|
Author
|
Topic: The God of the Bible is Evil
|
Hawkins
Member (Idle past 1393 days) Posts: 150 From: Hong Kong Joined: 08-25-2005
|
Re: Topic
No, it isn't a reply to your post, I guess i pressed the wrong "reply" button. hehe...sorry. I replied to the topic in general, so anyone is free to ignore my post if he/she feels that my post is off-topic.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 165 by purpledawn, posted 06-12-2007 7:17 AM | | purpledawn has not replied |
|
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5933 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: 09-08-2003
|
Re: God in Our Likeness
iceage writes: I don't believe there is scrap of god in the OT stories.
PurpleDawn writes: Did you mean scrap of good or actually scrap of god? No scrap of god. The OT with its prescription of blood sacrifices, slavery, calls to arms with the offer of fresh virgins and booty, denigration and devaluation of women, etc. describe the mind of man and evolution of culture, not the mind of God in any such way. There are those who believe that since the topic is the divine, therefore the bible must have value in describing God even if so darkly and muddied by the imperfect understanding of humans. Not so, I believe. For example, I can attempt to understand alien life; I can draw images, assume a characterization and envision alien native environments, but just because i attempt to understand does not mean that I come anywhere close and in all probability would be far from the mark. In accessing the OT, I use Occam's razor. Does the OT describe somehow the nature of the being that created the universe, with all of its splendor and complexities; or is it more likely that the OT stories are just the recorded myths, superstitions and nationalistic tendencies of early civilized humans? Which by the way, are very similar and not out-of-the ordinary to the writings and beliefs of other regional cultures of the same time. I go with the latter. In light of this, how can I say that the OT is evil? And not just temporal, situational and regional? Since evil is not universally defined, the lot of us, could end up discussing in circles and maybe end up saying the same thing differently. Therefore to define evil, I lean towards Albert Schweitzer's (a very good example of a Christian) definition of evil:
Albert Schweitzer writes:
Therefore, I see that evil is what annihilates, hampers, or hinders life. And this holds good whether I regard it physically or spiritually. Goodness, by the same token, is the saving or helping of life, the enabling of whatever life I can to attain its highest development. This is an absolute and reasonable ethical foundation. However it also unavoidably condemns the notion of blood sacrifice, slavery, and genocide as evil. Edited by iceage, : No reason given. Edited by iceage, : No reason given.
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3476 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
|
Message 168 of 190 (405739)
06-14-2007 4:24 PM
|
Reply to: Message 167 by iceage
06-13-2007 2:52 AM
|
|
Absolute Ethics
quote:
The OT with its prescription of blood sacrifices, slavery, calls to arms with the offer of fresh virgins and booty, denigration and devaluation of women, etc. describe the mind of man and evolution of culture, not the mind of God in any such way.
I agree that the OT writings come from the mind of man and describe the evolution of culture, but since the character of God comes from the mind of man; what is the mind of God? While I think we are on the same page as far as the reality of the Bible, I think we differ in our view of what the ancient Gods were. I think this excerpt from Schweitzer's 1936 article concerning " The Ethics of Reverence for Life" closely follows along my lines of thinking.
When one has seen whole populations annihilated by sleeping sickness, as I have, one ceases to imagine that human life is nature’s goal. In fact, the Creative Force does not concern itself about preserving life. It simultaneously creates and destroys. Therefore, the will-to-live is not to be understood within the circle of Creative Force. Philosophy and religion have repeatedly sought the solution by this road; they have projected our will to perfection into nature at large, expecting to see its counterpart there. But in all honesty we must confess that to cling to such a belief is to delude ourselves. quote:
For example, I can attempt to understand alien life; I can draw images, assume a characterization and envision alien native environments, but just because i attempt to understand does not mean that I come anywhere close and in all probability would be far from the mark.
Also just because one can envision alien life or environments, doesn't mean that aliens actually exist for us to understand. Mankind has a vivid imagination and many fictional characters exist only in our literature but have become part of our culture. In Job (fiction), Satan was a personification of the adversary. That doesn't make Satan a real being to understand outside of the story.
quote:
This is an absolute and reasonable ethical foundation. However it also unavoidably condemns the notion of blood sacrifice, slavery, and genocide as evil.
Albert Schweitzer's article on " Reverence for Life" is very interesting although I'm not sure which version you pulled your excerpt from.
Albert Schweitzer writes: Therefore, I see that evil is what annihilates, hampers, or hinders life. And this holds good whether I regard it physically or spiritually. Goodness, by the same token, is the saving or helping of life, the enabling of whatever life I can to attain its highest development. In the 1936 article your excerpt is preceded by these words, which explains why he comes to conclusion you quoted.
What shall be my attitude toward this other life? It can only be of a piece with my attitude towards my own life. If I am a thinking being, I must regard other life than my own with equal reverence. For I shall know that it longs for fulness and development as deeply as I do myself. Even Schweitzer acknowledged in this article that in reality at times we are forced to choose who or what lives.
True, in practice we are forced to choose. At times we have to decide arbitrarily which forms of life, and even which particular individuals, we shall save, and which we shall destroy. But the principle of reverence for life is none the less universal. In this article Schweitzer differentiated between ordinary ethics and the absolute ethic of reverence for life.
Ordinary ethics seeks to find limits within the sphere of human life and relationships. But the absolute ethics of the will-to-live must reverence every form of life, seeking so far as possible to refrain from destroying any life, regardless of its particular type. In this sense, reverence for life is an absolute ethic. It does not lay down specific rules for each possible situation. It simply tells us that we are responsible for the lives about us. It does not set either maximum or minimum limits to what we must do. Schweitzer's definition of evil is based on what he deems an absolute ethic and by that definition we are evil even if we kill a fly or kill a flower by stepping on it. A tree is evil if it falls and kills a rodent. So while all this thinking is fascinating, in reality mankind has to determine when death or destruction is necessary. So humans tend to consider wanton death or destruction evil. Given what has been written in both of these articles which is pertaining to actual life, how does that absolute ethic apply to literature? I write: The old cat in my basement died of starvation. Although the statement now exists, no old cat died in my basement of starvation or anything else. So nothing unethical or evil actually happened. Just as in the story of Job. It is a fictional story so no one died. So what deems an entire work of literature evil? Are characters within a work of literature to be judged good or evil by the context of the story and the intended audience? I don't feel that literature would fall under Schweitzer's definition of evil. I feel he intends it to pertain to reality. Edited by purpledawn, : Subtitle Change
"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 167 by iceage, posted 06-13-2007 2:52 AM | | iceage has not replied |
|
Jon Paine
Member (Idle past 6093 days) Posts: 65 From: Los Angeles, California Joined: 05-24-2007
|
|
|
Message 169 of 190 (406016)
06-16-2007 6:56 AM
|
|
|
(more on) God as depicted in the Bible is Evil
More on the topic "God as depicted in the bible is Evil": Lot, in a righteous moment, offers his virgin daughters to the mob to do with as they will, rather than surrender two "angels". What does this say about God's family values?
19:4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
"Bring them out unto us, that we may know them."
Two angels are staying at Lot's house when all the men of Sodom come to visit. They ask Lot to bring the angels out so that they can have sex with them.
What was the sin of Sodom?
19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
19:6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
19:7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. Edited by Jon Paine, : put quotes Edited by Jon Paine, : sentence correction
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3476 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
Lot Not God
quote:
Lot, in a righteous moment, offers his virgin daughters to the mob to do with as they will, rather than surrender two "angels". What does this say about God's family values?
In the story, God did not tell Lot to give his daughters. As we continue in the story we see that the messengers of God actually struck the men outside the door with blindness so they couldn't find the door to break it down. They protected Lot and his family.
Genesis 19:10-11
But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. They struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves trying to find the doorway. Nothing actually happened to the daughters in the story. My take on the incident is that the author was showing that Lot was willing to give his daughters to protect God's messengers. I don't feel that Lot's offer is a reflection on God. I don't recall this passage ever being used to teach anything other than how wicked Sodom was. In Message 11 you stated:
Jon Paine writes: What you say may well be true, that they "stories" are intended to be allegorical, not taken literally. Still this is not the kind of thing that I want to be teaching my children. If God is not good, then he is not God (if God exists). In the stories, movies, shows, etc. today that we use to teach our children or just allow them to watch, are all the "good guys" absolutely good, no flaws? They break no rules whatsoever? It still boils down to how the various stories are used in Christian teachings. Are they using the stories incorrectly?
"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 169 by Jon Paine, posted 06-16-2007 6:56 AM | | Jon Paine has not replied |
|
Jon Paine
Member (Idle past 6093 days) Posts: 65 From: Los Angeles, California Joined: 05-24-2007
|
|
|
Message 171 of 190 (406598)
06-21-2007 2:08 PM
|
|
|
the iniquity of the fathers
Is it right that innocent offspring of a "sinner" be punished unto the third and fourth generation?
Exodus20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
Re: the iniquity of the fathers
Why wouldn't it be?
Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 171 by Jon Paine, posted 06-21-2007 2:08 PM | | Jon Paine has replied |
|
Jon Paine
Member (Idle past 6093 days) Posts: 65 From: Los Angeles, California Joined: 05-24-2007
|
Re: the iniquity of the fathers
That is an interesting reply. It would not be justice to punish the innocent offspring of a sinner because those offspring are innocent of the sin. Edited by Jon Paine, : No reason given.
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
Re: the iniquity of the fathers
Um, okay, but you didn't really answer my question as much as you just repeated the implied claim in your previous post. But this is a problem with discussions about morality and right/wrong -- people take their own feelings about right and wrong for granted and start to think that there is some objective reasons for their opinions. So, let me ask again: why wouldn't it be right to hold people responsible for the crimes committed by their parents? Why couldn't guilt be passed onto the offspring? An awful lot of societies, maybe even most, have had no problem with the concept of punishing entire families or communities, including children or others we would deem "innocent", for the crimes committed by a single individual.
Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 173 by Jon Paine, posted 06-21-2007 2:15 PM | | Jon Paine has replied |
|
Jon Paine
Member (Idle past 6093 days) Posts: 65 From: Los Angeles, California Joined: 05-24-2007
|
Re: the iniquity of the fathers
It is my opinion that it is a sin to hold children accountable for the sins of their fathers. God, by doing so, is unjust. It is just an opinion, but I expect it is shared by others.
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
Re: the iniquity of the fathers
Hi, Jon.
It is my opinion that it is a sin to hold children accountable for the sins of their fathers. Okay. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. -
It is just an opinion, but I expect it is shared by others. Sure. It's shared by me, for instance. Now, if you're saying, "According to Jon Paine and Chiroptera's personal sense of morality, it is wrong to hold people accountable for the sins of their ancestors," then I guess you would be making a true statement. If you're saying, "According to the principles of modern liberal democracy, it is wrong to hold people accountable for the crimes of their ancestors," then I would definitely say you are correct. But to make a blanket statement like "It is wrong to hold people accountable for the crimes of their ancestors," would not be true at all, not unless you're making a claim that there are some objective standards of morality independent of our subjective opinions. We've wasted quite a few threads here on arguing about that very point. It would be very interesting if you were making such a claim. There are some people here who claim that one needs to believe in a god (or that a god must exist -- sometimes I can't figure out their argument) in order to accept an objective morality. While I've always believe that the two are not logically related, it would be interesting if there were an instantiation of this.
Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 175 by Jon Paine, posted 06-21-2007 2:35 PM | | Jon Paine has not replied |
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3476 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
Re: the iniquity of the fathers
Going with the documentary hypothesis again, that portion is from the priestly version of the Exodus and considered to have been written between 722-587bce possibly in the time of King Hezekiah (715-686bce) by a priest in his court. In your searching for evil, did you notice that that verse was countered by Jeremiah (626-585bce) and Ezekiel (593-571)?
Jeremiah 31:29-30
"In those days they will not say again, 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, And the children's teeth are set on edge.' "But everyone will die for his own iniquity; each man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge. Ezekiel 18
Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying, "What do you mean by using this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, 'The fathers eat the sour grapes, But the children's teeth are set on edge'? "As I live," declares the Lord GOD, "you are surely not going to use this proverb in Israel anymore. "Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die. So two prophets who supposedly speak for God did not agree with that sentiment. According to the Documentary Hypothesis the J, E, P, and D texts weren't merged until about the time of Ezra. So when we look at the reality of the situation, it doesn't sound like the prophets considered the priestly comments to be accurate. If you look at the Exodus 20 verse you will also see it was aimed at those who hate God, so again in the context of the story was this an actual threat that would be followed through or an exaggerated threat to scare? Any evidence it came true in real life?
"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 171 by Jon Paine, posted 06-21-2007 2:08 PM | | Jon Paine has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 178 by Jon Paine, posted 06-21-2007 10:44 PM | | purpledawn has not replied |
|
Jon Paine
Member (Idle past 6093 days) Posts: 65 From: Los Angeles, California Joined: 05-24-2007
|
Re: the iniquity of the fathers
So two prophets who supposedly speak for God did not agree with that sentiment. According to the Documentary Hypothesis the J, E, P, and D texts weren't merged until about the time of Ezra. So when we look at the reality of the situation, it doesn't sound like the prophets considered the priestly comments to be accurate.... This is very helpful information, of which I was unaware.
Any evidence it came true in real life? No, but to be fair, as a secularist I see no evidence that God (if he/she exists) intervenes in nature or in human affairs. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 177 by purpledawn, posted 06-21-2007 8:14 PM | | purpledawn has not replied |
|
Jon Paine
Member (Idle past 6093 days) Posts: 65 From: Los Angeles, California Joined: 05-24-2007
|
|
|
Message 179 of 190 (415524)
08-10-2007 3:40 PM
|
|
|
Why are evil acts applauded in the Bible?
Would a good God allow evil acts to be applauded, and used for edification in the Bible. This summary of the verses is from Skeptics Annotated Bible:
(Judges 19:22-30) After taking in a traveling Levite, the host offers his virgin daughter and his guest's concubine to a mob of perverts (who want to have sex with his guest). The mob refuses the daughter, but accepts the concubine and they "abuse her all night." The next morning she crawls back to the doorstep and dies. The Levite puts her dead body on an ass and takes it home. Then he chops the body up into twelve pieces and sends them to each of the twelve tribes of Israel (Parcel Post?). The story, which must be one of the most disgusting stories ever told, ends with: "consider of it, take advice, and speak your mind." Those who do consider it will immediately reject the idea that the Bible is inspired by God. Hopefully, they then will speak their mind. Edited by Jon Paine, : spelling
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 180 by jar, posted 08-10-2007 4:02 PM | | Jon Paine has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 413 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: Why are evil acts applauded in the Bible?
How is an evil act applauded in that story? Have you actually read Judges? Did you read the very next chapter?
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 179 by Jon Paine, posted 08-10-2007 3:40 PM | | Jon Paine has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2