So was God wrong?

[Autodidact]

Eliminated from the face of the Earth? When did you, Ahmadinejad and Hitler become such close friends?

You are confusing a people with an ideology. According to you, the ideology says to commit any act, no matter how morally abhorrent, including genocide and infanticide. That ideology needs to go.

I don't think most Jews, including myself, subscribe to that ideology. It is evil.

btw, Knight, are people ever mistaken in their ideas about what God commands? Do people ever commit immoral acts, thinking that God commanded them, but mistaken in their belief?

 

[TheKnight]

This is assuming that our (yours and mine) ideas of evidence coincide. What may constitute as evidence to you may not to me. For example, some people will say the proof is all around you, just go outside and look around. For me that is not evidence, considering there is scientific proof to the contrary.

The evidence I would provide does not seek to prove the truth of the system I propose, but rather evidence for the beneficial value of accepting the system as a moral system.

I don't need to prove the supernatural aspects of my faith because from my perspective those are frivolous. What's important is the moral system itself, and I feel I can reasonably show that the system (or at least the majority of it) is a perfectly reasonable system for use and implementation by the individual and a society.

This is also assuming that morality depends on religion, which it doesn't. There are some very religious, very immoral people out there. And I'm referring to modern day morality, not bronze age morality.

I don't make the connection your making. When I say the system is reasonable I mean that the system as a whole is a reasonable system of behavior and can be shown to have positive benefits for a society (as is demonstrated by societies which do largely adopt principles found within this system, including our own).

Morality, ultimately, depends on the individual because at the end of the day you decide what you're going to do for whatever reasons suit you. I don't see a need to classify that with any sort of code of "morality". There doesn't have to be some objective and universal standard of rules and behaviors that govern our actions because I believe actions are goal-oriented. We don't act for the sake of acting, we act for the sake of fulfilling desires.

If you run out and kill a baby, I'm not inclined (beyond my emotional response of revulsion) to say you acted immorally. I'm inclined to ask why you did it. Most people don't kill babies. You doing so is an enigma. Even if most people do, part of the study of human behavior is asking why we do what we do. So regardless of whether or not the behavior is accepted, I will always wonder what your goal was, what was it that you were trying to accomplish.

As far my own system of morals, I say that I can show it as reasonable because I believe the system is designed to fulfill goals. The goals of our Creator and the goals of those who adhere to it. I am willing to bet that I can reasonably show that aspects of the system also resonate and can work towards fulfilling your own goals because our goals are most likely similar when it comes to our general plan for how we want our lives to go.

Now, this explanation lacks sufficient support for the supernatural elements of my faith. So it could be asked why I would believe in those elements? The only reason for this is that I see adoption of the framework the system presents itself within as enhancing the fulfillment of the goals I set forth to accomplish in adopting the system. I also see the beliefs set forth as reliable and useful.

btw, Knight, are people ever mistaken in their ideas about what God commands? Do people ever commit immoral acts, thinking that God commanded them, but mistaken in their belief?

You talk so much about staying on topic and then move the topic? This isn't a discussion about whether or not people are wrong about what God commands. The simple answer to your question is yes. People act mistakenly believing that God commanded them to do so. Whether or not the mistake is immoral is something for moralists to discuss. I don't care because I don't believe in morality in that sense.

 

[Autodidact]

The evidence I would provide does not seek to prove the truth of the system I propose, but rather evidence for the beneficial value of accepting the system as a moral system.

If the moral system permits or encourages killing children and slaughtering entire people's, isn't that not beneficial?

I don't need to prove the supernatural aspects of my faith because from my perspective those are frivolous. What's important is the moral system itself, and I feel I can reasonably show that the system (or at least the majority of it) is a perfectly reasonable system for use and implementation by the individual and a society.

Please do. Show us how killing babies is reasonable for individuals and society.

I don't make the connection your making. When I say the system is reasonable I mean that the system as a whole is a reasonable system of behavior and can be shown to have positive benefits for a society (as is demonstrated by societies which do largely adopt principles found within this system, including our own).

O.K., go for it.

I'm confused, though, because I thought you said you don't think in terms of morality.

If you run out and kill a baby, I'm not inclined (beyond my emotional response of revulsion) to say you acted immorally.

Bolded for emphasis. I, OTOH, as an atheist, am inclined to say that.

I'm inclined to ask why you did it. Most people don't kill babies. You doing so is an enigma. Even if most people do, part of the study of human behavior is asking why we do what we do. So regardless of whether or not the behavior is accepted, I will always wonder what your goal was, what was it that you were trying to accomplish.

And if they say they killed the baby because God told them to?

As far my own system of morals, I say that I can show it as reasonable because I believe the system is designed to fulfill goals. The goals of our Creator and the goals of those who adhere to it. I am willing to bet that I can reasonably show that aspects of the system also resonate and can work towards fulfilling your own goals because our goals are most likely similar when it comes to our general plan for how we want our lives to go.

And after all, who cares about a few dead babies?

You talk so much about staying on topic and then move the topic? This isn't a discussion about whether or not people are wrong about what God commands. The simple answer to your question is yes. People act mistakenly believing that God commanded them to do so. Whether or not the mistake is immoral is something for moralists to discuss. I don't care because I don't believe in morality in that sense.

And apparently, you don't care about dead babies. Tell me, do you have any children?

My point is that it is more likely that someone will kill a baby erroneously believing that God commanded them to do so, then that God will actually do so, and therefore a moral system that says that any action is moral as long as (you believe that) God commanded you to do it is inherently flawed.

 

[TheKnight]

My point is that it is more likely that someone will kill a baby erroneously believing that God commanded them to do so, then that God will actually do so, and therefore a moral system that says that any action is moral as long as (you believe that) God commanded you to do it is inherently flawed.

So your problem is that it's flawed? And you think it's flawed because people might make a mistake?

Well in that case Calculus is inherently flawed because a person might erroneously derive x^2 as being .5x and we know it isn't, so Calculus must be flawed.

Obviously people can make the mistake that God ordered them to kill babies when He didn't actually do so. It doesn't reflect on the system itself but on a persons inability or unwillingness to grasp the system.

You seem to think that I'm going to wake up someday and go "Oh wow. God told me to kill a bunch of babies." Because that's how it happened in the Torah right? NO! They had a $h!t ton of examples of God intervening miraculously before they got to the point of killing babies.

If God took me out of Egypt with ten plagues, split a sea for me to cross on dry land, gave me magic bread from the sky, and made water come from a rock all while speaking to me and 3 million other people then I think I'd be pretty damn sure He was telling me to do what I thought He was.

You cannot simply look at one sentence that says "Do X" and be like "Whoa! He said do X?! What's wrong with Him? X is wrong!" There's a whole back-story behind it that supports the conclusion that God is the one telling them to do it.

 

[sojourner]

1 Samuel 15:
This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’

17:
The LORD anointed you king over Israel. 18 And he sent you on a mission, saying, ‘Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; wage war against them until you have wiped them out.’

Deuteronomy 20 16:
However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you.

Deuteronomy 7
When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girga****es, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you— 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally.[a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.

Numbers 31:
The LORD said to Moses, 2 “Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people.” ...They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 ... The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder....Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle. 15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the LORD in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Thanks. Got an appointment now, but I'll get back to you.

 

[Orias]

If God was once wrong and is also supposed to be perfect then how should I as an observer take this?

As an observer, you should realize that God is never wrong, because God is most often applied in a general position, which is a HUGE mistake.

My God differs from yours, my God never said or continues to say any of the things said in the Old/New testiments, my God commands nothing besides himself.

 

[Autodidact]

So your problem is that it's flawed? And you think it's flawed because people might make a mistake?

Not might. In my view, any such view would be mistaken, because God does not exist. I'm wondering whether you think such mistakes are common?

Well in that case Calculus is inherently flawed because a person might erroneously derive x^2 as being .5x and we know it isn't, so Calculus must be flawed.

It's not the calculus, but the concept that it is a good idea to rely on the average person's knowledge of calculus as a basis for engineering a bridge. (or whatever the heck people use calculus for; I have no idea.)

My point is that your belief system, in reality, is highly likely to lead to many innocent deaths. I understand that's not important to you.

Obviously people can make the mistake that God ordered them to kill babies when He didn't actually do so. It doesn't reflect on the system itself but on a persons inability or unwillingness to grasp the system.

What percentage of such judgments do you think are probably mistaken? Of all the people in history who thought God told them to kill some poor baby, what percentage do you think were probably correct in that belief?

You seem to think that I'm going to wake up someday and go "Oh wow. God told me to kill a bunch of babies." Because that's how it happened in the Torah right? NO! They had a $h!t ton of examples of God intervening miraculously before they got to the point of killing babies.

You might, if you suffer from mental illness. It's not a rare event. Here's a fairly recent case.

If God took me out of Egypt with ten plagues, split a sea for me to cross on dry land, gave me magic bread from the sky, and made water come from a rock all while speaking to me and 3 million other people then I think I'd be pretty damn sure He was telling me to do what I thought He was.

But didn't God do just that? I know I was taught that God took me, personally, out of Egypt, split the sea for me, and so forth.

You cannot simply look at one sentence that says "Do X" and be like "Whoa! He said do X?! What's wrong with Him? X is wrong!" There's a whole back-story behind it that supports the conclusion that God is the one telling them to do it.

So you have a foolproof system for avoiding such errors?

 

[RitalinO.D.]

The evidence I would provide does not seek to prove the truth of the system I propose, but rather evidence for the beneficial value of accepting the system as a moral system.

I never hinted toward religion as a system as being immoral in any sense.

I don't need to prove the supernatural aspects of my faith because from my perspective those are frivolous. What's important is the moral system itself, and I feel I can reasonably show that the system (or at least the majority of it) is a perfectly reasonable system for use and implementation by the individual and a society.

Again, never stated that religion was immoral, so in a sense i can agree with you, that religion can contribute to morality. What I'm stating is that religion is not necessary for morality to exist. Unless you are one of those types that consider Atheists immoral as a standard, which I don't think you are.

I don't make the connection your making. When I say the system is reasonable I mean that the system as a whole is a reasonable system of behavior and can be shown to have positive benefits for a society (as is demonstrated by societies which do largely adopt principles found within this system, including our own).

Absolutely. There are plenty of churches/sects out there that contribute to society and their immediate surrounding communities. No one can really deny this. It's the more fundamentalist/cultish sects that give religion as a whole a bad name.

If you run out and kill a baby, I'm not inclined (beyond my emotional response of revulsion) to say you acted immorally. I'm inclined to ask why you did it. Most people don't kill babies. You doing so is an enigma. Even if most people do, part of the study of human behavior is asking why we do what we do. So regardless of whether or not the behavior is accepted, I will always wonder what your goal was, what was it that you were trying to accomplish.

This has nothing to do with religion tho. It doesn't take a believer to know that killing babies is wrong or immoral. It will always be unacceptable in developed society.

As far my own system of morals, I say that I can show it as reasonable because I believe the system is designed to fulfill goals. The goals of our Creator and the goals of those who adhere to it. I am willing to bet that I can reasonably show that aspects of the system also resonate and can work towards fulfilling your own goals because our goals are most likely similar when it comes to our general plan for how we want our lives to go.

Whether you can show the system mirroring my personal beliefs or not is really sort of irrelevant. I'm sure you can. However, I can and am perfectly moral without the need for religion.

 

[clerick]

The "horror" of the OT is justified, for the most part, if placed in a historical and literary context. We are talking about a very different time period. A very different culture. We can't judge that time based on our idea of how things should be now, as simply, it wasn't like that during the period recorded in the OT.

As for the divinely inspired bit (I don't believe such), it would be logical that it would still be flawed based on humans. Divinely inspired does not equal infallibility.

Bullpaddies!

If God is all powerful, good and all His revealed morality would be back then superior to any we know of and He would have been the example of this.

Lets pick one story Sodom we all know that one. Ok Abraham prayed to God getting down to five innocent in the city it would be spared and then lets use some simple logic. Its a city-state so had to have children in it and I mean little tikes say five or under so there were not five toddlers in the city? What about slaves they have no volition you submit or get flogged, tortured, put into hard labor or killed so they had a choice to be sex toys? Any modern value would be clear killing a child or slave is evil - period. So He also lied to Abraham so God lies to since any child that is a toddler or younger is innocent as would a slave and He could not find five in the whole city?

God was not wrong though we just have bad perceptions of the monster just read the OT how many times did He openly commited or ordered commited crimes against the human race for spite? How many times did He let His favorites get away with things others would not get away with?

 

[sojourner]

1 Samuel 15:
This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’

17:
The LORD anointed you king over Israel. 18 And he sent you on a mission, saying, ‘Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; wage war against them until you have wiped them out.’

Deuteronomy 20 16:
However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you.

Deuteronomy 7
When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girga****es, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you— 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally.[a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.

Numbers 31:
The LORD said to Moses, 2 “Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people.” ...They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 ... The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder....Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle. 15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the LORD in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Given that these quotations all deal with the entrance of Israel into the promised land, and, given that such "entrance" is not historical fact -- it's more likely that the emergence of Israel in the promised land was an interior peasant uprising, we can surmise that the stories told here are "urban legend," so to speak. I don't believe God ever commanded such things. Nor do I believe that Jews have ever believed such things. It doesn't render the account "inaccurate," for a fictional account cannot, by definition, be inaccurate.

 

[sojourner]

If God is all powerful, good and all His revealed morality would be back then superior to any we know of and He would have been the example of this.

But this is mediated to us through human agency -- and human agency with a particular cultural agenda.

Lets pick one story Sodom we all know that one. Ok Abraham prayed to God getting down to five innocent in the city it would be spared and then lets use some simple logic. Its a city-state so had to have children in it and I mean little tikes say five or under so there were not five toddlers in the city? What about slaves they have no volition you submit or get flogged, tortured, put into hard labor or killed so they had a choice to be sex toys? Any modern value would be clear killing a child or slave is evil - period. So He also lied to Abraham so God lies to since any child that is a toddler or younger is innocent as would a slave and He could not find five in the whole city?

since the story isn't a factual account, using here as an example is not helpful. Remember that we're dealing with a cultural mind set in which the individual is relatively subordinate to the community. The community was found unrighteous. Therefore, everyone who was part of that community suffered the consequences. There were no "innocents." That being said, that's not our cultural climate today. One can't impose one's cultural climate onto another culture. Things have to be taken as they are. For that culture, wiping out a city would have been reasonable.

 

[Jacksnyte]

... The community was found unrighteous. Therefore, everyone who was part of that community suffered the consequences. There were no "innocents." ... For that culture, wiping out a city would have been reasonable.

Including children? :sarcastic

 

[Autodidact]

Given that these quotations all deal with the entrance of Israel into the promised land, and, given that such "entrance" is not historical fact -- it's more likely that the emergence of Israel in the promised land was an interior peasant uprising, we can surmise that the stories told here are "urban legend," so to speak. I don't believe God ever commanded such things. Nor do I believe that Jews have ever believed such things. It doesn't render the account "inaccurate," for a fictional account cannot, by definition, be inaccurate.

O.K., so we come full circle. Does the OT accurately state any of God's commandments?

 

[sojourner]

Including children? :sarcastic

Yup. We may not agree with it, but that's the way it was.

 

[sojourner]

O.K., so we come full circle. Does the OT accurately state any of God's commandments?

I can't answer that in the way in which I think you want it answered. You're looking for a definitive from an objective opinion. But there is no objective opinion, because no one can stand apart from God (in the opinion of the faithful who adhere to such commandments). All we can do evaluate the written tradition against the better judgment of the prevailing culture. That may not be the answer you're looking for, but I'm not fudging here. That's just the Way It Is.

That being said, there are some commandments that seem compelling in that judgment, and some that do not. All I can say is that I, personally use the filter of love. If the commandment does not exhibit love, then it is not "accurate" (to use your terminology).

 

[TheKnight]

Not might. In my view, any such view would be mistaken, because God does not exist. I'm wondering whether you think such mistakes are common?

Yes. If anyone today says that God tells them to do something that goes against the Torah then they are wrong. Not because the Torah is right and if it's not the Torah it's wrong, but the only way I'd accept a revelation as being able to supersede the revelation at Sinai is if it has a least all the same miraculous components in at least the same magnitude.

So if God didn't miraculously save you from an oppressor in a clear and obvious manner, split a sea for you to walk on, give you mystical sky bread, and talk to you and 3 million other people then whoever you heard talking to you wasn't God and you should seek help.

My point is that your belief system, in reality, is highly likely to lead to many innocent deaths. I understand that's not important to you.

Really? Because I've never killed or even had the desire to kill an innocent person. And neither has any observant Jew or Noahide I've ever met. In fact, I haven't even heard of an observant Jew or Noahide in modern times claiming God told them to kill people and then they did it.

There's more to the Torah than one-line commands. You can't take any commandment, quote one line of Torah, and expect to know what God is expecting. Even if you're talking about something as clearly prohibited as homosexual sex, murder, stealing, or even idolatry.

What percentage of such judgments do you think are probably mistaken? Of all the people in history who thought God told them to kill some poor baby, what percentage do you think were probably correct in that belief?

Outside of the Jews when they were ordered to eliminate the seven nations? No one.

But didn't God do just that? I know I was taught that God took me, personally, out of Egypt, split the sea for me, and so forth.

You may have been taught that for the sake of emphasizing the closeness of the story of Pesach and Simchat Torah, but you and the person who taught you both know that you personally were not taken out of Egypt. Your ancestors were.

If someone seriously believes that they were literally and personally brought out of Egypt in 2011 then they have a mental issue that needs to be addressed by a mental health professional.

And if what you take away from being taught the story of Pesach, is that you personally were taken from Egypt, and that's all you get, then whoever taught you didn't teach you well.

So you have a foolproof system for avoiding such errors?

.

Yes. No one is ever able to just go out and do something because they think the Torah says something. The Torah is a work of study. Its primary purpose is to be studied and learned from, and hopefully improve the lives of the readers.

It is not a book of rules. It is a book of study. And behavior is not so simple as being able to read a sentence, go do it, and then check a box.

I never hinted toward religion as a system as being immoral in any sense.

I know. I meant that there is beneficial value in accepting as a structure for moral behavior.

Again, never stated that religion was immoral, so in a sense i can agree with you, that religion can contribute to morality. What I'm stating is that religion is not necessary for morality to exist. Unless you are one of those types that consider Atheists immoral as a standard, which I don't think you are.

I don't believe in morality. We are only able to act in accordance with what we desire. An action is an attempt to fulfill some desire, therefore to classify it as moral or immoral is, in my opinion, quite arrogant.

This has nothing to do with religion tho. It doesn't take a believer to know that killing babies is wrong or immoral. It will always be unacceptable in developed society.

That's not what I wanted you to take away from it. I was trying to communicate that I don't think it's necessary to classify you or your actions as moral/immoral.

 

[Autodidact]

I can't answer that in the way in which I think you want it answered. You're looking for a definitive from an objective opinion. But there is no objective opinion, because no one can stand apart from God (in the opinion of the faithful who adhere to such commandments). All we can do evaluate the written tradition against the better judgment of the prevailing culture. That may not be the answer you're looking for, but I'm not fudging here. That's just the Way It Is.

That being said, there are some commandments that seem compelling in that judgment, and some that do not. All I can say is that I, personally use the filter of love. If the commandment does not exhibit love, then it is not "accurate" (to use your terminology).

If we're going to evaluate them against the better judgment of the prevailing culture, why not cut directly to the better judgment of the prevailing culture? Why start by wading through hundreds of pages of killing people who pick up sticks on Saturday, legally mandated beards and exhortations to be sure to kill all the toddlers?

Again, if the commandment is love, what do we need the Bible for? Why not just love one another?

btw, please remember you said a few pages ago that they were all accurate.

 

[waitasec]

Yup. We may not agree with it, but that's the way it was.

i wonder why we do not agree with it but religion somehow justifies this behavior...
would you agree this way of thinking perpetuated injustices throughout history?

 

[sojourner]

If we're going to evaluate them against the better judgment of the prevailing culture, why not cut directly to the better judgment of the prevailing culture? Why start by wading through hundreds of pages of killing people who pick up sticks on Saturday, legally mandated beards and exhortations to be sure to kill all the toddlers?

Again, if the commandment is love, what do we need the Bible for? Why not just love one another?

btw, please remember you said a few pages ago that they were all accurate.

I said that they are accurately part of the stories.

We use the Tradition, because it gives us perspective. Ours is not the only culture. Ours is not the only time available to the human family. Why do we learn history in school? Should we not simply concentrate on what's happening right now?

That -- in a manner of speaking -- is what Jesus said. When asked the most important commandment, Jesus quoted the Shema and added, "...love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the prophets depend upon these two."

 

[sojourner]

i wonder why we do not agree with it but religion somehow justifies this behavior...
would you agree this way of thinking perpetuated injustices throughout history?

What religion "justifies" this behavior? Judaism and Xy use the Bible. Neither religion justifies this behavior.