Bible's code of morality.

[AvisG]

A familiarity with the work of Dr. Michael Heiser, Dr. Michael Heiser - Biblical Scholar | Author | Semitic Languages Expert, would help make sense of at least some of these verses in the context of the Jewish worldview of the time. For those who aren't familiar with his work, he is the author of the groundbreaking The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible. His work helps "make sense" of these verses in the sense of helping us understand the Jewish worldview and why these verses would have "made sense" to the Jews of the period.

Of course, the OP isn't really interested in our "opinions" on these verses. The point of the thread, as always, is: "You mindless Christians who want to pretend your God is perfect and holy and your Bible is perfect and holy can't explain this, can you?"

Well, no - at least some of it. As Paul Copan points out in books like Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God, OT morality is in many respects quite enlightened in comparison to the morality of other cultures of the time. I can certainly rationalize that God may have had to deal with primitive people in a progressive manner and/or that some measures that seem pretty extreme and harsh may have been required to ensure the survival of the Jews and the fulfillment of God's plan for humanity.

But, as I've made clear in the thread "Critique of Cruelty In the Bible," such rationalizations aren't essential to my Christianity. OK, some of what the OT purports to be from God was actually not from God. It was a primitive peoples' attempt to hold their society together, magnify their own importance, and explain their history.

No big deal. This doesn't mean the Bible isn't the word of God, the Jews aren't God's chosen people, or Christianity isn't true. Only those who cling to a view of the Bible that I didn't share when I was a one-month newbie would really be seriously troubled by the verses cited in the OP - and even they can find rationalizations, unconvincing to others as some of them may be.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The concept of marriage as a legal institution will probably be seen as archaic, but a more likely candidate for “depravity in hindsight” would be our current prison and criminal justice system.

Marriage has of late become seen as a lesser choice among some folks, for sure, but I'm not confident that marriage on the whole, even as a legal institution, will come to be seen as archaic. Right now, there's too many political tensions in the mix to say for sure where it might settle or transform. But who knows for sure.

From my angle of things, I'd say that if marriage on the whole does become seen as an institution belonging to a bygone age, then we'll have a better indicator about just 'who' is in charge of this world, won't we? The lessened value of marriage isn't the only indicator of a world shying away from the Christian faith, but I'd tend to think that a full-blown disparagement of that institution probably shouldn't be seen as a "good" thing or that the world is somehow "improving."

8 facts about love and marriage in America

 

[AvisG]

The concept of marriage as a legal institution will probably be seen as archaic, but a more likely candidate for “depravity in hindsight” would be our current prison and criminal justice system.

I practiced law for 37+ years, 37+ years of head-shaking befuddlement and bewilderment. Fortunately, most of my practice involved writing complex motions and appellate briefs for other lawyers, so I didn't have to dirty my hands with The System. I used to say all the time "500 years from now, they'll look at our insane 'justice' system the way that we look at the medieval practice of throwing suspected witches into ponds to see if they floated or sank." (As I recall, you were innocent if you sank. Hopefully they pulled you out if you couldn't swim.)

Alas, the current system is so complex and entrenched that I wouldn't know where to start making improvements.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

A familiarity with the work of Dr. Michael Heiser, Dr. Michael Heiser - Biblical Scholar | Author | Semitic Languages Expert, would help make sense of at least some of these verses in the context of the Jewish worldview of the time. For those who aren't familiar with his work, he is the author of the groundbreaking The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible. His work helps "make sense" of these verses in the sense of helping us understand the Jewish worldview and why these verses would have "made sense" to the Jews of the period.

Some of us are already familiar with Heiser, but thanks for the reminder about the applications of his work, however much they may contrast with those of Dever and others even more liberal then him.

Of course, the OP isn't really interested in our "opinions" on these verses. The point of the thread, as always, is: "You mindless Christians who want to pretend your God is perfect and holy and your Bible is perfect and holy can't explain this, can you?"

Oh, that just makes us all feel warm fuzzies to know that our views aren't of interest to the OP. It's especially comforting to know that the pejorative being nearly implied here that we're all "mindless" rather than simply "mindful" but of an alternative view doesn't stoke what could have been a greater warmth emanating from a not so fiery hearth. But whatever.

Well, no - at least some of it. As Paul Copan points out in books like Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God, OT morality is in many respects quite enlightened in comparison to the morality of other cultures of the time. I can certainly rationalize that God may have had to deal with primitive people in a progressive manner and/or that some measures that seem pretty extreme and harsh may have been required to ensure the survival of the Jews and the fulfillment of God's plan for humanity.

I've got that book, too, along with one he's coauthored with Matthew Flanagan, although I think maybe a few of their conclusions could be modified and/or revised.

But, as I've made clear in the thread "Critique of Cruelty In the Bible," such rationalizations aren't essential to my Christianity. OK, some of what the OT purports to be from God was actually not from God. It was a primitive peoples' attempt to hold their society together, magnify their own importance, and explain their history.

That's great that you, just like the rest of us, is here to make clear that certain biblical motifs and other modern evangelical rationalizations aren't are part of the compound in your tea cup, but at the same time, I'm kind of wondering why, if this is the case, you us the verb "was" in that last sentence above.......................................

No big deal. This doesn't mean the Bible isn't the word of God, the Jews aren't God's chosen people, or Christianity isn't true. Only those who cling to a view of the Bible that I didn't share when I was a one-month newbie would really be seriously troubled by the verses cited in the OP - and even they can find rationalizations, unconvincing to others as some of them may be.

On a level of salvation, even of your own, none of this may be a big deal, and from one angle I'd say, "Great! Praise God!," but then from another angle I'd wonder just how much thought you've really given to your own moral intuitions and owned up to their inherent ontological and axiological structures, PhD or no PhD.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Hello there, I would like to know your opinions on these verses:

1 Samuel 15:3
Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.

Pslam 137
Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks."

Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)

She lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. Ezekiel 23:20 NIV

Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. Numbers 31:17-18

When a woman has a discharge, if her discharge in her body is blood, she shall continue in her menstrual impurity for seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening. Everything also on which she lies during her menstrual impurity shall be unclean, and everything on which she sits shall be unclean. Leviticus 15: 19-20When men fight with one another, and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand. Deuteronomy 25:11-12

"My religion can beat up your religion."

-CryptoLutheran

 

[jayem]

When reading Leviticus, the word "unclean" is used a lot. In the case of menstrual blood, the woman is not impure in the moral sense, she is impure in the ceremonial sense. Their physical behaviors reflected a spiritual pattern of living. Sure there are points to be made concerning hygiene, but my point is simply to stear people away from the thought that these verses reflect the moral character of the woman.

But whatever spiritual instruction the laws on ritual uncleanliness are supposed to impart can be incomprehensible. Don't forget Leviticus 12:

12. Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the sons of Israel, saying:

‘When a woman gives birth and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean for seven days, as in the days of her menstruation she shall be unclean. On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. Then she shall remain in the blood of her purification for thirty-three days; she shall not touch any consecrated thing, nor enter the sanctuary until the days of her purification are completed. But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean for two weeks, as in her menstruation; and she shall remain in the blood of her purification for sixty-six days.

What possible benefit is gained from a woman being ritually unclean for twice as long after delivering a daughter as after delivering a son? The only sensible explanation is that this passage reflects the culture and beliefs of the ancient Hebrews. It was a patriarchal society which in some ways devalued women as compared to men. It's a form of misogyny. The Hebrews certainly weren't unique in this respect. I think women had a lesser status in most all ancient societies.

Edited to add: I wonder if some of this is related to the Eden legend. It was the woman who first allowed herself to be tempted into disobeying God, and then induced the man to do the same. (The Greek Pandora myth is somewhat similar. A disobedient woman is responsible for misery and suffering being released into the world.) The female sex is forever tainted with sin. So bringing a girl into the world requires longer purification. It's primitive, ignorant thinking. The woman's egg doesn't determine the embryo's sex. It's the male factor that does--whether an X or Y sperm fertilizes the ovum. If anyone needs purification, it's the father, not the mother.

 

[AvisG]

liberal

You think Heiser is liberal??? I just heard his views spoken of approvingly by Dr. Alex McFarland, an extreme Bible literalist and Young Earth Christian who is about as far from "liberal" as one can get.

I'm kind of wondering why, if this is the case, you us the verb "was" in that last sentence above.......................................

Since it was written 3,000 years ago, that's what I believe "was" (or at least may have been) the motivation at the time. If you think "is" would change the context of what I said, maybe you can take this up with Bill ("It depends on what 'is' means") Clinton.

I'd wonder just how much thought you've really given to your own moral intuitions and owned up to their inherent ontological and axiological structures, PhD or no PhD.

I'm not following your point at all. I need to "own up" to the "inherent ontological and axiological structures" of my "moral intuitions"? What does that even mean? Do people have such "inherent structures"? How do they go about "owning up" to them?

I've arrived at a framework of belief based on experience, observation, study, reflection, intuition and perhaps revelation. It is quite a self-critical, carefully examined framework that always remains flexible and subject to modification.

The fact that I have a doctorate (two, actually, if you count a J.D.) seems to be a major sticking point for you since this must be at least the fifth time you've referenced it for no apparent reason. In terms of the legitimacy of metaphysical beliefs, in my experience educational level (or lack thereof) counts for almost nothing. I've made this point repeatedly, yet you seem to be almost Ph.D.-obsessed.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You think Heiser is liberal??? I just heard his views spoken of approvingly by Dr. Alex McFarland, an extreme Bible literalist and Young Earth Christian who is about as far from "liberal" as one can get.

No, sorry. I know my grammar and syntax are rushed and thereby "coflu-sing," but I was attempting to indicate that Dever is liberal (comparatively) and of a different view than Heiser, but that there are others even more liberal than Dever.

Since it was written 3,000 years ago, that's what I believe "was" (or at least may have been) the motivation at the time. If you think "is" would change the context of what I said, maybe you can take this up with Bill ("It depends on what 'is' means") Clinton.

Ok, Touché! At least you weren't going to say 'Bill' Dever.

I'm not following your point at all. I need to "own up" to the "inherent ontological and axiological structures" of my "moral intuitions"? What does that even mean? Do people have such "inherent structures"? How do they go about "owning up" to them?

Surely, you having been the lawyer that you say you've been ---not that I doubt you in this regard ---- have heard of the term Axiology, correct? And being so, thus, I'd think that to work in the area of "Law," one would at the least have to have more than just a few private intuitions about what probably "should be" our shared notions about morality and ethics and all of that. I'd add an interrogative "Right?" at the end of that last statement of mind, but I'm afraid that to have done so would make me look like someone of a more narcissistic bent, a view a few others here have seemingly expressed and one that I've been trying to swat away these past few months. Be that as it may, I'd have to say that these ideas of ethics and law, without the Old Testament and the New Testament, from a Christian position, slowly but surely begin to sag toward moral impotencies even if stopping short of Nihilism.

So yes, as unfortunate as it may be, I'm going to have to say that some of the axioms that folks assert are swirling around in the ethical spectrum of this world are difficult to come by and if we assume that the morality of the past is negotiable but that that of the present isn't, we're not quite being fair to the social realities (Reality, I think, in truth) in which we in fact live. But what do I know?

I've arrived at a framework of belief based on experience, observation, study, reflection, intuition and perhaps revelation. It is quite a self-critical, carefully examined framework that always remains flexible and subject to modification.

That's good to hear; just keep in mind that at least some of us here also have come by our respective frameworks by much the same kinds of identifiable philosophical 'marks,' and it might be a little better to not insinuate that those who disagree with you are of a clearly different moral caliber or fiber than yourself on the whole. Again, what I'm saying here isn't to disparage your faith or my confidence that you, as a brother in Christ, are a Christian, but I am attempting to throw a nail or two in your tire.

The fact that I have a doctorate (two, actually, if you count a J.D.) seems to be a major sticking point for you since this must be at least the fifth time you've referenced it for no apparent reason. In terms of the legitimacy of metaphysical beliefs, in my experience educational level (or lack thereof) counts for almost nothing. I've made this point repeatedly, yet you seem to be almost Ph.D.-obsessed.

Forgive me, but as one who is an advocate for the strengths of education on the one hand, but also one who would adopt a more, shall we say, "sober" view of the very structures of that same education (...think Pierre Bourdieau, here) on the other hand, I'd have to say that education does make some difference, and NOT only in possibly making us better, more well rounded persons, but also in some ways mediating the attempts any of us may make at having both faith in Christ as well as in our ability to maintain, or sometimes even form, a clearer view of the trees standing in the ethical forest.

And thanks for the little "obsessional" dig thrown in there, Avis. I appreciate it.

 

[AvisG]

if we assume that the morality of the past is negotiable but that that of the present isn't, we're not quite being fair to the social realities (Reality, I think, in truth) in which we in fact live. But what do I know?

The morality of the present can and should be examined. Every aspect of my belief system can be - and is - examined and continually reexamined. Ultimately, however, what we come to believe is ontologically true and morally correct is going to be an individual matter. No one can believe that which is contrary to his or her experience, observation, study, reflection and intuition. People can and do pretend to believe such contrary things, but they can't really believe them.

it might be a little better to not insinuate that those who disagree with you are of a clearly different moral caliber or fiber than yourself on the whole.

Where have I insinuated any such thing? I really don't even care what others believe or whether their notions of morality mesh with mine. (Here, I will plead guilty to assuming the OP was an atheist and failing to notice that he is a 16-year-old Muslim in Egypt. So perhaps his request for opinions was sincere and not the standard atheist ploy I took it to be.)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The morality of the present can and should be examined. Every aspect of my belief system can be - and is - examined and continually reexamined. Ultimately, however, what we come to believe is ontologically true and morally correct is going to be an individual matter. No one can believe that which is contrary to his or her experience, observation, study, reflection and intuition. People can and do pretend to believe such contrary things, but they can't really believe them.

Where have I insinuated any such thing? I really don't even care what others believe or whether their notions of morality mesh with mine. (Here, I will plead guilty to assuming the OP was an atheist and failing to notice that he is a 16-year-old Muslim in Egypt. So perhaps his request for opinions was sincere and not the standard atheist ploy I took it to be.)

Alright. I see where I've gone wrong... ... my mind is going today apparently. This is what happens when a person (like me) has too many irons in the fire. I thought your response was defending a different thread that this one. My bad!

Needless to say, I'm a bit disappointed that one of the threads on the Holocaust issue was closed down the other day, and I'm still of the mind that my view holds some water. Unfortunately, no one was allowed the time to attempt to poke any holes in it. But, I guess some semblance of order has to be kept on these forums, so it is what it is.

My apologies are apparently in order on one side of things here for my having missed the overall context of your post and its reference, and I see now that your response was in reference to THIS thread rather than one of the others. Again, my apologies on that front.

 

[AvisG]

Alright. I see where I've gone wrong... ... my mind is going today apparently. This is what happens when a person (like me) has too many irons in the fire. I thought your response was defending a different thread that this one. My bad!

Needless to say, I'm a bit disappointed that one of the threads on the Holocaust issue was closed down the other day, and I'm still of the mind that my view holds some water. Unfortunately, no one was allowed the time to attempt to poke any holes in it. But, I guess some semblance of order has to be kept on these forums, so it is what it is.

My apologies are apparently in order on one side of things here for my having missed the overall context of your post and its reference, and I see now that your response was in reference to THIS thread rather than one of the others. Again, my apologies on that front.

At least that makes some sense of what otherwise didn't make sense to me. I didn't even notice that the Holocaust thread had been closed. I did understand your point there and was surprised it didn't receive more discussion while the thread was open.

 

[gaara4158]

Marriage has of late become seen as a lesser choice among some folks, for sure, but I'm not confident that marriage on the whole, even as a legal institution, will come to be seen as archaic. Right now, there's too many political tensions in the mix to say for sure where it might settle or transform. But who knows for sure.

From my angle of things, I'd say that if marriage on the whole does become seen as an institution belonging to a bygone age, then we'll have a better indicator about just 'who' is in charge of this world, won't we? The lessened value of marriage isn't the only indicator of a world shying away from the Christian faith, but I'd tend to think that a full-blown disparagement of that institution probably shouldn't be seen as a "good" thing or that the world is somehow "improving."

8 facts about love and marriage in America

Marriage itself, understood broadly as socially-recognized monogamous commitment to establish a nuclear family, probably isn't going anywhere for a long, long time. Settling down with one partner for life is just too darn practical! But within that structure, a lot can change. After all, it wasn't too long ago (and maybe it's even still a thing in some places) that marriage was basically a sociopolitically-strategic transfer of custody of a woman from her father to her highest-bidding suitor. An exchange of goods for privileges between families, with little romance involved. From where we sit now, this treatment of women as property probably seems abhorrent to many of us.

Even now, I can see signs of the younger generations rejecting older marital traditions. Many young people are eschewing the extravagant weddings, the outrageously-expensive jewelry, and debaucherous bachelor/bachelorette parties in favor of modest, intimate ceremonies or even a simple appointment at city hall. They're more accepting of gay marriages than past generations, and the church is less of a concern for them. If these sorts of changes continue to take hold, it's very plausible that today's "traditional" views of marriage will be very jarring to people of the future.

I practiced law for 37+ years, 37+ years of head-shaking befuddlement and bewilderment. Fortunately, most of my practice involved writing complex motions and appellate briefs for other lawyers, so I didn't have to dirty my hands with The System. I used to say all the time "500 years from now, they'll look at our insane 'justice' system the way that we look at the medieval practice of throwing suspected witches into ponds to see if they floated or sank." (As I recall, you were innocent if you sank. Hopefully they pulled you out if you couldn't swim.)

Alas, the current system is so complex and entrenched that I wouldn't know where to start making improvements.

Hopefully it won't take us 500 years to fix it! I do find it encouraging that progressive movements to improve our criminal justice system are gaining traction these days. I still can't believe people joke about "dropping the soap" like that's a perfectly acceptable feature of a justice system.

 

[Truth over Tradition]

A familiarity with the work of Dr. Michael Heiser, Dr. Michael Heiser - Biblical Scholar | Author | Semitic Languages Expert, would help make sense of at least some of these verses in the context of the Jewish worldview of the time.

When dealing with hermanuetics, prophecy, and breaking down apocalyptic writings, an understanding of the ancient Jewish worldview is definately needed in order to reconcile texts to their most likely intended meaning. But, when the subject is human morality, such mental gymnastics is overkill.
And FYI, I'm am familiar with Heiser and his works related to The Divine Council.

Is God a Moral Monster? .....

Attacks on the morality of the Bible God aren't necessary. What is actually being questioned is the blatently evil and immoral acts committed and espoused by MEN of old that CLAIMED to be speaking for and endorsed by a sovereign God. It is these men's claims regarding divine comand that are being called false. In light of the acts they are said have engaged in, we can objectively see that many are what would be defined as immoral.

But, as I've made clear in the thread "Critique of Cruelty In the Bible," such rationalizations aren't essential to my Christianity. OK, some of what the OT purports to be from God was actually not from God. It was a primitive peoples' attempt to hold their society together, magnify their own importance, and explain their history.

No big deal. This doesn't mean the Bible isn't the word of God, the Jews aren't God's chosen people, or Christianity isn't true.....

Actually, it kind of is. Your quote above supports the notion I expressed above that the writings are the works of men of old CLAIMING to speak for a Sovereign God. If their words are not from God then that means the writings that comprise the Bible are NOT the Words of God.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread is closed for review and possible move to a different forum. ​

 

[tampasteve]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has been moved to a new forum that is more appropriate. Please note the possible SOP differences.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[ByAnyOtherName]

Interesting thread that ended up here. Thank you to those who explained some of these verses that appear quite graphic out of context, but seem to make much more sense when given some explanation!

These passages come to mind from the Qu'ran:
O children of Israel! remember My favour wherewith I shewed favour upon you, and be true to your covenant with Me; I will be true to my covenant with you; Me therefore, revere Me! and believe in what I have sent down confirming your Scriptures, and be not the first to disbelieve it, neither for a mean price barter my signs: Me therefore, fear ye Me!
Qu'ran 2:40-41

and (this one I saw referenced while re-reading the Ashtiname of Muhammad to His followers on how to treat Christians)

Dispute not, unless in kindly sort, with the people of the Book; save with such of them as have dealt wrongfully with you: And say ye, "We believe in what hath been sent down to us and hath been sent down to you. Our God and your God is one, and to Him are we self-surrendered"
Qu'ran 29:46

It is generally accepted that by "people of the Book" is meant the Christians, who believe in the Book of God. Therefore, it's important to understand the Book, and to accept "what hath been sent down" by God. I joined this forum to learn more about the Bible (I'm in the slow process of reading through it cover to cover) and I really appreciate all that I've learned so far!

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

As far as I am concerned, the Bible contains distinct freeze frame pictures of different moments in the cultural history of the middle-eastern civilizations that composed them.
They range from "kill the foreigners lest their influence corrupts you with their heathen ways" to "as you treat the sick and poor, so you treat me".
Bad things start to happen when people believe that it's all the timeless and universal proclamation of a singular deity.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Hello there, I would like to know your opinions on these verses:

Yahuweh's Word is Truth, Perfect, Eternal, Just and Right IS HE - with NO INIQUITY,
His Ways and Thoughts are as high above men as heaven is above the earth....

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Yes.

At least you answered honestly. (I think)

Are you seeking the Truth as your 'name' seems to indicate ? And will you keep seeking the Truth also?

(asked with positive expectations, or hope at least)