Thou Shalts and Thou Shalnts

quote:

---

Well, it ain't workin'. I don't feel condemned - not even a little bit - and there are lots of Old Testament laws that I don't keep.

---

Indeed. If the Law is so unreasonable that it cannot be expected that anyone keep it, it is not the fault of the person, it is the fault of the jack-ass bureaucrat who thunk it up.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Hello, iano. Long time since we've spoken.

quote:

---

A rethorical question, to which I probably know the answer. Do you keep the law yourself?

---

I eat shellfish (despite calling myself a vegetarian) and sometimes wear polyester/cotton blends. How about you?

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

Any view on Gods law re: adultery being good?

---

Certainly if I were married I wouldn't care much what my wife would be doing with her friends on her own time.But as far as other people are concerned, I do take a dim view of people lying about issues that are very important to other people (like fidelity). It all comes down to intentionally hurting other people vs going out of your way to help them.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

Why can't people just be reasonable and good?

---

I don't understand your post. Can people be reasonable and good, or can they not?If people can be reasonable and good, then I would expect that there must be some people somewhere who are or have been reasonable and good, and so they don't need Christ's sacrifice.However, if it is impossible for people to be reasonable and good, then the standards for reasonable and good are unachievable, and so are themselves not reasonable or good.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

Showing people how far they've fallen (which is what the law is intended to do) might result in the people asking for the only person who can make them good to make them good again.

---

But that is then the question, isn't it? Is the problem that the people are unworthy because they cannot meet the arbitrary standards that have been set, or are the standards unreasonable high? Or even if they can be met, are the restrictions they set reasonable?-

quote:

---

He is God. He chose the former. His right. And there's little point in getting into a tizzy about it...

---

I agree, an omnipotent being can pretty much do what he wants. My local mafia don can set standards for me to meet too, not much I can do about that either, but I don't see why I should feel any respect or loyalty for a thug even if he can force me to do what he wants.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Hello, iano.

quote:

---

People are unworthy to start with....
God's standards are simply perfection because that is who he is....
However the bible describes YOU as the filthy sinner....

---

The first two statements are simply claims that someone has made. The third is a statement that tells me who is making these claims. There is no reason for me to simply accept these claims, especially since these claims make very little sense.Accepting for a moment that there is a god, that this god is all-powerful, that this god as created this world, and that the Christian Bible describes this god, what can we conclude? Very little.An omnipotent god can set whatever standards he wishes and punish those who do not keep those standards. That is a simple fact. However, being able to do something is not the same as saying that doing that something is right.An omnipotent god can set standards that interfere with the personal lives of the created and punish those who disobey. Okay, that is a fact. However, this is not to say that this god has a moral right to do such a thing, at least not unless you subscribe to a philosophy that "might makes right."An omnipotent god can set standards that are impossible for the created to live up to, and can punish those (which would be everyone) who does not live up to those standards. Again, this is a fact, as an omnipotent being can do anything that he pleases. However, it does not preclude the possibility that an omnipotent being is morally wrong. One has to wonder about a moral system that would justify such a being.Then this being, instead of being reasonable and admitting that he was wrong and made a mistake, and then make changes in the standards to make them more reasonable, he instead makes a bizarre procedure of crucifying a deity in order to provide a means of pardoning those (who are everyone) who have violated standards that are so unreasonable that they should never have been set to begin with. This is a being worthy of worship? If a mortal human made demands that are so clearly unreasonable, couldn't back down from them, and then just make the situation even more bizarre by providing a such "remedy", that person would be labelled as highly neurotic at best, and psychological treatment would be suggested.Okay, so this omnipotent being has set very, very high standards, will punish those who do not meet those standards, and has provided a rather strange way of pardoning those who do not meet his standards. So what? Even if I were to believe this, what good does it do me? If I remember my theology correctly, even Satan and his angels know the truth of the Gospels but that is not going to be enough to save them. One needs to sincerely love and trust this deity in order to achieve salvation. But how can a reasonable people possibly trust a being who, in his own scriptures, admits that he engages in such sociopathic behavior?How does one trust in the goodness of such a being? Because the Bible says so? According to the evagelicals, the Bible was written under the direct inspiration of this being, so of course it is going to claim that God is just and good. This god is trustworthy and worthy of worship because his followers know that he is just and good? But they are being led by the Holy Spirit which is a part of God or God himself or whatever, so of course they are led to feel such a thing.There are two assumptions being made here. One is that there is some absolute standard of good, and the other is that God exemplifies this standard. Not only is the first assumption simply not at all an obvious fact, but the only evidence for the second is the claims made by this god's partisans.Maybe his partisans truly believe this, and maybe (although I don't see how anyone can trust this) this deity will actually keep his promises and reward them for this belief, but how can anyone expect a person who cannot just close her eyes and hope that everything will turn out alright to take any of this seriously?

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Hi, Ringo.There is also a third assumption that modern evangelicals make: that their 21st century notions of ethics, based as they are on the liberal democratic ideals of the Enlightenment, also exemplify this absolute morality. That is why they have to explain the "problems" presented by, for an example that you are engaged on another thread, how it is that a just god could send bears out to kill a bunch of kids. That is only a "moral conundrum" for contemporary evangelicals -- to the writers of the Old Testament and their intended audience such an action, in the context in which it occurred, would have been perfectly just according to their standards of morality (involving respect for elders) and would not have presented any problems whatsoever. This is another point that I have tried to make on another thread (concerning the first Passover and the killing of the innocent Egyptian first born).But this issue may be off-topic for this thread. I am hoping that the interesting question of why we should automatically ascribe "perfect morality" to God is relevant, but maybe we are wondering off topic here as well.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

What is interesting, Ringo, that if one actually reads the Old Testament, one is left with the feeling that the writers themselves viewed Yahweh as a fallible moral actor, little different than a human king. Sure, one must revere and respect him, especially since he is usually pretty good, and that means also that one simply must put up with his foibles and mistakes.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Thanks for your comments, brennakimi. I always appreciate when someone takes what I wanted to say and says it better, even adding some good points along the way.

quote:

---

nowhere does the old testament suggest that god is perfect.

---

The idea a single perfect creator is a pagan Greek idea (the Greeks having been very concerned with the concept of "perfection") that somehow got grafted onto Christianity. I'm not sure whether this was due to Paul (reportedly a well-educated natural-born Roman citizen, and therefore presumably very familiar with Greco-Roman culture), or whether it was part of the indigenous evolution of pre-Christian Judaism under the influence of post-Alexander Hellenistic civilization.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

For example, there are two different creation stories, two differnt flood stories, several versions of the commandments, the Gospels, the Pauline treatises.

---

...Two different accounts of Judas' death, four completely different accounts of the discovery of Jesus' empty tomb....

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt