So was God wrong?

[fallingblood]

Me. Do you disagree? Yes, we have made a lot of moral progress since then. But remember, the OP is about God. Is God's goodness merely what some primitive people thought was acceptable
It's not misrepresenting. In that context, God commands, expects and rewards horribly brutal atrocities.
Pretty useless then as a moral guide, isn't it?

Morals change. Who is to say what our morals are today are the ones that will prevail into the future? There is no guarantee to that. We have already seen a massive amount of moral progress. What is to say that won't continue into the future?

Or maybe it is just best to assume that morals change. That morals are subjective to the time period in which they are present. Sure, we can see things in the past as being horrible. At the same time though, maybe in the future, people will look back and judge us according to their own time period. If they find us immoral according to their standards, does that mean we really are immoral?

Focusing on just one part of the OT though, in my opinion, is flawed. There are some good messages in the OT. Granted, you can many of these in other theological or even law works, but that doesn't take away from them.

 

[Autodidact]

Love is a subjective term though. Because I love my son, I punish him when he misbehaves. That isn't something bad, it is something that will, hopefully, be a benefit.

Well, so do I. I don't usually kill him, though.

Now, that can't explain it all, but looking at it from a nonliteral, historical point of view, a lot can be explained. If I see God being involved in everything, when I'm punished, I can see that being from him. When I have a major success in (what we would consider) a barbaric war, and kill 70,000 people, I can see that being from God. When a city is suddenly destroyed in an "act of God," I can see God in that. Thus, my view of life will interpret various acts as being from God. However, at the same time, I would also see a Godly plan for everything. So, even the bad things that happen must have a greater purpose. It then makes sense to contribute everything to a supreme God, the bad and the good. These are all human attributions though based on one idea of love. And that should be stressed. These are human attributions based on one idea of love.

I'm having trouble connecting up "love" with "kill everything that breathes." Can you explain the relationship to me?

That is why a historical context is needed. To judge everything by today's standards simply is not practical. Especially when we can't be sure that our understanding as of today is the correct understanding.

So God's commandments are no longer relevant today?

 

[fallingblood]

That's interesting. Actually, he directly quoted it. So for you, directly quoting a text is the same a misrepresenting it?

To the extent who argue away the barbarity of these passages, it's by rendering them difficult to interpret, which just creates another set of problems, doesn't it?

He didn't directly quote all of them. The last one for instance, was edited in order to say something that it didn't actually say. That is misrepresenting a text.

 

[fallingblood]

Well, do do I. I don't usually kill him, though.

I'm having trouble connecting up "love" with "kill everything that breathes." Can you explain the relationship to me?

So God's commandments are no longer relevant today?

Where does God say kill everything that breathes?

Christians do pick and choose from the Bible what they want; however, non-christians do the same exact thing as well.

 

[Autodidact]

Where does God say kill everything that breathes?

Deuteronomy 20:16.

Christians do pick and choose from the Bible what they want; however, non-christians do the same exact thing as well.

The difference is, we don't claim that it's a holy text.

 

[fallingblood]

Deuteronomy 20:16.

You took that out of context, and thus misrepresented what the text actually says. This is strictly in the sense of war. And that was common practice among various cultures at the time as it was a way to prevent an uprising and thus future battles.

The difference is, we don't claim that it's a holy text.

What is wrong with claiming it as a holy text? Someone who claims it as a holy text does not have to subscribe to everything it in, and in fact, many don't. Yes, some use it to support ridiculous ideas. However, they would most likely have many of the same ideas even without such a book. Because they are picking and choosing which hatred they want. And it is not based on just the Bible that they harbor such hatred. Because we can see the same type of hatred in communities and countries that are predominantly atheists as well.

 

[Autodidact]

You took that out of context, and thus misrepresented what the text actually says. This is strictly in the sense of war. And that was common practice among various cultures at the time as it was a way to prevent an uprising and thus future battles.

1. Please supply the full context that makes it morally right to kill babies, women, and other civilians, and to commit genocide.
2. All I did was answer your question.
3. Of course, the only reason they were at war was because God commanded them to go conquer and slaughter their neighbors, who had the misfortune to live on the land God wanted to give His people. That's the context.
4. I would not be surprised if that was common practice; I don't know. But the Hittite war practices are not being held up as a source of moral guidance in today's world. YHWH is.

What is wrong with claiming it as a holy text? Someone who claims it as a holy text does not have to subscribe to everything it in, and in fact, many don't. Yes, some use it to support ridiculous ideas. However, they would most likely have many of the same ideas even without such a book. Because they are picking and choosing which hatred they want. And it is not based on just the Bible that they harbor such hatred. Because we can see the same type of hatred in communities and countries that are predominantly atheists as well.

If it's your holy text, and you pick and choose which parts you like, you're not being consistent. If it's not, then you're free to do so with no loss of consistency.

But if you take the time to go back and read the OT, you will find that actually, a huge percentage of it is about commanding and describing war, usually including lots of genocide. Another huge chunk prescribes how and when to sacrifice animals to YHWH. And there's a lot of odd, arbitrary commandments, such as not building without parapets and the like. If you take out all that, you just have a few stories and poems, very short, really.

 

[TheKnight]

I don't know whether they would as a matter or circumstance, but certainly not as a matter of morality. For example, if they pass a law that all first-born sons must be killed, that would be wrong, a bad law.

Why? Can you explain why that is a wrong or bad law? Because saying it is wrong in the sense of some sort of touchy-feeling emotional discomfort is not satisfactory to establish a logical conclusion.

No, unless it's harming someone.

So the mere fact that we as a society have decided that we don't want this behavior is not enough to trump your selfish desire to do whatever it is you feel you're entitled to do?

Because your rights end at the beginning of my nose.

Wrong. Rights are illusions. We are free to act HOWEVER we please because when I punch you in the nose the only consequences I have to face are those that I cannot deter or prevent from within my own power. My right to do what I want is as vast as is my ability to ensure that I can do whatever I please to do. As long as I am able to punch you the nose, it is my right to do so. Otherwise, what is there to stop me? Your emotional ideal of morality that's not actually based in logic?

If you're not strong enough to stop me, then I am free to do whatever I want. I'm not arguing that I should, I don't actually believe in this position. But I find it extremely annoying that those who argue against certain things they find in the Bible, going so far as to label supporters as "morally retarded", are unable to come up with the simplest logical reasons to explain themselves. It's always "well it hurts someone". Well thanks I love you too. Or "it's not nice". Welcome to the real world. No matter how many emotional appeals you make, if I have the power to do action X, I can and will if it pleases me because there is nothing to stop me.

The question is whether or not I should. You're saying I shouldn't, I'm saying if that is the case then explain why.

It's almost as though subscribing to some religions makes people morally retarded.

As nice and heroic as it sounds, claiming to be some moral champion on no basis whatsoever is just as foolish as the fundamentalist Christian who says the Bible is true because it says its true.

There has to be a logical reason behind the ideas you claim as morality. Saying that it hurts someone isn't enough. For two reasons, for one there is no logical reason to assume that I should care that someone else is hurt by what I do. In fact, the only real objection in your position is that it simply doesn't feel nice to me and well if I don't have that problem then it's not an issue.

For two, I bet we'd all agree on situations where it is OK to hurt others for the greater good and I am going to bet you cannot logically differentiate between those times and between a society that determines and enforces its rules. Call it moral retardation if you want, if you can't even logically argue against this obviously foolish position for which I am playing Devil's advocate, then you can't even begin to argue against the Theistic position which has far more logical support.

 

[TheKnight]

What is loving god doing creating evil? "

Maybe it's just me, but when the hell did a universal code of morality drop out of the sky that is so obviously clear and candid to every human that we can outright claim something is evil without any support?

What does evil even mean? Does it have an objective meaning? Or it is just a word we use to describe things we don't like?

what reasons could justify

Requiring a justification is to assume that it is obvious and accepted by all parties that stabbing a baby to death with a sword is wrong. Do you have a logical reason for why this is the case?

 

[horizon_mj1]

It still requires picking and choosing. If a person is going to be honest with oneself the bad cannot be ignored. What is loving god doing creating evil? What is a loving god doing killing 70,000 people because one man makes a mistake? So unless a person purposely ignores such things I fail to see how looking at the Bible one could begin to see god as all-loving. To me seems a bit psychotic: "Worship me." "Love me." "Fear me."

That is why I ask; Why do people choose only one "book" or one "religion to understand Someone so complex. The Bible is a bloody tale and most people do not see that. The Torah is a history as well as the Koran, Tibetan Book of the Dead, Egyptian Book of the Dead etc. Get my drift. If you really want to get to know someone do you just choose one aspect of that person to concentrate on or do you try to absorb as much about them as you can?

 

[Autodidact]

Why? Can you explain why that is a wrong or bad law? Because saying it is wrong in the sense of some sort of touchy-feeling emotional discomfort is not satisfactory to establish a logical conclusion.


So the mere fact that we as a society have decided that we don't want this behavior is not enough to trump your selfish desire to do whatever it is you feel you're entitled to do?


Wrong. Rights are illusions. We are free to act HOWEVER we please because when I punch you in the nose the only consequences I have to face are those that I cannot deter or prevent from within my own power. My right to do what I want is as vast as is my ability to ensure that I can do whatever I please to do. As long as I am able to punch you the nose, it is my right to do so. Otherwise, what is there to stop me? Your emotional ideal of morality that's not actually based in logic?

If you're not strong enough to stop me, then I am free to do whatever I want. I'm not arguing that I should, I don't actually believe in this position. But I find it extremely annoying that those who argue against certain things they find in the Bible, going so far as to label supporters as "morally retarded", are unable to come up with the simplest logical reasons to explain themselves. It's always "well it hurts someone". Well thanks I love you too. Or "it's not nice". Welcome to the real world. No matter how many emotional appeals you make, if I have the power to do action X, I can and will if it pleases me because there is nothing to stop me.

The question is whether or not I should. You're saying I shouldn't, I'm saying if that is the case then explain why.


As nice and heroic as it sounds, claiming to be some moral champion on no basis whatsoever is just as foolish as the fundamentalist Christian who says the Bible is true because it says its true.

There has to be a logical reason behind the ideas you claim as morality. Saying that it hurts someone isn't enough. For two reasons, for one there is no logical reason to assume that I should care that someone else is hurt by what I do. In fact, the only real objection in your position is that it simply doesn't feel nice to me and well if I don't have that problem then it's not an issue.

For two, I bet we'd all agree on situations where it is OK to hurt others for the greater good and I am going to bet you cannot logically differentiate between those times and between a society that determines and enforces its rules. Call it moral retardation if you want, if you can't even logically argue against this obviously foolish position for which I am playing Devil's advocate, then you can't even begin to argue against the Theistic position which has far more logical support.

So just to clarify, your entire moral vision is that you can do anything you want, as long as you can get away with it, and you assert that is logical? is that right?

 

[TheKnight]

So just to clarify, your entire moral vision is that you can do anything you want, as long as you can get away with it, and you assert that is logical? is that right?

This is my personal view, but it is the view for which I am arguing in this thread.

If I can do X, and you can't stop me from doing X, and I want to do X, then what logical reason is there for me to not do X? Why would it be wrong for me to do X?

For this example let's say that X is murdering self-proclaimed or practicing witches.

 

[Blackdog22]

This is my personal view, but it is the view for which I am arguing in this thread.

If I can do X, and you can't stop me from doing X, and I want to do X, then what logical reason is there for me to not do X? Why would it be wrong for me to do X?

For this example let's say that X is murdering self-proclaimed or practicing witches.

Because your a civilized human being and have some common sense about very basic morality?

 

[Autodidact]

This is my personal view, but it is the view for which I am arguing in this thread.

If I can do X, and you can't stop me from doing X, and I want to do X, then what logical reason is there for me to not do X? Why would it be wrong for me to do X?

For this example let's say that X is murdering self-proclaimed or practicing witches.

I find that frequently, when pointing out the barbaric morality portrayed in the OT, religionists fall back on the red herring of the difficulty of establishing an objective morality. I submit that is a subject for a different thread. It is indeed a challenging philosophical discussion, which relying on a personal interpretation of an ancient collection of purity taboos does nothing to facilitate. As long as we agree on some basic outcomes, like that killing babies is immoral, it is not necessary to use this thread to agree on a moral basis. Do you agree that killing babies is immoral? If so, your questions are irrelevant.

 

[Autodidact]

In other words, if you believe something is wrong, attributing that action to God does not make it right. What we're looking here is moral consistency, not agreement on a moral basis.

Now, if you believe that killing babies is right, then we may have to talk.

 

[sojourner]

I often hear Christians say that the horrors of the Old Testament were from the Old Testament and the New Testament is a New Covenant with Gods people as if that somehow justifies the atrocities of the Old Testament.

My question is do you think that murdering someone by stoning for being, Gay, a witch, working on the sabbath, being part of another belief system, etc is acceptable and just? If not then are you saying that God was "wrong" at one point? If God was once wrong and is also supposed to be perfect then how should I as an observer take this?

No, God wasn't "wrong at some point." Remember, the texts were written by human beings from a particular point of view. If a mistake was made, it was the humans who made it.

 

[Autodidact]

No, God wasn't "wrong at some point." Remember, the texts were written by human beings from a particular point of view. If a mistake was made, it was the humans who made it.

Would you say those passages are inaccurate?

 

[RitalinO.D.]

No, God wasn't "wrong at some point." Remember, the texts were written by human beings from a particular point of view. If a mistake was made, it was the humans who made it.

How is there a "point of view" when it is supposed to be divine scripture? Why do so many people hold this book as holy, if it is just stories from the perspective of sheep herders?

 

[No Good Boyo]

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.

I simply can't see how a "perfect being" could justify genocide, slavery and rape, regardless of the time period. People are people, their culture is a poor excuse for masacring them. True today, true yesterday, true 2000 years ago.

 

[fallingblood]

1. Please supply the full context that makes it morally right to kill babies, women, and other civilians, and to commit genocide.

We are talking about the context of a war. Yes, there will be innocent casualties. However, one also has to remember that many of these wars were not caused by the Hebrews. The Hebrews were also under attack over and over again. And even when the Hebrews are at fault, such as conquering the Holy Land, we have two accounts of such. So it really isn't just black and white.

More so, I think if one looks at the passages from a point of view that demands that God is involved in everything, one is easily justified in believing that when one does something, it is in part because God wanted it to be done, and that it has a greater effect that they can possibly know. This is the thought process that was going into the writing of the Bible. They believed that God was involved in their lives, and thus they reflected that. Does that mean that God necessarily commanded them to do something we now consider immoral? Not at all. But since it happened (we must also remember all of these writings happened long after the fact), the idea was that it must have been because of God. So even though it may have been a human command, the driving force was still God.

As with specific contexts, without picking out every verse, deciding whether or not it was attributed to God, or to human, etc, I simply can't give a full answer.

3. Of course, the only reason they were at war was because God commanded them to go conquer and slaughter their neighbors, who had the misfortune to live on the land God wanted to give His people. That's the context.

Actually, we see many other groups also instigating war with the Hebrews. Yes, God promised them the Holy Land, and they conquered it to a point, but they were also frequently attacked by others as well. So it isn't just black and white.

4. I would not be surprised if that was common practice; I don't know. But the Hittite war practices are not being held up as a source of moral guidance in today's world. YHWH is.

Why should we hold it up to today's morals standard though? Who is to say that today's moral standard is the last word? If we think of the advancement in the last thousand years even, it is not out of question to think that in another thousand years, morals standards will have shifted again quite considerably.

If it's your holy text, and you pick and choose which parts you like, you're not being consistent. If it's not, then you're free to do so with no loss of consistency.

For me, I don't derive my beliefs from the Bible, or any holy text. And I think that is best. You have definitely shown some good points, that if taken completely literally, and everything is followed, it will end up being problem some. That I won't deny. Especially when some horrible atrocities have been committed by people who use the Bible as a crutch.

At the same time too though, the Bible is a difficult book, especially if one takes the Jewish position that there is also the oral Torah. Just the debates that exist in the Jewish religion would suggest that the Bible is not clear cut.