Morality based on the bible is immoral.

by cyberjesus 33 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  tec

  Just what is the relative value and message of each part in relation to another part? Who decides?

  Christ decides. He says look to Him to see His Father, and that is what I do. Everything else is just 'noise' that distracts from this simple truth.

  Whatever your take . . . there is truth in the thread title.

  Yes, there is. I agree with you on that, for certain.

  Cantleave, I was pretty sure that I had seen this video or one similar to it, so I commented without watching. Perhaps I will check it out, because some of the comments indicate something different. I, however, do not see Christ venerating the god of the OT. The OT is contradictory, so a person would have to ask which god of the OT.

  He does however show us His Father... the One we see by looking at Christ.

  Peace,

  Tammy
• 

  NewChapter

  But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former

  I'm not making this up my 2 friends. I quoted the above. FHN highlighted the part she took away. I bolded the rest of it. This is what Jesus said. Without neglecting the former---and the former was stoning disobedient children to death and fathers selling their daughters to rapists. As the video said, if you choose to take away the first part of that verse and discard the second, based on your morality, that's fine. And I expect that from both of you cuz you're nice. Clearly Jesus believed he was bringing a new era, but he did not condemn the old era. He simply said he was fullfilling the need for that law---but it was right in it's time.

  He was also addressing the attitudes of the day. Perhaps they were following the letter of the law, but their attitudes where terrible. He was speaking to the pharisees, and he was speaking to their attitudes and to the extra burdens they had added. But, without neglecting the former, tells me that he supported the former law. I'm not being difficult, he is recorded as saying this. Do I only accept some of the things he said, and if so, exactly how do I decide that? Do I use my own morality to do so? And if I do, that morality is not coming from the things written. Which brings us to the OP.

  I think it's fine if you want to take away what you judge to be valuable, but I'm perplexed when there is an actual denial over the less valuable and brutal things. From my standpoint, it seems like cherry picking. Nothing really wrong with that--we should never swallow anything whole again---that got us here, and so I respect that. But please don't tell me that I'm not reading what I'm reading. It's right there.

  NC
• 

  tec

  New Chapter, I respect you very much as a poster. This statement you made is sensationalistic though. Jesus condemned murder. He also said that he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. He said to return evil for evil to no one and he said to pray for your enemies. He said to feed and care for your enemies. So, yes, he did contradict the law. Jesus was about settling things in a peaceful way. He was very kind to children and would never have condoned nor encouraged the murder of children. When a woman was to be stoned for adultery, Jesus stepped in and said that he who has not sinned should cast the first stone. He had his way of unraveling the reasoning behind petty and barbaric practices included in the Law. We also have to keep in mind who penned the Bible and that they were imperfect human beings. It was imperfect human beings who decided which content would be included in the Bible.

  Well said.

  Peace,

  Tammy
• 

  tec

  You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.

  I think it is important not to forget this beginning part of that quote. Are you certain you are not reading more into this line than is actually there, NC?

  To me it sounds as though they put in the financial requirements (or even the motions, rituals, etc) of the law, but neglected the more important matters - justice, mercy, faithfulness. Since he often chided them on being all about 'show' and no 'heart', then that would follow.

  If it meant that they should have been stoning disobedient children, etc (rather than giving their tenths)... then they would by necessity be neglecting the more important matters of mercy, simply by NOT neglecting the former. You can't tell someone to be merciful, and not merciful at the same time. The two are in conflict.

  Peace,

  Tammy
• 

  NewChapter

  If the OT was simply wrong, corrupted by men, then how can we say the same is not true of the NT? They are coming from the same source. And if the OT was corrupted, then why did Jesus not mention that? These were laws that the Jews had been living by for thousands of years. He never said that they had been misled all those years--instead he made reference to it, thereby confirming it. I'm not arguing that he didn't introduce a new way. But he did so without comdeming the old ways. Logic tells me if those horrible, bloody, brutal stories were lies about his father, he would have set the record straight. His father had been slandered afterall. But not a word in that direction. Simply introducing a new attitude.

  If someone told me they had read that my father was a mass murderer that told his followers to sell their daughters to their rapists, that directed them to wipe out an entire nation and nearly an entire tribe of his own people, well, I'm going to set the record straight. Unless I believed it was true. Then I may find a way to justify it. I may say, yeah that's how we did it then and we had our reasons, but this is the way we're gonna do it now.

  Why would Jesus not condemn what had already been written? Why would he allow slander to stand? He would have known that the writings were going to stand the test of time. Why would he stand back and allow the slander to continue for 2 thousand more years? Unless it was not slander in his eyes?

  We will continue to view this differently. The reason I'm no longer a JW is because I was doing some research, and I read the bible very closely. My goal was to gain a better understanding, my heart was open to what it had to say. No one is more surprised than me that it all fell apart upon deep consideration. And when it did, it wasn't just my religion that fell apart, but the bible and god. With the best intentions I asked one question too many, and there is no going back. If I had been looking to discredit it, we could argue that bias was the cause of this change. But it never even occured to me that studying deeper and deeper would drum me straight into disbelief.

  But I'm good with that. I don't feel regret. I feel relief. I just wanted it to be clear that I wasn't reading anything critical of the bible or the concept of a god. It simply happened through deep research trying to prove the opposite of what I concluded.

  NC
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  And if the OT was corrupted, then why did Jesus not mention that?

  How do you know he didn't mention it specifically and it was left out? The NT does quote Jesus as stating principles that strongly disagree with the law as recorded in the OT which was penned by men.
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  Tammy, your last post is very good and reasonable.
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  I think it's fine if you want to take away what you judge to be valuable, but I'm perplexed when there is an actual denial over the less valuable and brutal things. From my standpoint, it seems like cherry picking. Nothing really wrong with that--we should never swallow anything whole again---that got us here, and so I respect that. But please don't tell me that I'm not reading what I'm reading. It's right there NC

  With all very due respect, NC. Just because some guy said God told the Jews to kill, it does not mean that God really told the Jews to kill. Lots of people kill or oppress and then claim God told them to do it. Joseph Smith claimed that God told him polygamy was a good thing. It does not mean God said such things to JS. I hold any scriptures attributed to God or Jesus up against 1 John 4: 8 and 1 Corinthians 13:4-8. If they don't hold up to that definition of love, I know they are not from God. God is Love. If something is not loving, it is not from God.
• 

  NewChapter

  I hope you both know, I am speaking with respect also. I'm worried that it may get lost through the posting. But let me just use that reasoning.

  Just because some guy told the Jews to love their neighbors, doesn't really mean God told them to. Moses was that guy who told the Jews to kill an entire nation. During his transformation, Jesus spoke to--------Moses----------and Elijah of calling down fire to kill nonbelievers fame. And that is my point. You choose to believe only certain scriptures, based on your morality, and dismiss the rest. You are making judgement calls. I'm good with that. But if someone else wants to make their own judgement call, say focusing on scriptures that discuss eating vegetables only, and dismiss any scripture that discusses eating meat, because their morality insists it is wrong to eat animals, then they can do the same and God becomes a vegetarian. Anyone can do it, and if you do it, you can't really criticize them for finding their own message.

  I gotta go to school.
• 

  PSacramento

  There are a few books that deal with this subject, Paul Copan's "I s God a moral monster? is a good one to start with.

  Unless one has a literalist AND concretists view of the bible, then the issue of the OT GOd and some of the horrifica acts attrubuted to them, are NOT without thier problems but can be understood under the context of God accomodating a people that had proven to be disobedient.

  Much like a father that works with what he can when faced with a child that will disoby 100% when pushed too far, God accomadated His Moral Laws to the time and people in question, making them better, though not as good as they WOULD be.

  A progressive work.

  Whiel Christ did NOT say that the OT was corrupted, there was at least ONE OT prophet that warned about the scribes making God's word their own ( Jeremiah).

  Jesus also DID "overrule" things like the dietary restrictions and did clear up others like How to pray, the proiortizing of the Sabbath, that doing unto to to others like we would want them to do to us was just the BEGINNING, that we are to forgive and pray for our enemies, etc, etc.

  That said is is very easy to look at the acts attributed to the OT God and to call into question HIS morals.