 

[Popeyesays]

Devil's Advocate is a canon lawyer who argues against the canonization or sainthood of a candidate.

Regards,
Scott

 

[McBell]

Let me see if I can help you out here Mestemia... you seem confused as usual.

Create the Universe... God, but not in the way man describes it.
Invade Iraq... Man, even though Shrub contends this is God's will.

Earthquake... This is the natural order of our planet which God created.
Wiping out the Hittites... Man, even though Man contends this is God's will.

Now, as for that foolish idea that the sins of the father are visited upon the sons, it appear that this ****** of God SO much that he sent us some knee-mail.

Ezekiel 18:1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 "What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel:
" 'The fathers eat sour grapes,
and the children's teeth are set on edge'? 3 "As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. 4 For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son—both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die. NIV

It goes on to explain that the sins of the Father are NOT visited on the son. I thought you should know.

Deu 23:2
A ******* shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
​

So now we have a direct contradiction.
For this verse above flat out states that the children of the parents are not to enter into the congregation.
Not only the children, but the gran children, great grand children, great great grand children, etc. all the way up to the tenth generation.

Yet you claim that it is not punishing the children for the sins of the parents.

But hey, it sounds as if you want to blame God for all the ills in the world.

Wow.
the assumptions you have to make in order to jump to that false conclusion.

How's that working for you? Is it making you understand life better?

Since you are so set on dictating to me my beliefs and what I am trying to do, you may as well finish your little fantasy role playing by telling me how it is working.


Now if you are through with the ad hominem and fantasy role playing games, perhaps maybe we can back to the topic at hand...
or do you need a few more posts to get it out of your system?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Deu 23:2
A ******* shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
​

So now we have a direct contradiction.

The OT especially is filled with a number of seeming and actual contradictions. This is consistent with a blog written by man trying to justify his actions. It is NOT consistent with a single author (God) who uses men as merely a physical typewriter.

Wow.
the assumptions you have to make in order to jump to that false conclusion.

One only need to read your most recent posts to agree that this seems to be what you believe. You believe him to be responsible for a FLOOD as well as some undisclosed punishment for what our parents did. If you would like to make a couple of lists for us to go by it would be helpful. The first list could be what you think man is responsible for and the second would be those heinous things you blame God for. That way we don't have to guess. Thanks in advance!

 

[Don Penguinoini]

So? According to the Qur'an Abraham was a Muslim and so was Jesus. A Muslim is someone Who submits His Own will to God. Abraham and Jesus certainly did that. So did Krshna. So in a very real sense Krshna was a Muslim, too.

Regards,
Scott

Thats just stupid and over the top.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Abraham's lineage is the source of all the Great Prophets:

Moses, Zoroaster, Krshna, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammed, Baha`u'llah.

Regards,
Scott

Krshna was not a prophet. I need not a Baha'i to tell me what is a prophet or not, or anyone for htat matter, especially about my own gods. I may be young Scott, but certainly does not make me stupid.

 

[gnostic]

Thats just stupid and over the top.

Not from Muslim perspective.

According to them, every single person is born a Muslim. It doesn't matter if you was born into Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist or atheist family.

When someone is converting to Islam, they don't call it "converting", but rather say it is "re-converting" or something like this, as if they are rejoining their original religion they are born to.

The way they see it, Islam predates their prophet, Muhammad. They see all the prophets (and leaders and kings, like David and Solomon) in the Judaic-Christian scriptures to be Muslims.

This is the way Muslims justify that Islam have always exist, and what is found in bible, tanakh and torah to be corrupted by men, and Muhammad is just realigning to past religions and scriptures back to the "original" way, ie. Islam.

Sound like propaganda to me. And that because it is propaganda. It is meant to pull Jews and Christians from their own religions to join (or according to them, rejoin) their Islamic religion.

I've encounter this type of thinking from people at islam.com, another forum.