by leavingwt 268 Replies latest jw friends
@tec: Right from the 10 commandents.
Exodus 20:5,6 (ESV):
"You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments."
I know, but elsewhere He condemns the idea that he punishes the son for the sins of the father, or the father for the son for that matter.
However, we do pay for the sins of our fathers to the third and fourth generations. Just as a consequence. Biases, prejudices, wars, etc.
Peace,
Tammy
Is Biblical Morality Situational, Based Upon the Arbitrary Whims of Yahweh?
Hello LWT,
Human morality, the only one we know of is subjective. That's why The Book of James says that a sin is doing something you know to be wrong. That's a very important concept to fully grasp before inquiring of the morality of God. Credit and blame are huge themes that span across all systems of God and spirituality. It's the question we ask after every choice we make: "Should I be blamed for that? Should I be revered for that?" The answers to those questions are based on ones environment of past and present. From a single human perspective we can only judge what is right and wrong for oursleves. Once we have a solid understanding of our own morality can we then try to grasp the morality of the broader perspective of our makers.
Acts of God rightly should be hard to understand. Take the God of the Bible's choice to kill the first borns of all Egypt. Stand alone the act is indefensible as it is terrible infantacide. However, within context the morality does grey a bit with Pharaoh commanding all Hebrew mothers to drown their babies. A father who kills the son of the murderer of his child is, even today, held in a different category and sentenced accordingly. This is the position that YHWH is put in as the Genesis God does feel a deep affinity to the Hebrews as sons of a friend and a great man. It also should be noted that he used it as a last resort. The recurrence of infanticide from Herod in the Gospel gives further credence to the idea that agents of YHWH's adversary kill God's children in such a way.
Cosmologists have a term called "cosmic humility." The present (right now) is 13.7 billion years in the future. The reason why we know that is because we have evolved for enough time to figure it out. We were limited to what is available to figure it out which is relative to where we started in the 13.7 billion year timeline. If we start 6 billion years ago instead of 200,000 years ago we'd have a whole different set of rules to figure out where and what we are. In fact it would be easier to discover what we are the earlier our existence starts to the source of all life. This is because the data is much more difficult to collect the further you get away from the Beginning.
So, to believe in an entity that has no need for such cosmic humility is humbling in of itself. That's what the Bible says it's talking about so it's perfectly logical for the Bible's morality to be grey in matters such as murder.
-Sab
It is not that a difficult a concept to grasp. If God is the Boss, anything he says, goes. If He did create the universe, then he's the man. Anyone that doesn't toe the line, he could squash like an ant. We worry about a flare from the sun (hitting Thursday). If God is the Creator, he's the one we should be worrying about.
If God is the Boss, anything he says, goes - Vidqun
In other words you could sum up god's morality as "might is right".
A father who kills the son of the murderer of his child is, even today, held in a different category and sentenced accordingly. - Sab
Isn't god above murdering babies for no reason other than petty revenge?
Cofty, that's how it works on earth. Why not elsewhere?
I have stated here before that I am agnostic.
My comments are on the simple statements translated in generally available christian Bibles.
The bible record as presented shows a situational enforcement of morality if taken as literal truth.
James woods, this is what I mean when I say Christians think about God differently than you do. For that matter, differently than JWs do.
But let me move away from the simplistic critique that the morality of God is situational. And to do that, let's look at an exhibit of this situational morality: the idea that God commanded certain populations to be entirely erased during the Jewish conquest of Caanan.
I think everybody basically agrees on the problem: we look on this sort of thing as a barbaric act and wonder if a morality that endorses this sort of act in one age and condemns it in another can be the product of the same mind. But that is to read these works in the wrong way, I suggest. The right way is to place the Jews within their cultural framework that was, everywhere, shockingly violent (in ways that are familiar to us in the 21st century) and observe how the preparation for the ultimate Christian revelation was made.
These are religious works, james woods, and need to be read in that manner. When God instructs Joshua to take the Promised Land, we are correct to note that this instruction can only be accompished with the means available at the time and with the people, and their own limitations, who happened to live then. These did not have the benefit of a couple thousand years of Christian reflection and several thousand years of Jewish reflection and hundreds of years of Greek philosophical reflection.
I think the approach we see on this thread is essentially mistaken. We need to read these books in a way fundamentalists do not. Your criticism of OT morality depends on reading these stories the way fundamentalists do, and ignores the main themes. That is my complaint.
Isn't god above murdering babies for no reason other than petty revenge?
Revenge is a human word and concept that attempts to explain the action. That doesn't mean it's a perfect word.
-Sab
But that is to read these works in the wrong way, I suggest. The right way is to place the Jews within their cultural framework that was, everywhere, shockingly violent (in ways that are familiar to us in the 21st century) and observe how the preparation for the ultimate Christian revelation was made. -Sulla
Rome was incredibly violent, perhaps more so than the Jewish framework you defend.
These are religious works, james woods, and need to be read in that manner. When God instructs Joshua to take the Promised Land, we are correct to note that this instruction can only be accompished with the means available at the time and with the people, and their own limitations, who happened to live then. These did not have the benefit of a couple thousand years of Christian reflection and several thousand years of Jewish reflection and hundreds of years of Greek philosophical reflection. -Sulla
If the OT is really inspired of God, it shows not just to be a religious work, but an interaction of God with his people. It also shows the brutal commands he gives them.
If God paved the way for the Israelites to take the Promised Land through for example, the 10 plagues in which they didn't even have to fight, why not do the same for the Caananites and such? In fact, why eliminate these people when he could've educated them better? Just what point is God trying to prove here?
Revenge is a human word and concept that attempts to explain the action. That doesn't mean it's a perfect word.
I agree. God's murder often wasn't for revenge. It was often for jealousy or because someone lived in the wrong place. Revenge would imply God was somehow wronged. Killing entire populations just for living somewhere he wanted his people rises an insane level of asshole dickish douchbaggery.
When God instructs Joshua to take the Promised Land, we are correct to note that this instruction can only be accompished with the means available at the time and with the people, and their own limitations, who happened to live then.
Well that's just wrong on every conceivable level. They had the exact same means as everyone else except when they didn't. God wanted to wipe out the Egyptians, so he hardened Pharoh's heart and made him chase the Israelites. Why couldn't he have softened Pharoh's heart?
The Assyrians attack, God sends an angel to kill 185K of them. Why couldn't he have just made them get lost?
The Caananites lived in the wrong place. Why couldn't God have just inspired them to move rather than slaughtering them? He clearly had the power to change people's hearts and chose violence every single time. Angry, murdering one trick pony.
