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

by leavingwt 268 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  NewChapter

  However, we do know that children DO suffer for the sins of their fathers (racism, wars, etc)... but that is from natural consquence, not God punishing them.

  This is not the case with David's baby. It was specifically written that the child will die BECAUSE of the sins of his parents. That was the punishment.

  And I'd say that god mandating that the Jews slaughter every Canaanite---it could also be argued that the wrath of that god was taken out on the children for some sins the parents must have done against a god and a law they did not even recognize. Kind of like Americans getting slaughtered in California for not showing proper respect for the laws and leaders of Afghanistan.

  NC
• 

  tec

  The law on divorce is the one I am thinking about.
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  That's one. You said some of the laws. What are the others? Selling your daughter? Not eating shellfish? Beating slaves to death is ok as long as they live a few days? Killing homosexuals? Not shaving?
• 

  tec

  This is not the case with David's baby. It was specifically written that the child will die BECAUSE of the sins of his parents. That was the punishment.

  Specifically written does not make it true.

  I do not believe that God struck that child down in punishment of David because he states that he does not punish the child for the father. I could be wrong. But perhaps those involved in writing the account (during or after the time) simply attributed it to God when the baby of his adultery died.

  And I'd say that god mandating that the Jews slaughter every Canaanite---it could also be argued that the wrath of that god was taken out on the children for some sins the parents must have done against a god and a law they did not even recognize. Kind of like Americans getting slaughtered in California for not showing proper respect for the laws and leaders of Afghanistan.

  Natural consequence of war... and an act that would have been the norm (as well as taking women and children as slaves) during that time period. Children suffer for the sins of their parents. War was a way of men... not one God wanted or intended... but one that men, themselves, chose to follow.

  But following the image of God for understanding - Christ - He never slaughtered anyone, nor decreed that anyone BE slaughtered.

  Peace,

  Tammy
• 

  sabastious

  I am saying they don't say anything about righteous genes

  Nor did I. I am talking about righteous traits, which can be identified by intelligence and unnaturally selected to create a breed. You have misunderstood my point. You are blinded by my absolute language because what I said is my belief that I have thought over and provided evidence for of which you rebuked without a stated cause. At the very least that is impatience with other people's belief system which is bigotry coming from someone who claims to have the truth about the matter.

  Yeah, about that. God sucks at choosing.

  But he did chose which is my original point of which you just validated: Unnatrual Selection (choosing) by YHWH. If you don't like the choice that's your prerogative. Maybe there was a better person to start a new race with, who knows? But God chose Noah and that's why we have righteousness today. Without that unnatural selection process we would never have evolved morals. Survival of the fittest reigns without unnatural selection. You are free to disagree of course, but that's my belief. I have my evidence and I continue to search out for more. I cannot be asked of more. Have a good day.

  Oh Sab.

  Is this an endearing term or another one of your social ruses?

  -Sab
• 

  tec

  That's one. You said some of the laws. What are the others? Selling your daughter? Not eating shellfish? Beating slaves to death is ok as long as they live a few days? Killing homosexuals? Not shaving?

  Yes, that is one. And by that one law, we can reason that this is also the case for many other things that contradict with the teachings of Christ.

  That is what I find very simple. Taking something and applying/incorporating that reality to the rest.

  If someone lies in one thing, we tend to reason that they probably lied in other things. (not always of course, but often enough) If someone misunderstood one thing, we tend to acknowledge that they have misunderstood other things.

  Maybe instead of going through every single point of the written law and things of the past, Christ e x pected us to reason and judge for ourselves?

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  sabastious

  You don't call a dog breeder a geneticist, but you do say that he is manipulating genetics and would do well to understand them as best as he can. Genesis provides overwhelming evidence in it's narrative that's genetics were known about albeit misunderstood. It wouldn't be hard to see that your son shares physical and personality traits of you. Genesis says that righteousness was a process that requires pain, suffering and death at the hands of our makers. It's not an illogical belief to have. It doesn't justify telling someone else to endure pain because that's what's required however. Context context context.

  -Sab
• 

  cofty

  God chose Noah and that's why we have righteousness today. Without that unnatural selection process we would never have evolved morals...I have my evidence - Sab

  That's an extraordinary claim Sab. Please share your extraordinary evidence.
• 

  sabastious

  Talk about tact. You say the slaughter of Jews was wrong (and it was) but somehow the slaughter of the Canaanites was righteous? So that righteousness could grow? What an attitude!!!!

  The Watchtower puts up only two choices and then judges.

  -Sab
• 

  keyser soze

  I do not believe that God struck that child down in punishment of David because he states that he does not punish the child for the father.

  Oh, now I get it. The bible doesn't really mean what it says in one place, because it says something contradictory elsewhere.

  So what is a person to believe, then? The parts that show God to be a vengeful, bloodthirsty SOB, with a warped sense of justice, or the contradictory parts that say he couldn't possibly behave in such a way?