Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Resolved: The Bible does NOT present an acceptable moral standard
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 2930 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 31 of 40 (96362)
03-31-2004 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by mike the wiz
03-31-2004 10:48 AM


quote:
if we take a full bible teaching (including christ's) - which you are eager to avoid, then we can see that it is a moral teaching
Sorry Mike, I have to disagree. With any other book or series of books (LOTR, Dune) I would completely agree to not judge the quality (I am using quality as proxy for morality) until one has taken in the whole. BUT the "Bible" survived for a very long time in forms unrecognizable by todays standard. It has been far too many years since my Bible history class, but as I recall the OT is in three distinct parts that were really meant to be separate or at the very least each represented stand-alone compilations. The Law was the original 5 books ascribed to Moses The Prophets is the next segment and is the 'historical' portion. The Writings were not included until well after the death of Christ.
My point is that if you need the whole Bible (the three OT compilations and the NT) to understand Bible morality, then for a significant amount of the history of Judaism understanding morality has been impossible. Let's say Moses wrote the Law (I don't think for a second that he did) in like the 13th century BC. This means that for about 1000 years the Hebrew people had an incomplete morality including stabbing 'race-mixers' with spears. This would mean that when the books of the prophets were compiled they had 1/2 morality (or none still, if its the whole Bible or nothing), etc. It makes very little sense. Actually it makes less sense than presented here, for as I understand it the majority of literate Jews has access at any given time only to small portions of any of the books currently in the OT. These were extensively studied with the idea that the OT represents some kind of ideological fractal wherein any portion can be expounded into the whole. And it wasn't just Jewish people, until the NT was compiled disperse Christian sects had different portions of the NT books they shared and studied for several centuries (at least).
And the argument that we should ONLY consider the validty (or at least the morality) of the NT is negated by the fact that the NT writers repeatedly stress the sameness of the Law, the fulfillment of prophesy etc. It's their words that claim that the Law is not broken but fulfilled.
So an omniscient God gave his people an incomplete (or at the very least dated) moral code, changed it multiple times over several millenia before sending Jesus (more importantly Paul) to clear it up. Wait, can we serve Caeser and God? Or can a slave not serve two masters? Should we destroy fruit trees tha refuse to give us fruit out of season? To pick an old wound, was Lot righteous as Paul claimed? Are Canaanites dogs and unworthy of Gods blessing? And don't get me started on money changers.
And about the 10 commandments; it's true than "Thou shall not kill" can be interpreted as a moral statement. However, what if it means (in context) "Thou shalt not kill righteous Jewish males"? Substitute "Jewish" for "White Christian" and you are approaching the abhorrent Codes of Morality such as used by the Christian Identity movement. By saying not to kill one group you allow the killing of others. I am not saying that this is the correct interpretation, but "Thou shalt not kill" is not a cut-and-dried moral statement as you presented. Other portions of the commandments are definately contextual. "Honor thy father and thy mother". What does this mean? Does it mean the same to a Baptist in the US as it would mean to a Rabbi living in the Sinai wilderness 3000 years ago? I suspect not. The fact is that killing and stealing have been a good part of everyone's moral code as long as there have been humans (same rules, only applies to your good people). And perjury has been in written law as long as there has been written law. I would have to ask, do you consider religious art to be sinfull? Have you ever wanted something someone else had? These, along with killing and stealing, are presented as the TOP 10 things God said not to do. Anyway, it just furthers my point that Bible morality is applicable (and not necessariry very nice) to the people living in that area at the time that particular portion was written. Not 100 miles away nor 100 years later necessarily.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by mike the wiz, posted 03-31-2004 10:48 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
NotAHero
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 40 (96524)
03-31-2004 11:36 PM


Hopefully I can hop into the conversation soon, but right now I just wanted to put some information up that might be useful to the "Thou shalt not kill" topic at hand.
The hebrew word used for "kill" in the 10 commandments is "rawtsakh." This specific word is used only 3 other times in the OT and 1 of those 3 times is in the second rendering of the 10 commandments. The word's definition literally means "especially to murder(a human being)." Now, the very definition of murder itself means unlawfully killing someone with malice and aforethought. Therefore, I think it's important to understand that killing someone in self defense or to save children from a savage beating does not fall into this category. I think God knew very well what He meant when giving us the 10 commandments because of our fallen nature and foreknowledge to our circumstances therein.

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by berberry, posted 03-31-2004 11:43 PM NotAHero has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 40 (96525)
03-31-2004 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by NotAHero
03-31-2004 11:36 PM


Good point, NotAHero. However, your definition of murder would still indict much of the killing that takes place in the bible. That would include God's command to slaughter the Amalekites, and Moses command to kill all male children and women who had known men.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by NotAHero, posted 03-31-2004 11:36 PM NotAHero has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 34 of 40 (97187)
04-02-2004 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by berberry
03-29-2004 2:59 PM


Until you undersatnd that IF God IS, then whatever He does is righteous. Who can challenge Him ?
You need to define "morality" and the source of the definition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by berberry, posted 03-29-2004 2:59 PM berberry has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 04-02-2004 4:45 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 37 by sidelined, posted 04-04-2004 10:40 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 35 of 40 (97194)
04-02-2004 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Cold Foreign Object
04-02-2004 4:39 PM


You need to define "morality" and the source of the definition.
My definition of morality stipulates that the source of morality is not above morality. You can't be both moral and above your own morals.
So if God is moral, than whatever God does is moral only if it follows the laws God has set for everybody else. Ergo we're able to judge the morality of God according to the morals he has set.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-02-2004 4:39 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-04-2004 6:39 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 36 of 40 (97716)
04-04-2004 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by crashfrog
04-02-2004 4:45 PM


Then why did God purposefully create a written source (the Bible) that portrays Himself as immoral ?
Could it be you/anyone are interpreting contrary to the intent of the source ?
Of course, this reply, and yours, is/was offered under the assumption that the Bible contains/is the word of God.
Once again, IF God IS, then whatever He does is righteous, the only issue is the interpretation/understanding of why, and theologians exist for that specific reason.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 04-02-2004 4:45 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by crashfrog, posted 04-04-2004 10:44 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 37 of 40 (97748)
04-04-2004 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Cold Foreign Object
04-02-2004 4:39 PM


WILLOWTREE
Until you undersatnd that IF God IS, then whatever He does is righteous. Who can challenge Him ?
If God Is then we can challenge Him If He is inconsistent in His dealings with us. Of course an omnipotent being could smite us into ashes,however,living under the banner of Fear to please an unwise and immoral deity is tantamount to both stupidity and cowardice.I should hope not to sucuumb to either of those but to each his own eh?

'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.'
(Daniel Patrick Moynihan)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-02-2004 4:39 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-12-2004 9:14 PM sidelined has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 38 of 40 (97752)
04-04-2004 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Cold Foreign Object
04-04-2004 6:39 PM


Then why did God purposefully create a written source (the Bible) that portrays Himself as immoral ?
Maybe the God in the Bible isn't the God that exists? Even if the Bible is of supernatural origin the only reason you have to believe it's the word of God and not some sinister devilment is the Bible's say-so.
Once again, IF God IS, then whatever He does is righteous
Repeating that isn't going to make it true. Just because God is the arbiter of morality doesn't make his every action moral. The act of making a moral code sets the code as a higher authority than God's will. Otherwise it's not a moral code, but an immoral one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-04-2004 6:39 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 39 of 40 (99520)
04-12-2004 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by sidelined
04-04-2004 10:40 PM


SUPPOSE God IS, AND unfair; now how much sense does it make to oppose Him ?
If God exists how can He be immoral ?
This is why I continually proclaim : IF God IS then whatever He does is righteous.
Is it not better to get on His side even if you disagree ?
This is rhetorical; of course it is, but if God gave you a 10 second glimpse of hell you/I would never doubt Him ever again and we would change the world in ten years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by sidelined, posted 04-04-2004 10:40 PM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Cynic1, posted 04-12-2004 9:55 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Cynic1
Member (Idle past 6074 days)
Posts: 78
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 40 of 40 (99530)
04-12-2004 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Cold Foreign Object
04-12-2004 9:14 PM


SUPPOSE God IS, AND unfair; now how much sense does it make to oppose Him ?
If God exists how can He be immoral ?
This is why I continually proclaim : IF God IS then whatever He does is righteous.
Is it not better to get on His side even if you disagree ?
Supposing that God exists, and is unfair, why not oppose him? If he is unfair, you cannot count on his good will even if you do what you think he wants. If he is unfair, you might as well be a free being, than one enslaved to a tyrant.
God's morality really depends on the kind of God you believe in. I mean sure, he says he is righteous, but all we have is his word for it. I just don't think that a stronger power is necessarily a more moral power, that just reeks of "might makes right." If I am misrepresenting your position, I apologize.
As to getting on his side, it would only be better provided that no other God exists. Really though, this is just another version of Pascal's Wager, and we all know how valid that argument is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-12-2004 9:14 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024