how do you feel about this?

[aiki]

wow another bizarre sentiment. Can you understand why a sentient being should be treated differently to an inanimate object, why we wouldn't do to a sentient being certain things we'd do to an inanimate object? If you don't understand that I don't think we can get very far in discussing morality. Are you asking me why I assume sentient beings deserve to be treated ethically or do you actually disagree that sentience automatically confers the right to be treated ethically?

I thought it was pretty clear that I was asking you a question rather than making a declarative statement...

Sentient
1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
2. characterized by sensation and consciousness.

I believe sentient beings deserve to be treated ethically because I'm a sentient being and I know there are ways I wouldn't want to be treated, so I know its unethical to treat other sentient beings those ways.

People constantly tread on others in order to serve themselves. This is the reason human history is so fraught with war, and violence and death. This is why prisons are filled to bursting with thieves, murderers, rapists, drug pushers and the like. This is why there is no such thing as a human Utopia. It is apparent from these facts, I think, that human sentience and ethics are not necessarily directly linked. The Golden Rule, which is what you've described above, is an excellent basis for ethics. Unfortunately, when it comes into conflict with an individual's fulfillment of personal goals and self gratification, it is as often as not set aside. It is quite obvious that something more besides the mere sense of the Golden Rule is required for the ethic it proposes to be consistently adhered to by human beings. I would suggest that that "something more' is God.

Universal means applicable everywhere or in all cases, characteristic of the whole. Universal ethics and morality come from universal characteristics of sentient beings or in other words the nature of sentient beings. Sentient beings suffer when they are harmed and treated badly, so sentient beings understand that it is wrong to treat other sentient beings in this way.

Well, as I've observed above, this is actually not the case. The basis of ethics you have offered is not universally adhered to by human beings. In fact, selfishness is more reflective of human nature than a concern for ethical behaviour, which is clearly evidenced in the lying, cheating, laziness, prejudice, greediness, and violence that daily marks human affairs.

human morality is characterized by a degree of selflessness in that humans understand it is moral to restrain certain behaviour that might serve themselves. We see a reason to restrain that behaviour because although it might serve yourself, it would harm others. It also ultimately doesn't serve yourself.

I have already pointed out that this is not, generally, how humans behave. Laws must be formed and enforced and punishments levied against those who would defy them in order to curb the human tendency to put themselves first at the expense of others.

So in both these ways morality is about looking past the differences between ourself and other people and seeing ourselves and other sentient beings as equal or as one.

I agree that this is very humane way to behave. It is not, however, how people typically behave.

For example its morally wrong to rip someone off for our own financial gain or to commit violence against them to make ourselves feel better. Although we know we could gain something out of doing both, we restrain ourselves from doing it because we know that we would be doing something to another sentient being which we wouldn't want done to ourselves.

This is certainly how one ought to behave, but it is not actually how people do behave. The prevalence of child and spousal abuse, broken homes, divorce, various destructive vices and addictions, suicide, political corruption, preventable starvation and disease in third world countries - all speak of the lack of ethics you describe.

And if we did it, it would ultimatley not serve us because it would provoke a reaction of the same nature from our victim/s. It's a reciprocal thing which takes place between humans beings, people get back from other people what they put out to other people, a third party, non-human being isn't involved and doesn't need to be involved.

It is precisely because God is ignored and defied that the world is as devoid of ethical conduct as it is!

Sometimes people have a code or standard of behaviour which they believe is acceptable, and these codes of behaviour can differ with time and place. Sometimes in that code of behaviour things can be done which harm or exploit others. Those codes of behaviour are amoral, and codes of behaviour are often relative and vary with time and place.

Are you justifying the very thing your description of ethics condemns? It seems so. You've made an effort to lay out why people ought to be ethical toward each other, that they ought to treat others as they wish to be treated, and now you say that codes of behaviour which have harmed or exploited others are "amoral"? Are you not aware of how contradictory this is?

The one thing that always stays the same though is sentience and human nature. For vikings in the middle ages it was acceptable to raid people in other countries and kill innocent women and children indiscriminatley. That is an amoral code of behaviour. It's an apparently self-serving code of behaviour at the expense of others.

No, sir. It is not amoral, it is immoral. You just have to ask the people the Vikings murdered and pillaged. I'm sure they would very adamantly insist that they had been treated very unethically by the Vikings. If we take your definition of ethical behaviour as the universal standard you say it is, then, when universally applied it clearly condemns the Viking raids as unethical.

Where does the human moral conscience come from? Depends who you ask. Some will tell you altruism, it originates in evolution. There is a mathematical equation for human altruism.

I'm not sure if there is an actual point here...

Beleivers say we come from God, God created man in his image. Non-believers say God comes from us, man created God or gods in his image. Either way, God and man are intricatley related and fundamentally similar.

No, again, you're mistaken. The God of the Bible is not anthropomorphic in the way other gods are. In fact, Jehovah-God is far more unlike human beings than He is like them. God is a Spirit, the Bible tells us. He is infinite, without beginning or end; He is self-sustaining; He exists outside of time; He is all knowing, and all-powerful. The nature of Jehovah-God strongly suggests that He is not made in our image.

They're both conscious, self-aware sentient beings. The question is which came first. Humans have a nature, a moral conscience and rationality which if we are created by God is given to us by God. The bible says the commandments are written on our heart. You said that if I believe my moral conscience and rationality was given to me by God, it would be logically inconsistent to use it to decide God is immoral, since its source is God and so God must be the embodiment of that morality. Now you are saying that human morality is relative, humans don't really have a moral conscience. Or if there is a universal human morality, God doesn't share it. You've written unethical with inverted commas.

I do believe that God has given each of us a basic sense of right and wrong. But we have a natural inclination to ignore that sense when we think it better suits us to do so. We know that when we lie, or steal, or behave cowardly, or selfishly that it is wrong to do so because our conscience bothers us. It is not too difficult, however, for most people to quash their conscience, to rationalize their wrongdoing, to justify ignoring their conscience. This is accomplished in part through the development of relativistic philosophy and morality. The basic conscience God has given to each person is easily corrupted and made to conform to the selfish nature of humanity. When this happens, our God-given conscience ceases to reflect God's morality. Instead, it becomes severely blunted and a slave to each person's selfishness. This is why I think that, although God has made us morally aware, we do not typically accurately reflect God's view of right and wrong in our conduct.

God and humans are intricatley related whether God made humans in his image or its the other way around. Whatever intrinsic morality and nature we have, its given to us by God. Whats the point of believing that God has nothing to do with that nature which he gave to us anyway? Who wants to believe that? How can man and God be related in that case?

How can a clay pot, which is so different from the Potter who made it, have any relation to the Potter? The answer isn't found in how they are similar, but in the fact that the one created the other. The Potter invests the clay pot with something of Himself insofar as the shape, and thickness, and size of the pot all express something of His "tastes," His aesthetic values, as the Potter. But the Potter can never be confused with His pots; He is far too different from them for that to happen.

Peace.

 

[rainycity]

I have already pointed out that this is not, generally, how humans behave. Laws must be formed and enforced and punishments levied against those who would defy them in order to curb the human tendency to put themselves first at the expense of others.

In civilized societies only a minority of people are criminals.
Codes of law and law enforcement are a human accomplishment and responsibility. It hasn't been taken up by any supernatural being yet. Humans are capable of doing it themselves.

It is precisely because God is ignored and defied that the world is as devoid of ethical conduct as it is!

Which God? Muslim societies don't ignore and defy Allah, and they're devoid of ethical conduct too, more so then secular countries. And they're quite close to the society described in the old testament, and probably less extreme. It first needs to be established which concept of God is the correct one, all of them reported by human beings. Where is this God which everyone is defying? According to you this God is yahweh, and when people did obey him, they fought wars, killed children, took slaves, and stoned many people to death for petty reasons.

Are you justifying the very thing your description of ethics condemns? It seems so. You've made an effort to lay out why people ought to be ethical toward each other, that they ought to treat others as they wish to be treated, and now you say that codes of behaviour which have harmed or exploited others are "amoral"? Are you not aware of how contradictory this is?

English isnt my language, immoral is what I meant. But amoral is sometimes a word used to describe anti-social people who don't have morals.

No, sir. It is not amoral, it is immoral. You just have to ask the people the Vikings murdered and pillaged. I'm sure they would very adamantly insist that they had been treated very unethically by the Vikings. If we take your definition of ethical behaviour as the universal standard you say it is, then, when universally applied it clearly condemns the Viking raids as unethical.

What about the people the israelites murdered and pillaged? do you think they would very adamntley insist that they had been treated very unethically by the israelites? What vikings did, what the old testament says the israelites did, I don't see how they're different. To you the difference is that God told the israelites to do what they did but didn't tell the vikings to do what they did.

I'm not sure if there is an actual point here...

you asked me where the human moral conscience comes from

No, again, you're mistaken. The God of the Bible is not anthropomorphic in the way other gods are. In fact, Jehovah-God is far more unlike human beings than He is like them.

'Yahweh is a man of war. Yahweh is his name.' - Exodus 15:3

'And the LORD was with Judah; and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.' - Judges 1:19

"And I will take mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen as at other times; for I am angry with my people Israel"
- Exodus 33:23

“You cannot see my face; for no one may see Me and live.” - Exodus 33:20

Yahweh has a face and a humanoid body, he has emotions like jealousy and anger, he has a gender and is even described as a man, he involves himself in the affairs of humans and is effected by the affairs of humans. He apparently has limitations. He sometimes walks around on earth. He seems pretty anthropomorphic to me.

 

[aiki]

In civilized societies only a minority of people are criminals.
Codes of law and law enforcement are a human accomplishment and responsibility. It hasn't been taken up by any supernatural being yet. Humans are capable of doing it themselves.

Only a minority, comparatively speaking, are imprisoned for their unlawful deeds, but daily the majority of people are guilty of a whole host of "lesser" evils: gossip, slander, petty rivalry, rage, selfishness, adultery, lying, theft, etc., etc. These lesser sins may pass under the radar of the law enforcement agencies, but they don't pass under God's radar. One can make a very good argument for suggesting that Judeo-Christian morality and ethics have greatly informed modern western law. Insofar as this is true, God has had His hand in shaping the laws of the land - at least in the West.

Which God? Muslim societies don't ignore and defy Allah, and they're devoid of ethical conduct too, more so then secular countries.

If you're right, what does that suggest to you about whether or not they are worshiping the one, true God?

And they're quite close to the society described in the old testament, and probably less extreme.

I disagree with you here.

It first needs to be established which concept of God is the correct one, all of them reported by human beings. Where is this God which everyone is defying? According to you this God is yahweh, and when people did obey him, they fought wars, killed children, took slaves, and stoned many people to death for petty reasons.

Why do people such as yourself always caricaturize or misrepresent what the Bible says about God and the Israelites in the O.T.? Never did the Israelites make war upon neighboring pagan nations, or follow the commands of God in punishing sin among themselves for "petty reasons."

I wrote the following in answer to an assertion similar to yours above a few weeks ago:

1. God is holy. He is "light" the Bible says, and "in Him is no darkness at all." (1 Jn. 1:5) It is not possible for we humans who are so acquainted and comfortable with sin to fully understand God's holiness. But we get a glimpse of how antithetical God is to sin, how absolutely opposed to it He is, by how God judges sin in the OT. Whether it was His own Chosen People, the Israelites, God was judging, or the pagan nations surrounding them, God judged sin by destroying it "root, tree, and branch." God gave no quarter to sin, not one inch, and He commanded His people to do the same. His perfect holiness demanded complete destruction of sin, which we see as "harsh" because we are so steeped in sin ourselves.

2. Those whom God so harshly judged were guilty. Scripture gives us to understand that the pagan nations whom God set His people to destroy were guilty of idolatry, human sacrifice, sexual perversion, and violence toward God's people (among other things). The wickedness of these nations was a cultural thing, not isolated to a few "bad apples." Like cannibalism in some tribal cultures, everybody got involved - men, women and children.

3. The pagan nations at enmity with Israel understood that opposition to Israel was tantamount to opposition to their God. To fight Israel was to defy Yahweh. In a very direct way, God Himself was challenged and attacked when the Midianites, or the Philistines, or the Amalekites, or whoever assaulted God's people. Such outright defiance of, and rebellion toward, the Creator is at the heart of what makes sin, sin. God could not be holy and let such wicked defiance go unanswered.

4. God was setting an example for us to follow today. The pagan nations are representative of sin in the life of a Christian. Just as God zealously judged and wiped out the sinful nations of the OT, the Christian today is to do the same with sin in his/her own life. No quarter must be given to sin, for where accommodation is made for it, sin will grow - just as it did among the Israelites when they embraced (literally and figuratively) the pagan peoples and their ways which God had commanded them to reject.

5. God can do whatever He wants, however He wants. This is, in part, what it means to be God. To be the Creator of Everything means you are answerable to no one and can do as you please with what you've made. Naturally, the idea that there is Someone who has carte blanche to do as He wishes with us humans makes some of us very uneasy - especially those who see God as some cartoonish monster raping and pillaging the world. The real God, while perfectly holy and a terror to unrepentant sinners, is also merciful, compassionate, and loving to those who acknowledge Him as their God and live in happy fellowship with Him. He is found by them to be a kind Heavenly Father who is concerned about every part of one's life and freely giving of His power, peace, and love.

What about the people the israelites murdered and pillaged? do you think they would very adamntley insist that they had been treated very unethically by the israelites?

Yes, of course they would.

What vikings did, what the old testament says the israelites did, I don't see how they're different. To you the difference is that God told the israelites to do what they did but didn't tell the vikings to do what they did.

See my above remarks. I think the reasons for the Israelites actions makes a huge difference in how they are to be regarded. The Vikings simply wished to conquer and take from others. The Israelites, however, were motivated very differently, which corrupts the parallel you're trying to draw between them.

'Yahweh is a man of war. Yahweh is his name.' - Exodus 15:3

John 4:23-24
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeks such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

'And the LORD was with Judah; and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.' - Judges 1:19

John 1:18
18 No man has seen God at any time...

John 5:37
37 And the Father himself, which has sent me, has borne witness of me. You have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

"And I will take mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen as at other times; for I am angry with my people Israel"
- Exodus 33:23

I have looked in several translations of the Bible and none of them say in Exodus 33:23 what you have written above. The part reading, "but my face shall not be seen as at other times; for I am angry with my people Israel" does not appear in any of the translations I looked at.

“You cannot see my face; for no one may see Me and live.” - Exodus 33:20

Yahweh has a face and a humanoid body, he has emotions like jealousy and anger, he has a gender and is even described as a man, he involves himself in the affairs of humans and is effected by the affairs of humans. He apparently has limitations. He sometimes walks around on earth. He seems pretty anthropomorphic to me.

And how else should God make Himself understandable to us? How does One who is a Spirit, who no man can see and live, describe Himself to us? Obviously, He must use a frame of reference we understand: ourselves. So, He speaks of having "hands" and a "face" and "hinder parts," all of which are merely rough approximations of what He truly is.

God's "gender" is, again, only a rough characterization of His actual nature. As I said, He is a Spirit, not a physical Being as are you and I. He cannot be identified as male by His spiritual form. It is in His personality, His style of interaction with us, that He is "male."

God may be described anthropomorphically in Scripture, but He is also described in Scripture as transcendent, and infinite, and omnipotent. The Bible makes it clear that on those occasions in its pages where God is referred to in human terms the references are figurative, not literal. Unlike Zeus, or Apollo, or Ashteroth, Jehovah-God is purely spiritual; He is not actually walking about on legs like our own, or eating food as we do, or sleeping as we must. The Bible is very plain about this.

I don't see where you find that God has apparent limitations. If you are taking this from Judges 1:19, you are not reading the verse appropriately. Judah is the one who drove the enemy out of the mountains but could not drive them out of the valley, not God. This is plain both from the verse itself and from the context in which the verse appears.

God's interest and involvement in human affairs doesn't make Him human. That He feels anger and jealousy reminds us of the fact that we are a bit like He is. His anger and jealousy, however, are governed by His perfect holiness and justice. We cannot say the same.

In every instance you have offered, it is evident, if one looks closely, that God is not very much like us after all. We are made in His image insofar as we are self-aware, morally conscious, have a spiritual capacity, are able to love and hate, to appreciate beauty and humor, and to reason. Beyond this, we have nothing in common with our Maker. We are finite, He is infinite; we are limited in knowledge, His knowledge is all-encompassing and perfectly complete; we are sinful and weak, He is perfectly holy and omnipotent; He is a Spirit; we are of the "dust of the earth"; we are brought into being and dependent on His sustaining power, He is causeless and self-sustaining. Clearly, God is not made in our image.

Peace.

 

[drich0150]

kill without showing pity or compassion. Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children”

More and more Your Screen name seems to suit you. the verse you have quoted was written about Old Testament Jews, not to Christianity.

how can you call him all loving? Obviously he can't kill woman and children while being all loving.

This statement presupposes that "Life" is always better than Death.. This is a wealthy, western, modern world view. At best it is presumptuous. realistically this view borderlines foolishness, when you only look at it from your current perspective.

 

[freeport]

No, I wasn't aware that people die. We're not talking about accidents. You don't kill somebody and then say "accidents happen".

You are addressing something I did not say. Yes, you probably get that people die. What you don't get is that God controls such things. God kills everyone, in a sense.

It is more complicated then that, but nothing gets done without God's "okay".

I hate to break *that* fact to you, but it is true: it is also the reason why people don't believe in God. The reason. Because bad things happen in a bad world. How can they trust God when the world is evil?

So, clearly, things are more complex then humans generally figure out -- or can figure out.

Granted, it isn't that people do not have this general knowledge embedded in them. Otherwise, why would people be reacting to God at all, that is, people who do not trust Him?

After all, who would go to forums where one has no interest and make arguments on them? Everybody, on the other hand, has an interest in God.

And that is what you were quoting from: God ordering people's deaths. How many people have died in history? None of them died without God's stamp of approval.

'Death does not end it', however.

It just appears to.

 

[rainycity]

One can make a very good argument for suggesting that Judeo-Christian morality and ethics have greatly informed modern western law. Insofar as this is true, God has had His hand in shaping the laws of the land - at least in the West.

Morality is not Judeo-Christian. Cultures outside of that tradition have moral codes. You might not be trying to say that isn't the case, but western morality isn't unique, and Judeo-Christian morality and ethics hasn't done anything special in informing modern western law. And many judaic ethics go directly against western morality and law, like stoning disobedient children for example, or stoning a woman for not being a virgin on her wedding night. What western laws and ethics have in common with judeo-christian morality, it also has in common with most moral codes. Wouldn't it make more sense to say that God has had his hand in shaping the laws of the land by our God given sense of morality?

If you're right, what does that suggest to you about whether or not they are worshiping the one, true God?

It suggests to me that they're not following God, but their laws and ethics and way of life is very similar to the laws, ethics and way of life given in the old testament.

I disagree with you here.

I'm pretty sure they don't stone disobedient kids to death in islamic states, or stone people to death for breaking dietary laws or mixing fabrics or crops.

Never did the Israelites make war upon neighboring pagan nations

what about when they made war on the canaanites, amelekites, midianites etc? I can't say whether or not most of the wars were started by the neighbouring pagan nations, but I'm fairly certain that joshua and david did start wars.

, or follow the commands of God in punishing sin among themselves for "petty reasons."

is the law in leveticus and deutronomy god given? if not and they were not following yahweh in severely punishing people for petty reasons (you put that in inverted commas so I'm guessing you don't consider breaking dietery laws or disobeying parents are petty reasons) did yahweh mention that or speak out against it? because he always spoke out against behaviour he didn't approve of and took measures to stop it.

5. God can do whatever He wants, however He wants. This is, in part, what it means to be God. To be the Creator of Everything means you are answerable to no one and can do as you please with what you've made.

So what. God could do whatever he wants but if he does unethical things, they're still unethical. You think because God can do whatever he wants, then whatever he does, no matter what it is, is ok, it doesn't matter what his moral character is, it only matters that he's the most powerful in the universe. Bow to the tyrant, you have no choice, right? An emperor or dictator has all the power over the state, he can do whatever he wants, so by that virtue, anything he does is ok and his subjects should praise him and worship him, whether he's ethical or unethical.
You also don't really use discernment when it comes to assertions about a being which is meant to be infinite. You just accept whatever is asserted about God in the bible because you beleive that you can't understand an infinite being, you have the presumption that the assertions about an infinite being in the old testament are true, and that yahweh is an infinite being.

See my above remarks. I think the reasons for the Israelites actions makes a huge difference in how they are to be regarded. The Vikings simply wished to conquer and take from others. The Israelites, however, were motivated very differently, which corrupts the parallel you're trying to draw between them.

If barbaric, warltribes beleived a god was on their side and told them what to do, what do you think they would believe this god tells them to do? To invade and pillage other people and their land and take them as slaves, and thats what we have in the old testament. The isrealites wished to conquer other people and take their land. There's no difference between what the israelites were doing and what ever other barbaric warlike people were doing, you think its different because you believe God told them to do it and you think their reasons were different, I'd say there reasons weren't that different. They conquered other people for not worshipping their god, they conquered other people because they wanted their land for themselves, they believed they were entitled to it because their god told them to do it and they were favoured above all other people.

John 4:23-24
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeks such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

'And the LORD was with Judah; and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.' - Judges 1:19

Judges 1:19 may be saying that the isrealites couldn't defeat the chariots and not yahweh, I can't say it isn't because I haven't researched it.

I have looked in several translations of the Bible and none of them say in Exodus 33:23 what you have written above. The part reading, "but my face shall not be seen as at other times; for I am angry with my people Israel" does not appear in any of the translations I looked at.

Maybe the verse does not say this, I copied it from a website and I haven't researched it. Does it mention god's back parts and verses of the bible do suggest god has face and a humanoid form don't they? It also mentions god walking on the earth among men.

And how else should God make Himself understandable to us? How does One who is a Spirit, who no man can see and live, describe Himself to us? Obviously, He must use a frame of reference we understand: ourselves. So, He speaks of having "hands" and a "face" and "hinder parts," all of which are merely rough approximations of what He truly is.

does the bible say that these are just rough approximations of what he is? If he is a spirit he wouldn't have a body and appendages that hands, face hinder parts are rough approximations of, so is this merely a way of explaining him to men and does the bible say that?

God's "gender" is, again, only a rough characterization of His actual nature. As I said, He is a Spirit, not a physical Being as are you and I. He cannot be identified as male by His spiritual form. It is in His personality, His style of interaction with us, that He is "male."

Yahweh is always mentioned as a He with a capital H in the bible, is this in the original language? Why would God be male and not female or neutral in gender or encompassing and transcending both altogether?

I don't see where you find that God has apparent limitations. If you are taking this from Judges 1:19, you are not reading the verse appropriately. Judah is the one who drove the enemy out of the mountains but could not drive them out of the valley, not God. This is plain both from the verse itself and from the context in which the verse appears.

There are a few things which suggest yahweh has limitations. Why would an infinite, eternal, all powerful and all knowing being have emotions like anger and jealousy?

His anger and jealousy, however, are governed by His perfect holiness and justice. We cannot say the same.

why or how can a perfect being have these emotions?

 

[aiki]

Morality is not Judeo-Christian.

I didn't say it was.

Cultures outside of that tradition have moral codes.

I never said otherwise.

You might not be trying to say that isn't the case, but western morality isn't unique, and Judeo-Christian morality and ethics hasn't done anything special in informing modern western law.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, then. I don't want to spend the time and effort showing you you're wrong here.

And many judaic ethics go directly against western morality and law, like stoning disobedient children for example, or stoning a woman for not being a virgin on her wedding night.

I said Judeo-Christian ethics. You seem only to want to focus on the OT laws given to the Israelites and not the NT commandments upon which Western (American) laws and morality at one time firmly rested.

What western laws and ethics have in common with judeo-christian morality, it also has in common with most moral codes. Wouldn't it make more sense to say that God has had his hand in shaping the laws of the land by our God given sense of morality?

Perhaps. But as I pointed out before, saying God has given us our morality and then comparing that morality to God's and saying His is wrong is irrational.

I'm pretty sure they don't stone disobedient kids to death in islamic states, or stone people to death for breaking dietary laws or mixing fabrics or crops.

Ever heard of honor killings? Ever heard of thieves in Islamic countries having their hands cut off? Ever heard of homosexuals being stoned to death in Islamic countries? I have. I have never heard of any of these things being done in Israel or among any Jewish people today, nor do Jews use stoning for the punishment of any offense in modern times.

what about when they made war on the canaanites, amelekites, midianites etc? I can't say whether or not most of the wars were started by the neighbouring pagan nations, but I'm fairly certain that joshua and david did start wars.

I have already given you the reasons why the Israelites went to war with other nations. None of them were motivated by caprice.

is the law in leveticus and deutronomy god given? if not and they were not following yahweh in severely punishing people for petty reasons (you put that in inverted commas so I'm guessing you don't consider breaking dietery laws or disobeying parents are pretty reasons) did yahweh mention that or speak out against it? because he always spoke out against behaviour he didn't approve of and took measures to stop it.

Yes the levitical laws were God-ordained. And, yes, God frequently condemned the disobedience of His Chosen People in not keeping themselves separate from the surrounding pagan nations, which is what the levitical laws, in part, were meant to help the Israelites do.

So what. God could do whatever he wants but if he does unethical things, they're still unethical. You think because God can do whatever he wants, then whatever he does, no matter what it is, is ok, it doesn't matter what his moral character is, it only matters that he's the most powerful in the universe.

He's not simply the most powerful in the universe - He made the universe. God brought the universe into being and sustains it. He's not just some Superman-type character who holds tyrannical and unjust sway over us; He's the Creator of Everything.

Bow to the tyrant, you have no choice, right?

Are you bowing to God right now? What does that say about your choices and about Him being a "tyrant"?

An emperor or dictator has all the power over the state, he can do whatever he wants, so by that virtue, anything he does is ok and his subjects should praise him and worship him, whether he's ethical or unethical.

God is no human. He doesn't rule like one, either. He could rule over us unethically, but He doesn't. Instead, He sent His Only Son to die on our behalf to save us from the penalty of our sins. This doesn't sound anything like the conduct of a dictator.

You also don't really use discernment when it comes to assertions about a being which is meant to be infinite. You just accept whatever is asserted about God in the bible because you beleive that you can't understand an infinite being, you have the presumption that the assertions about an infinite being in the old testament are true, and that yahweh is an infinite being.

I don't "just accept" anything. I have reasoned it through and asked hard questions and found reasonable answers that lead me to believe that the Bible reveals to me the One, True, God. It is because I have done so that I approach what I read in the Bible the way I do. You may need to see me as a thoughtless fool, but I am not.

You can't understand everything about an infinite being, but you can understand some things. The Bible shares with us those things God wants us to know about Himself. What I do understand about God gives me the confidence to trust Him beyond what I can understand.

If barbaric, warltribes beleived a god was on their side and told them what to do, what do you think they would believe this god tells them to do? To invade and pillage other people and their land and take them as slaves, and thats what we have in the old testament.

This is called building a strawman argument. It is bad argumentation. Maybe you should find out why before you're guilty of using it again.

The isrealites wished to conquer other people and take their land.

How do you know this? This isn't what the Bible tells us.

There's no difference between what the israelites were doing and what ever other barbaric warlike people were doing, you think its different because you believe God told them to do it and you think their reasons were different, I'd say there reasons weren't that different.

Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, then.

They conquered other people for not worshipping their god, they conquered other people because they wanted their land for themselves, they believed they were entitled to it because their god told them to do it and they were favoured above all other people.

Not really, no.

Judges 1:19 may be saying that the isrealites couldn't defeat the chariots and not yahweh, I can't say it isn't because I haven't researched it.

If you haven't researched it, why are you throwing it out as part of your argument? This doesn't seem a very thoughtful way to approach this matter.

does the bible say that these are just rough approximations of what he is? If he is a spirit he wouldn't have a body and appendages that hands, face hinder parts are rough approximations of, so is this merely a way of explaining him to men and does the bible say that?

Yes, I already told you it does.

Yahweh is always mentioned as a He with a capital H in the bible, is this in the original language? Why would God be male and not female or neutral in gender or encompassing and transcending both altogether?

Yes, God is rendered in the masculine in the original languages of the Bible. I think God does transcend gender in the physical sense.

There are a few things which suggest yahweh has limitations. Why would an infinite, eternal, all powerful and all knowing being have emotions like anger and jealousy?

Why not? These emotions are bounded by His perfect justice, and love, and holiness and as such are expressions of these attributes.

why or how can a perfect being have these emotions?

We can't even answer why or how we have emotions. I am not willing to hazard a guess as to the why or how of God's nature. He just is as He is.

Peace.

 

[rcscwc]

MY FRIEND,

Our Creator God is Lord of all He created. The slaughter in Ezekiel's vision was of those who had defiled the Temple with idols. Those who were slaughtered were warned; they were given a chance to repent; they refused and paid the price. There is only one Judge--and you ain't Him.

If it was OK, then it should be OK today too. Do you still practise it?

You might as well support the fatwas issued by muslims on the head of Salman Rushdie and the Danish cartoonist.

i strongly suggest that you, in your arrogance, don't make the same mistake those fools made!

else....
Please complete the sentence.

 

[rcscwc]

It's foolish to think age has anything to do with innocents. Innocents is a state of being, not a "new human smell."

Did you kill your children if they did not heed your warnings? Would you do it?

Does the Geneva convention permit such killings? NO. So is it not anti bible?

Are you pro abortion?

Anyone who justifies dashing of babies on rockes or Moses slaughtering them, is DEFINITELY not pro life. Are you?

 

[rainycity]

We can't even answer why or how we have emotions. I am not willing to hazard a guess as to the why or how of God's nature. He just is as He is.

I disagree. We have a good understand of how and why we have emotions. Emotions are changing states that are in constant flux. They change with circumstances. Emotions like jealousy, anger and hatred are negative emotions which disturb our peace and clarity of mind and our composure. When we experience these emotions we are not peaceful, calm or composed. Emotions can betray (to be unfaithful in guarding, maintaining, or fulfilling: to betray a trust. to deceive, misguide, or corrupt) our character and cloud our judgement. They are in constant flux and change with circumstances which are in constant flux. The finite world is in a state of constant flux. Emotions last for a duration of time - they are finite, the experience of finite beings in a finite world, and they are imperfect. How can an infinite, eternal being who is all-everything and outside of space-time experience these states?

The anger, the jealousy of yahweh in the old testament is in response to the affairs and circumstances of human beings, when they begin, the response is elicited, the circumstances and the response lasts for a duration of time, and then the anger subsides. How can an infinite, eternal, all-powertful being be affected by a finite reality? If this being experiences changing states, it is changing and therefore not eternal.