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

by leavingwt 268 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  No Room For George

  No? What about David and Bathsheba?

  Did EVERY Israelite get away with adultry compounded by the deliberate murder of the woman's husband?

  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.

  With this, I believe there was a bigger issue at play, that being the Israelites wanted a king like all the other nations surrounding them had. So Jehovah gave them what they wanted, for all the good and bad that comes along with such a thing, including the possibility of having a womanizing hotheaded warmonger for a king.
• 

  james_woods

  With this, I believe there was a bigger issue at play, that being the Israelites wanted a king like all the other nations surrounding them had. So Jehovah gave them what they wanted, for all the good and bad that comes along with such a thing, including the possibility of having a womanizing hotheaded warmonger for a king.

  If so, then the morality was situational - the situation being: a womanizing hotheaded warmonger king having different moral rules than the ordinary Israelite.

  Which is why it is the perfect biblical illustration of the OP topic.
• 

  NewChapter

  The OP is perfect. And this still doesn't address the issue of sentencing the king's son to death. Hmmmm?

  NC
• 

  cofty

  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. - sulla

  You have a very low estimation of what god could have achieved. How about a simple unambiguous statement condemning slavery? Just a command that said that since all men were made in the image of god it was wrong for one man to own another. Do we find that anywhere in the bible? No instead we find...

  "And if a man strikes his servant or his maid with a rod and he [or she] dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. But if the servant lives on for a day or two, the offender shall not be punished, for he [has injured] his own property." Ex.21:20,21

  Funny how biblical morality always reflects the cultural norms of the times it was written.
• 

  No Room For George

  If so, then the morality was situational - the situation being: a womanizing hotheaded warmonger king having different moral rules than the ordinary Israelite.

  Which is why it is the perfect biblical illustration of the OP topic.

  It is a perfect illustration, but it can cut both ways to a degree and I say that as someone who still wants to believe in a just God but is reaching the conclusion that I've been mistaken my entire life. The side of me that still has some faith views this as such.......God doesn't hold our hands. With the actions taken in the Garden of Eden(I know, I know LOL) mankind drew their line in the sand. God dignified them to some degree by allowing a measure of independence. Afterwards due to his covenant relationship with Israel, he was able to establish some rules and regulations which they time and time again went against, but in the biggie was that they wanted a king like all the other nations.

  Just like a parent attempts to reason with his/her teenage or young adult offspring often to no avale and gives in and allows the young person to make their decision, Jehovah did the same with Israel in their wanting of a king. The kings in other nations were often savages and hedonists and God knew that Israel's kings wouldn't be immune to such behavior. However, Israel wants a king, Israel gets a king!!! For all the good and bad that comes with it. So in this instance, I think that the righteous upstanding that we expect of God gets trumped by Israel's short-sighted demands.

  Now do I buy all of that? Depends on what day you ask me.
• 

  james_woods

  Well, George, that is pretty much the standard JW explanation of the David and Bathsheba incident.

  And no, NewChapter, it does not even begin to explain why David was "punished" by having the baby die - except, like the witnesses say - that God still wanted David to be King.

  Nor does it explain why Solomon later lived...(same parents)
• 

  Sulla

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

  OK. Well, like I keep pointing out, you have this very JW-ish vision of God that supposes he has some sort of agenda and that, being the most powerful creature out there, should have been able to impose that agenda on whatever ancient people he wanted to ointeract with. Since he did not, he must not exist, or something.

  And what I am trying to tell you is that this way of thinking is not the way Christians have been approaching the question. (And before you go find me some Christians who clearly do think this way, let's just agree not to bring up American fundamentalists, ok? How about we just assume I mean Christians who are not fundamentalists?) All that stuff in the OT has been known for quite some time now and yet, somehow, Christians have managed not to be so profoundly dismayed by this knowledge. Couple options for explaining that.

  1. Christians are all dumber than you

  2. Christians are all less moral than you

  3. Christians don't think about God the way you do

  Maybe there are other options, but that's all I have right now.
• 

  No Room For George

  The kid thing though I can see as being punishment considering that back then, children was a big hey to do. Kinda like Michal, David's wife not being able to bear offspring despite being a gorgous woman and a queen in her own right, couldn't drop the load and that had to have hurt her ego tremendously, although she probably maintained a beautiful figure longer than the other gals. Plus for someone to lose their child, I couldn't imagine the hurt such an event would cause. The most I can relate to such a tragedy would be for those who've lost their children due to whatever causes. Hell, even Santorum felt the need to bring the fetus home, or something like that, right?

  For the kid to die, really isn't punishment as he really didn't have a life anyway. For the parents though, it had to have been devestating. Remember when Solomon threatened to have a baby cut in half to give one have each to two women disputing who was the real mother. The fear of losing that child in death was greater to bear than the lying woman being the one who would raise the kid.
• 

  PaintedToeNail

  I've heard the following explaination given regarding David and Bathsheba: God personally judged them, knowing they were both very repentant, he was the one deciding judgement, not some human. He could read their hearts and knew they were repentant. A descendant also had to come from David to be Jesus ancestor. The baby was collateral damage, it should have never been conceived, therefore, didn't really have a right to life, besides which, God can resurrect it.

  I do not agree with the above paragraph. Why couldn't Jehovah have used another of David's sons to be the ancestor to Jesus? If he could read David's heart, why didn't he read the hearts of everyone accused of adultery and make the decision whether to kill or not? If this baby had no right to life due to not being lawfully conceived, can women who were raped have abortions without being disfellowshipped?
• 

  thetrueone

  Yes, god proclaims the sanctity of life then goes about killing people randomly without prejudice.

  You know it almost sounds like people were making up stories about their God arbitrarily to fulfill their own needs and purpose.

  Naaaaa !