So was God wrong?

[fallingblood]

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.

Not really true. Yes, it is true today for some people. However, the fact that people can justify genocide shows that in at least some cultures, it is partially justifiable. In 2,000 years, it could go either way. Cultures change, and ideas change. What is true now is not necessarily true 2000 years ago.

 

[TheKnight]

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

I think you take "common sense about very basic morality" for granted.

I mean, with that kind of argument I could call any random bull the "moral way" to do things, and when it is called into question I'd simply label the other side as being barbaric and say they are uncivilized and lack "common sense about very basic morality".

That's a great way to get your point across.

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.

I don't believe actions are moral or immoral. Those words have no objective meaning. Do I think one should kill babies as a general rule? Absolutely not. And I have reasons for that.

My contention with your position is that it presupposes that we all accept some murky abstract idea of morality.

To say that our discussion is not a discussion of the morality of any action is to downplay it.

The OP criticizes the actions prescribed by the Torah in certain situations as being "unjust". However, to make that claim one first must provide a standard for what is just and what isn't. That's all I've been asking for, an answer to how do we determine the justice of an action?

And if the only answer to that is "because you are a civilized human being and have some common sense about very basic morality" then the answer is bound to be proven insufficient in extreme cases and thus ineffective at establishing morality.

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.

That may be what you're looking for, but I'm responding to your search with the challenge that we cannot begin to have any discussion of moral consistency without having an agreed upon moral basis.

Obviously, those of us who believe in the Torah and those of you who don't have a different moral basis. I would agree that from YOUR position many actions prescribed by the Torah are morally inconsistent. However, from the Torah-position, those actions or not morally inconsistent. Why? Because we have a different basis of morality.

Your morality, apparently, comes from some sort of imagined inherent sense of right and wrong. Mine comes from what God commands. The mere fact that we start from different places automatically ensures that our ideas of consistency will be different.

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

I don't describe actions as "right" or "wrong". That does no one any good. If you were to ask me if anything were right or wrong my response will always be "It depends."

Is it wrong to kill babies? Well,it depends.
What do you mean when you say "wrong"? Do you mean it is something one should not do? Then yes, I'd agree one should not do it.
If you then say: "Well how can you explain the Bible's account of God commanding people to kill babies?"

I would respond "Killing babies, in the case of God commanding it, is merely a consequence of something one should always do, which is obey what God commands."

For someone in my position, it is never a question of "Is x wrong or is y right?" it is always a matter of "Is this what God wants me to do?" That is all that matters in my perspective when it comes to determining the morality of an action, does God desire the action or not.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

May I suggest you go back and read the passages in question? They weren't innocent casualties, they were deliberate. In one instance the Hebrew soldiers only killed all the men, and took the women prisoners. God became angry, and sent them back to kill all the little boy children. In most cases, what happened is that God gave Canaan to the Hebrews, and ordered them to commit ethnic cleansing on everyone in it. Rarely is there an attack, and that usually hundreds of years earlier, such as the Amelekites, so it's really more of revenge. The wars were commanded by God. What two accounts are you referring to? What I'm saying is, in the accounts given by the Hebrews of their own actions, God commands genocide and infanticide, not once by repeatedly, and without any justification.

I will quote passages if you like.

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.

Yes, I agree. They were under the mistaken impression that God exists, when actually it was just them committing evil acts, and attributing them to 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.

I invite you to read them, and will provide you with the passages if you need.

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.

the other groups aren't being held up as moral guidelines for the rest of us to follow.

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.

Yes, I'm sure they will, especially if we break the chains of ancient primitive texts like the Bible.

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.

Like around 1300 years of the history of the Christian Church.

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.

True, it's confusing as well as barbaric. Other than some good poetry, we're probably better off without it.

 

[Autodidact]

I don't believe actions are moral or immoral.

Then we probably don't have much to talk about in this thread.

Those words have no objective meaning. Do I think one should kill babies as a general rule? Absolutely not. And I have reasons for that.

O.K., let's go with that. One should not kill babies as a general rule. In the OT, God commands His people to kill people as a general rule. Therefore, He should not have done that, correct?

Obviously, those of us who believe in the Torah and those of you who don't have a different moral basis. I would agree that from YOUR position many actions prescribed by the Torah are morally inconsistent. However, from the Torah-position, those actions or not morally inconsistent. Why? Because we have a different basis of morality.

So the Torah position is that genocide and infanticide are morally permissible?

Your morality, apparently, comes from some sort of imagined inherent sense of right and wrong. Mine comes from what God commands. The mere fact that we start from different places automatically ensures that our ideas of consistency will be different.

You have no idea what mine comes from, nor is that necessary for the purpose of this thread.

So for you, whatever God commands is moral, no matter how horrific. For example, of God commanded you to stab a baby to death, and you did, that would be moral?

I don't describe actions as "right" or "wrong". That does no one any good. If you were to ask me if anything were right or wrong my response will always be "It depends."

O.K., what does it depend on? In what circumstance is it moral to stab a baby to death?

Is it wrong to kill babies? Well,it depends.

On what?

What do you mean when you say "wrong"? Do you mean it is something one should not do? Then yes, I'd agree one should not do it.
If you then say: "Well how can you explain the Bible's account of God commanding people to kill babies?"

I would respond "Killing babies, in the case of God commanding it, is merely a consequence of something one should always do, which is obey what God commands."

Got it. So if you follow Torah-based morality, you believe that one should kill babies, and if you don't, you are not likely to believe this.

Yet in general, one should not kill babies. So if you follow Torah-based morality, you should do what you generally should not do?

For someone in my position, it is never a question of "Is x wrong or is y right?" it is always a matter of "Is this what God wants me to do?" That is all that matters in my perspective when it comes to determining the morality of an action, does God desire the action or not.

got you. If God wants you to kill a baby, that's what you do, and that is what you should do.

And that is why I despise Biblical morality.

Remind me not to let you baby-sit, btw.

 

[No Good Boyo]

Not really true. Yes, it is true today for some people. However, the fact that people can justify genocide shows that in at least some cultures, it is partially justifiable. In 2,000 years, it could go either way. Cultures change, and ideas change. What is true now is not necessarily true 2000 years ago.

Sorry, you cannot justify genocide in ANY culture for ANY reason.

 

[Skwim]

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?

I assume you have the very same questions about your god being love

1 John 4:8
He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.*​

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 love without any support?

What does love even mean? Does it have an objective meaning? Or it is just a word we use to describe things we like?

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?

Want to rephrase that so that it makes sense?



* I know the passage is NT, but would deny this is what he is?

 

[Blackdog22]

Some are arguing that genocide took place because of the difference in time, my question is why would Gods own morality change depending on the time period? Why would he not hold his people to a higher standard? Why wait for thousands of years before sending Jesus and introducing a standard that isn't so downright disgusting?

 

[sojourner]

Would you say those passages are inaccurate?

I wouldn't say "inaccurate," because they are accurate, in that they were accurately communicated, written, edited, translated, etc. They are part and parcel of the texts. So I don't think "inaccurate" is the word we're looking for. that being said, I think what you're really asking is, "Is this what God wants us to do?" My answer is, "No. It's not what God wants us to do." The texts are as much about how humans and communities feel about things as they are about how God feels about things. In that culture, doing those things was OK for those folks. In this culture, it isn't. It's always a HUGE mistake to superimpose an ancient ethic onto a modern culture.

 

[sojourner]

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?

Divine scripture didn't just fall out of the sky in King James English -- no matter what the fundigelicals think. The texts were conceived, written, compiled, recounted, read, edited, redacted, translated and interpreted by human beings for human beings. What makes them sacred is not some alleged immutability or infallibility. What makes them sacred is that they are the record of our relationship with God and the story of God's acts in humanity. Those sheep herders are our ancestors -- our sisters and brothers in faith. What they have said about God matters to us.

 

[Autodidact]

I wouldn't say "inaccurate," because they are accurate, in that they were accurately communicated, written, edited, translated, etc. They are part and parcel of the texts. So I don't think "inaccurate" is the word we're looking for. that being said, I think what you're really asking is, "Is this what God wants us to do?" My answer is, "No. It's not what God wants us to do." The texts are as much about how humans and communities feel about things as they are about how God feels about things. In that culture, doing those things was OK for those folks. In this culture, it isn't. It's always a HUGE mistake to superimpose an ancient ethic onto a modern culture.

My question is, in your view, do these passages accurately record what happened?

 

[sojourner]

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.

Except that you're forgetting that the texts represent the cultural norms as much as the Divine norms.

 

[Autodidact]

Divine scripture didn't just fall out of the sky in King James English -- no matter what the fundigelicals think. The texts were conceived, written, compiled, recounted, read, edited, redacted, translated and interpreted by human beings for human beings. What makes them sacred is not some alleged immutability or infallibility. What makes them sacred is that they are the record of our relationship with God and the story of God's acts in humanity. Those sheep herders are our ancestors -- our sisters and brothers in faith. What they have said about God matters to us.

Why?

.

 

[sojourner]

Some are arguing that genocide took place because of the difference in time, my question is why would Gods own morality change depending on the time period? Why would he not hold his people to a higher standard? Why wait for thousands of years before sending Jesus and introducing a standard that isn't so downright disgusting?

People have to live in their own particularity. We only understand God from where we stand now. For that culture, genocide meant racial purity. It's difficult to admit that those ideas are presented in the texts, but they are, and we have to live with them as part of the human condition. I don't think anyone today (least of all a Jew) would say that genocide is OK with God. But apparently for that culture, racial purity was the higher standard. We've grown beyond that.

 

[sojourner]

Why?

.

Because God didn't just drop out of the sky either. We look for continuity in our respective particularities. God is constantly present in and with humanity. That's why the record is important to us. In some theological way, (without getting too off the wall here) we are linked to them through God, even though we have a different perspective and a different cultural expression. In this respect, I believe the Mormons have the better idea. The canon should never have been slammed shut. What our writers have to say is cogent to the whole community of the faithful. If we could add post-modern texts to the ancient texts, I believe you'd see great mitigation of those outmoded ways of thinking.

 

[Autodidact]

So do you think God did command these atrocities, or not?

 

[sojourner]

So do you think God did command these atrocities, or not?

No. God did not command them.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

No. God did not command them.

So, the verses in the Bible that obviously say the opposite were just errors in translation?

 

[Autodidact]

No. God did not command them.

Does the OT contain any accurate statements about God's commandments?

 

[sojourner]

So, the verses in the Bible that obviously say the opposite were just errors in translation?

No. They accurately reflect the perspective of the culture at the time.

 

[sojourner]

Does the OT contain any accurate statements about God's commandments?

They're all accurate statements. Remember, the OT says that the Law is abiding. Even Jesus is quoted as saying that the Law will not pass away. Paul says that the Law need not apply to Gentile Xians. Again, it's not about accuracy, it's about cogency. For Gentile Americans in the 21st century, the dietary laws are not cogent.