Is Biblical Morality Situational, Based Upon the Arbitrary Whims of Yahweh?

by leavingwt 268 Replies latest jw friends

  • NewChapter
    NewChapter

    That is an excellent point James. The other end of that was the baby dying. Yet other, contradictory scriptures, say the son doesn't pay for the sins of the father. ? . Of course such a thought would negate the entire premise of the fall in Eden----since we are ALL portrayed as being punished for the sin of our father, Adam.

    2 Samuel:

    12:14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.
    12:15 And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick.
  • Terry
    Terry

    Morality, in order to be anything, cannot be everything.

    It cannot be both good and bad.

    A Standard must be definitive. Borders and Boundries define exactly where IS is.

    The Bible, it must be understood, is NOT the product of a single mind with a single standard.

    It accumulated a great many mind's standards over a long stretch of time...yet always presented AS THOUGH it were the single mind of Divinity at work.

    What is "accretion"?

    It is the process by which a story describing "events" becomes layered by each telling with additional interpretive nuances until the changes are more plentiful than the original facts.

    The "standard" of Morality is so twisted by retellings of diversely interpreted events broken free of original contexts--there is no soundness to it.

    To the man of Faith who is chastised never to rely on "human understanding" the idea of logical curiousity applied to bible morality is out of the picture!

    The danger is real that the Faithful person absorbs chaotic nonsense and STRONGLY BELIEVES it is perfect and wonderful BECAUSE it is from God.

    I live in the Southern part of the United States. Did you know that the telling of "facts" about the Civil War in the South is practically devoid of racial underpinnings as a "cause" of the War Between the States? It is offered as a conflict over "States Rights" instead of the issue of Slavery!

    This is what I'm talking about. By recasting the Event in a new context the "morality" issue is blurred and muddied beyond comprehension.

    When a Northerner and a Southerner argue over the Civil War they are talking at cross-purposes immediately. They do not even possess the same "facts".

    So too with the scriptures!

    What is a JEW? God's "chosen people" or "christ killer"? Depends on which books of the bible you are reading and in what context!

    Jehovah's Witnesses have recontextualized JEW into "spiritual Jew" which is nothing Jewish at all--just a fuzzy metaphor for Gentile who accepts Paul's theology without thinking.

    The language of accretion cannot be used to parse GOOD or BAD and certainly not useful for teaching MORALITY.

    One final point.

    God cannot be injured; only humans can be injured.

    Therefore, treating MORALITY as something which pleases God and does not injure His Standards is ludicrous.

    Punishing wicked people doesn't HELP God. Forgiving wicked people doesn't HELP God. God needs no help.

    On what basis would GOD have dealings with inferior creatures incapable of perfect behavior?

    Only by LOWERING HIS PERFECT RIGHTEOUS STANDARDS!

    Isn't this the nonsensical foundation of GRACE? The innocent (Jesus) is punished and dies while the guilty sinners are pronounced righteous!

    INJUSTICE from a JUST God??

    Total immorality.

    Why?

    It is the result of accretion. A story worked out over thousands of years with all contexts removed and presented AS THOUGH God is doing it.

    In other words: poppycock.

  • cofty
    cofty

    Point is, the raping and killing and all the rest of it has always created some tension within the Christian community - sulla

    Oh that's reassuring to know.

    With theo-centric morality anything is permissible.

    Biblical morality is made up after the fact to keep god's buddies looking like the good guys.

    If anybody missed Terry's post above please read it carefully.

    ETA - excellent OP LWT

  • Dagney
    Dagney

    Well done LWT! Thank you for putting in writing what has been bouncing around in my head. (I always say it sucked to be born a Canaanite. You didn't have a chance with the almighty "God is Love" creator!)

    I said the jist of your post to my PO/COBE/elder brother. That for every scripture you quote to spank a person for a behaviour, I can find another one that allows/approves in another circumstance. He did not disagree.

  • james_woods
    james_woods

    Note that Terry has started a new thread about his important point - "accretion" of the bible writings.

  • leavingwt
  • 3dogs1husband
  • Sulla
    Sulla

    Yeah, but cofty, you and others present these sorts of arguments as if they were shocking news. This whole thread is presented as if nobody ever actually read the bible: "Golly, guys, did you have any idea???!!!"

    Well, yea, actually. We always had a pretty good idea. The ones who seem not to actually have an idea are those who imagine that the morality by which they critique scripture is critically dependent on the ideas found within scripture. Again, you are really complaining that God didn't make everybody perfect right away -- or anyway, that he didn't give everybody your particular moral code immediately, by which you mean the same thing.

  • dinah
    dinah

    I would love to know who was responsible for sneaking this Jesus person into the bible.

  • james_woods
    james_woods
    Again, you are really complaining that God didn't make everybody perfect right away -- or anyway, that he didn't give everybody your particular moral code immediately, by which you mean the same thing.

    No, we are complaining that God did not give everybody the same moral code, even people living at the same time.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit