Yahweh is immoral

[ppp]

While I know that there are those, especially evangelicals, that will disagree, my position is this: All who are saved are saved through Christ; but that does not necessarily mean that they know him.

So you take more of a universalist stance? Is that fair to say?

And if so, does that apply to people who find the Biblical depiction of God and/or Jesus to be insufficiently moral?

I'm not objecting to your taking a universalist position. In fact, I think it's laudable. I'm just fascinated by how people reconcile that with the text of their holy book.

 

[GardenLady]

@Policy, I suppose it depends on what you mean by "universalist." I believe those who are faithful, whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Shinto, etc. and those who adhere to the admonition of the judgement seat scripture (when I was hungry....whatsoever you do to the least of these) or the Golden Rule (do unto others as you would have done to you) has an opportunity for salvation.

Is that "universalist"? I think there are plenty of folks who belong to the church of "what's good for me," and are judgmental and condemnatory toward others. I don't see them as part of that "universalist" group.

I cannot see into people's souls and I am content to leave these judgements to God, and rely on his mercy for others as well as myself.

Edited to add: I find the old testament depiction of God occasionally horrifying. But I am not a biblical literalist and view some of the OT depiction as unfortunate nationalism.

 

[ppp]

@Policy, I suppose it depends on what you mean by "universalist." I believe those who are faithful, whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Shinto, etc. and those who adhere to the admonition of the judgement seat scripture (when I was hungry....whatsoever you do to the least of these) or the Golden Rule (do unto others as you would have done to you) has an opportunity for salvation.

Yeah, that's basically universalist. It looks like you include non-theists in there too. Though I think that treat others as they wish to be treated is a little better as a rule.

Edited to add: I find the old testament depiction of God occasionally horrifying. But I am not a biblical literalist and view some of the OT depiction as unfortunate nationalism.

How do you decide which passages are inspired by God and which ones are not? Do you just use your personal view of thing how things should be?

 

[GardenLady]

How do you decide which passages are inspired by God and which ones are not? Do you just use your personal view of thing how things should be?

An interesting question that I struggle with. In general, I find "prehistorical" books to be ... mythological? I don't believe God destroyed everyone in a flood or asked Abraham to kill his son or that the sun stopped in the sky or the walls of Jericho fell. My brother-in-law refers to the book of Psalms as "Israeli war chants," which seems only half correct to me.

I don't find the new testament to be immoral, and find the teaching of Jesus to be largely consistent with Hillel.

 

[ppp]

An interesting question that I struggle with. In general, I find "prehistorical" books to be ... mythological? I don't believe God destroyed everyone in a flood or asked Abraham to kill his son or that the sun stopped in the sky or the walls of Jericho fell. My brother-in-law refers to the book of Psalms as "Israeli war chants," which seems only half correct to me.

What about Adam and Eve being the first humans, the Fall, and tossing them out of the Garden? Is that literal? I would think that it has to be, otherwise, there is no need of a saviour.

I don't find the new testament to be immoral, and find the teaching of Jesus to be largely consistent with Hillel.

Heh. I think that Jesus was cribbing from Hillel. As for morality, I view the NT in the same way that I view the Code of Hammurabi, the Magna Carta or the US Constitution. Interesting steps in human social evolution that still need some work. I think that the NT was a remarkable moral advancement for the people of its time. But I think it is deplorable for a deity who should know better.

 

[metis]

For men, hindsight can be 100% correct but still may only be worth a nickel or maybe less if we didn't learn from it,

Except this should have been questioned at the time, and only a few did. Oppenheimer was one who did and was black-balled by the administration and removed from the project.

In my view, God knows all the options that were available and picks the right one.

So, he directed us to do that, or is it that he knows but we may not?

 

[joelr]

At that time, true. However, with a blockade, it would only be a matter of time.

No invasion would have been necessary in all likelihood if we had let them know that a negotiated peace was possible and that we would help them through transitions.

Nope. It possibly could have ended much like the Brits and Indians handled the ending of the Raj.

Which would be conditional.

Again, us killing thousands of civilians would not have been necessary.

Starving people? They did not want to surrender. At the time it was still unthinkable, even after the atomic bombs. So now we are going to let women and children slowly starve?
The Emperor forced Japan to surrender. The military had no thought of surrender. They would use the delay to start rebuilding ships and armies. Politicians were also under massive pressure to end the war. People in the US were tired of war and losing young men and were very angry about Pearl Harbor. Also Japan did terrible things. Are you aware of what they did in China?

 

[joelr]

OK... so you are hung up on one word and suggest they leave them all to die... got it. Not "why" but simply "the word".

What word would you have preferred to use?

No you have missed the mark entirely. I am not hung up on one word, I am hung up on the completely immoral disgusting laws supposedly given by a "God".

I see the common apologetic that the other choice is "leave them to die". That is a good apologetic for kids maybe?
I don't know what it should say? Don't kill everyone if you don't have to?

1) you don't know they will die, but they would be free
2) how about starting the law with, I don't know, ........"Don't kill all the men", "defeat the enemy and upon surrender leave the remaining men alone". They might die because Yahweh ORDERED THE DEATH OF ALL THE MEN?
3) A city full of willing wives, hmmm, men may come
4)take them as "not plunder" but any willing to become citizens let them. If they desire to wander to other cities let them.
5)"plunder" means - they are your possession, permanently, your sex slave, and slave slave with no chance of a free life, same with their children
6) how about a law where you help them rebuild a bit. Like the U.S. now does? Leave some men alive?
7) there are probably other options as well, other cities will take workers, the Israelites could probably use the labor.

These laws about plunder and non-Hebrew slaves are barbaric and inhumane. Obviously written by people. An actual deity would have figured something out if it was moral. Plunder makes a person a piece of property. Forever. No rights, no regulations, no restrictions on behavior, were probably raped.

It gets better, if they surrender first then they get to do FORCED LABOR???? Wow, that sounds like a great life. I wonder why we don't do anything like these things today?
The Japanese plundered women and you seemed to feel it was terrible? But it's not terrible for the Hebrews?

 

[joelr]

OK... Deut 20 -



W
Let's pick one with the limited knowledge we have...

Canaanites - The Canaanites, as a whole culture, committed sins of idolatry, holy temple prostitution, adultery, homosexuality, incest, murder, bestiality, gang rape, and child sacrifice (see The Nature of the Canaanites’ Sin excursus on page 8).

?

This is not supported by history. Dr. Brendon Benz, Associate Professor of History at William Jewell College was on Dr Josh show (Assyrologist specializing in Middle Eastern Biblical times cultures)
and the Canaanites are simple farmers with similar laws as the Israelites. There is one other culture that may have had child sacrifice in this area. Wiping out a city of 70,000 with a plague is also child sacrifice however and is in the OT.

Canaanite religion - Wikipedia
Canaanites believed that following physical death, the npš (usually translated as "soul") departed from the body to the land of Mot (Death). Bodies were buried with grave goods, and offerings of food and drink were made to the dead to ensure that they would not trouble the living. Dead relatives were venerated and sometimes asked for help.[

The union of El Elyon and his consort Asherah would be representation of primordial Cronos and Rhea in Greek mythology or Roman Saturnus and Ops. - Ashera was later consort to Yahweh in Israelite myths.

Archaeological investigations at the site of Tell es-Safi have found the remains of donkeys, as well as some sheep and goats in Early Bronze Age layers, dating to 4,900 years ago which were imported from Egypt in order to be sacrificed. One of the sacrificial animals, a complete donkey, was found beneath the foundations of a building, leading to speculation this was a 'foundation deposit' placed before the building of a residential house.[29]

It is considered virtually impossible to reconstruct a clear picture of Canaanite religious practices. Although child sacrifice was known to surrounding peoples, there is no reference to it in ancient Phoenician or Classical texts. The biblical representation of Canaanite religion is always negative.[30]

Canaanite religious practice had a high regard for the duty of children to care for their parents, with sons being held responsible for burying them, and arranging for the maintenance of their tombs.[31]

 

[Kenny]

This is not supported by history. Dr. Brendon Benz, Associate Professor of History at William Jewell College was on Dr Josh show (Assyrologist specializing in Middle Eastern Biblical times cultures)
and the Canaanites are simple farmers with similar laws as the Israelites. There is one other culture that may have had child sacrifice in this area. Wiping out a city of 70,000 with a plague is also child sacrifice however and is in the OT.

Canaanite religion - Wikipedia
Canaanites believed that following physical death, the npš (usually translated as "soul") departed from the body to the land of Mot (Death). Bodies were buried with grave goods, and offerings of food and drink were made to the dead to ensure that they would not trouble the living. Dead relatives were venerated and sometimes asked for help.[

The union of El Elyon and his consort Asherah would be representation of primordial Cronos and Rhea in Greek mythology or Roman Saturnus and Ops. - Ashera was later consort to Yahweh in Israelite myths.

Archaeological investigations at the site of Tell es-Safi have found the remains of donkeys, as well as some sheep and goats in Early Bronze Age layers, dating to 4,900 years ago which were imported from Egypt in order to be sacrificed. One of the sacrificial animals, a complete donkey, was found beneath the foundations of a building, leading to speculation this was a 'foundation deposit' placed before the building of a residential house.[29]

It is considered virtually impossible to reconstruct a clear picture of Canaanite religious practices. Although child sacrifice was known to surrounding peoples, there is no reference to it in ancient Phoenician or Classical texts. The biblical representation of Canaanite religion is always negative.[30]

Canaanite religious practice had a high regard for the duty of children to care for their parents, with sons being held responsible for burying them, and arranging for the maintenance of their tombs.[31]

You previous answer already dictated that you are not into real dialogue...

Maybe on another subject we can interact in as much as this subject is mute between the two of us.

 

[Muffled]

Apparently Jesus was in heaven the same time He walked the earth. Heaven here is a state or condition of nearness to God.

John 3:13

And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

I believe no person can be in two different places at the same time. So the verse quoted gives a time difference as indicated by the words "ascended" and "came down."

 

[Muffled]

Go ahead and look up all references to Paradise, Prison and Hell in the Bible.

It takes some actual knowledge about what the Bible teaches concerning free will, accountability, forgiveness and spirits to put it all together - but those three places/conditions exist in the Bible.

I believe Hell is essentially a prison.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I believe no person can be in two different places at the same time. So the verse quoted gives a time difference as indicated by the words "ascended" and "came down."

Heaven is a spiritual state not a place.

 

[Muffled]

Yes .. and your claim is that G-d wants us to oppress others unjustly?
I think I prefer G-d's judgement over yours when I die, thanks.

I believe God is very much against oppression. That is why when I thought to pray for Saddam Hussein, He told me not to.

 

[Muffled]

Heaven is a spiritual state not a place.

I believe all your statements are metaphors for those who don't understand the Bible.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I believe God is very much against oppression. That is why when I thought to pray for Saddam Hussein, He told me not to.

I wouldn't worry about the theatre in Iraq..

Look towards the East .. China and Russia are on the warpath.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I believe all your statements are metaphors for those who don't understand the Bible.

Not all the Bible is in metaphors. Some verses are literal while others are allegorical.

 

[ppp]

Not all the Bible is in metaphors. Some verses are literal while others are allegorical.

How do you decide which is which?

 

[metis]

Starving people? They did not want to surrender. At the time it was still unthinkable, even after the atomic bombs. So now we are going to let women and children slowly starve?
The Emperor forced Japan to surrender. The military had no thought of surrender. They would use the delay to start rebuilding ships and armies. Politicians were also under massive pressure to end the war. People in the US were tired of war and losing young men and were very angry about Pearl Harbor. Also Japan did terrible things. Are you aware of what they did in China?

Listen, we cannot make decisions for others, especially those who live elsewhere. Thus, if people starved, that would not be our choice but theirs, plus we could make promises to help them once the leadership surrendered. Also, two wrongs don't make a right.

I don't believe in killing thousands of innocent civilians when it could possibly have been avoided. If you can, then you're not the kind of person I ever want to associate with for any reason.

 

[loverofhumanity]

How do you decide which is which?

I refer it to God.