Is God moral

[MQTA]

right

 

[Electric Sceptic]

The biblical god is certainly not moral, according to the moral standards to which I adhere.

Just for information, the moral standards to which I adhere hold that it is immoral to:

- be hypocritical
- slaughter babies
- commit genocide
- torture people eternally, and so forth.

If the biblical god (or any other god) thinks these things are moral, then I'm not in the least interested in such a monster.

 

[Verv]

I’m not sure my question was answered. I understand the point that some think it was better to ethnically cleanse the people of Canaan because of their unjust religious practices. If cleansing was the solution then how did keeping the young women to have babies to uphold that mission? I would have thought that the worst thing they could do is to mix their “pure” nationality with the “impurity” of the Midianite women mentioned in Numbers 31:18. It doesn’t make sense whatever way I look at it. I thought the whole object of being one of God’s people was to be a light to the non-believing people around them to enable “salvation”. It seems a bit counter-productive just to slaughter them all. It seems like these people were hardly even given a chance to accept the ways of God.

(1) It was not an ethnic cleansing in any sense, and that is why the virgins were spared their lives; it was the notion that the Israelites need to have a homeland for themselves, and if non-Israelite men stayed behind in a society that is entirely patriarchical, it would have sabotaged the new Israeli state.

The women are not inherently impure, and thus are viable spouses and members of the Tribe.

Certainly, after a large war the Israelites are going to have issues with population and thus polygamy would have become common place.

(2) They weren't given a chance to accept God because in the beginning, they were winning the war:
[BIBLE]Joshua 7:9[/BIBLE]

(the whole chapter speaks of this, but that really says it)

When you are losing a war, and a war that is essentially a race war where losing means near extermination and being forced to wander without a homeland, there is no time to extend an olive branch.

This is not 21st century politics, and thus a very strong and bold war is required.

I’m not sure what 21st century liberal democracy has to do with my question. It has more to do with the sanctity of life regardless of time. Besides I thought God was supposed to be the same yesterday, today and forever. Are you suggesting that his ways are different depending on the historical era?

Yes, definitely; that is exactly why the message of Jesus Christ did not arrive until over a thousand years after Moses and many other prophets of God. A message of love, forgiveness, and non-national, non-racial religions was not a message that would be well received in a timeframe defined by as much.

And thus the concept that the same moral notion of the Israelites and Canaanites should resolve their differences peacefully, or that the Israelites would be able to strike a feasible diplomatic deal with the Canaanites or the remaining Canaanites and tat the Israelites would be able to keep a distinct and proper identity after the war...

These concepts become moot, and we cannot judge them from the standards of the 21st century.

If God is supposed to be loving and just his actions should demonstrate that. This story appears to put those standards in serious doubt. So is the Devil of the Bible worse than this?

Regards
AgnosticMike

God is loving and just, and I am sure that each perished Canaanite was properly judged and given proper reward and punishment by God. Our earthly life is temporary and fleating, and largely unimportant (and especially in the most ancient times when life consisted of 20-30 years of hard living and hard work).

God liberated the Israelites from what seemed as a certain defeat, and brough them into Israel to establish a homeland against the Canaanites who would have undoubtedly have done the same to Israelites, and if who were allowed to stay behind in their own clans, due to the politics of the time, would have become a perpetual nuisance and casus bellum.

Thanks.

 

[AgnosticMike]

G'day JM Verville

I understand your reasoning and agree that it is difficult to assume our (21st C) evolved ethical standards on previous societies, although I don’t think that the standards are that different. 21st century killings are sometimes more clinical although there are many cases where the deaths of innocents are far more subtle and brutal. However, I am not questioning the Israelites. I am questioning the standards of the being who, I guess, is supposed to supersede any earthly standards. You have failed to address this by focussing on humanities ethical standards.


When a God is alleged to have love for all his creatures and ignore his own standards, this is reason enough to question the moral ness of such a being. His standards may well be quite different from those I hold. If this is the case, God is not a loving and just being. This God is no different to the one declared by fundamental Islam, Christianity or any other similar religion. No wonder so many find the Bible version of God ugly and unjust.



It seems that this being is guilty of the same crimes our own leaders are guilty of. Instead of punishing and bringing to justice the dictatorial leaderships that cause so much pain and suffering, the innocent and ignorant are made to bear the brunt of punishment.



The thing is that God’s, so called, higher justice seems awfully like many of the earthly standards we see in our world. So much for his ways are higher than our ways. I would have thought that if humanity is made in God’s image and that each of us is of infinite importance then annihilation would be a fairly debase option. Actually, it makes more sense if the image of God is true because it probably means that God is no better than his creatures. In fact, I tend to think that they may be better than him.



Not sure about the Israelites being liberated from certain defeat as the Bible seems to relay the point that they did not ever get rid of the inhabitants and this was a continued scourge on their time in that land.



It’s all a bit disappointing if you are a seeker. Unfortunately, the Christian religion’s God is just as ugly as most of the other world religions if you are right. But then again there is a good change that the deity or deities are nothing like what is portrayed as a previous respondent has mentioned. I hope, if there is a God, it is nothing like the Bible version of God. All the hype seems to be typical propaganda belying the reality below the surface.




You mention a non national religion. Jesus according to the Biblical account specifically says he came for the Jews. He did have dealings with proselytes but he was very nationalistic and racist. I think you are confusing the religion that was subsequently created by his followers. Jesus was a Jew and he never renounced that.

Regards

Agnostic Mike

 

[Verv]

G'day JM Verville
When a God is alleged to have love for all his creatures and ignore his own standards, this is reason enough to question the moral ness of such a being. His standards may well be quite different from those I hold. If this is the case, God is not a loving and just being. This God is no different to the one declared by fundamental Islam, Christianity or any other similar religion. No wonder so many find the Bible version of God ugly and unjust.



It seems that this being is guilty of the same crimes our own leaders are guilty of. Instead of punishing and bringing to justice the dictatorial leaderships that cause so much pain and suffering, the innocent and ignorant are made to bear the brunt of punishment.



The thing is that God’s, so called, higher justice seems awfully like many of the earthly standards we see in our world. So much for his ways are higher than our ways. I would have thought that if humanity is made in God’s image and that each of us is of infinite importance then annihilation would be a fairly debase option.
....

It’s all a bit disappointing if you are a seeker. Unfortunately, the Christian religion’s God is just as ugly as most of the other world religions if you are right. But then again there is a good change that the deity or deities are nothing like what is portrayed as a previous respondent has mentioned. I hope, if there is a God, it is nothing like the Bible version of God. All the hype seems to be typical propaganda belying the reality below the surface.

Ido not think of it as a terrible, terrible crime so much because in a sense, the earthly life is worthless in comparison to the heavenly life that awaits people. This is what the basic argument seems to come down to, and how God could do this, is that people who die an earthly death are judged, and justice can come unto them at that point, making it irrelevent.

This is the point you can't really go beyond, because it was already acknowledged that political necessities of the time could have made this a necessary action.

....

You mention a non national religion. Jesus according to the Biblical account specifically says he came for the Jews. He did have dealings with proselytes but he was very nationalistic and racist. I think you are confusing the religion that was subsequently created by his followers. Jesus was a Jew and he never renounced that.

Regards

Agnostic Mike

Jesus was a Jew, and He never renounced the fact, but He did say many amazing things to gentiles; referring to a Roman centurion as a man who has more faith than He had ever Seen in Israel.

In John 4:9-10 it is discussed that the message is to be given to Samaritans, and that they too will drink the water that is God's word:

John 4:9Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.
John 4:10Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.

And more bluntly:
Matthew 24:14And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
Mark 13:10And the gospel must first be published among all nations.

Because Christ was scorned by much of his own community, and because it was meant that one day all people would believe in God.

He came for the Jews first, certainly, as it says in an epistle:
Romans 2:10But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

 

[AgnosticMike]

I find it amusing that you call the earthy life God gave you as worthless compared to the next life. That is a reflection on your God again providing an example of his immorality. You seem to have avoided the point about God being the same always. This is a reflection on Jesus too making him just as immoral. If there is a judgment and justice no one can be assured of justice because the Bible's version of God is so fickle and changable.

As for political necessities, I find it unusual that God would choose to ordain these political powers just so he could swat them down. I know that for you Christians, this all seems so normal, natural and right, but for us agnostics and the like it makes no sense. I often hear Christians say that this stuff is good news or at least a part of it. If this is the God you worship I can't see how any of it is good news. I suppose that's indicative of a cult, when people are coerced even forced to believe things that are unjust and unreasonable.

As for the Jews and Gentiles discussion I think you have overlooked the fact that the Centurion is a prostelyte, in other words a Jewish convert. As for the verses that you quote, I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Jesus never said he came to the Jew first, he said specifically he came only for the Jews. As for your end times quotations, we can dismiss them becasue the gospel was not preached to all nations and those prophecies never came to pass. That generation died without seeing the conclusion they hoped for. Even 2000 years later the church has still failed in regard to their mission. All nations (extended families) have still not heard the gospel and it looks doubtful that that will ever be achieved.

But back to my point. I'm not sure you have even tried to defend the Biblical version of God's immoral actions. If Christians are meant to be like God I can understand why they are so immoral at times. No wonder born again Bush is so fond of death and destruction.

 

[Verv]

I find it amusing that you call the earthy life God gave you as worthless compared to the next life. That is a reflection on your God again providing an example of his immorality.

I do not think of it as immoral.

You seem to have avoided the point about God being the same always. This is a reflection on Jesus too making him just as immoral. If there is a judgment and justice no one can be assured of justice because the Bible's version of God is so fickle and changable.

No, I just didnt' see it as a point.

God is always the same, but mankind changes, and based on the changs of man, the teachings of God evolve.

A teacher does not give his student advanced calculus until he has teached him basic multiplication.

As for political necessities, I find it unusual that God would choose to ordain these political powers just so he could swat them down. I know that for you Christians, this all seems so normal, natural and right, but for us agnostics and the like it makes no sense. I often hear Christians say that this stuff is good news or at least a part of it. If this is the God you worship I can't see how any of it is good news. I suppose that's indicative of a cult, when people are coerced even forced to believe things that are unjust and unreasonable.

They were created to act as the cradles of important lessons of God, and the important behavior of humans.

As for the Jews and Gentiles discussion I think you have overlooked the fact that the Centurion is a prostelyte, in other words a Jewish convert.

Proof?

Furthermore, then I suppose it is no stretch at all that Christ of course wanted us all to become converts to His religion, and towards this end Christendom could be considered a sect of Judaism, and the conversion process is quite simple as asking Jesus into your heart.

As for the verses that you quote, I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Jesus never said he came to the Jew first, he said specifically he came only for the Jews.

Proof? I have never seen an argument for this so I cannot anticipate what to attack.

As for your end times quotations, we can dismiss them becasue the gospel was not preached to all nations and those prophecies never came to pass. That generation died without seeing the conclusion they hoped for. Even 2000 years later the church has still failed in regard to their mission. All nations (extended families) have still not heard the gospel and it looks doubtful that that will ever be achieved.

But we will succeed.

But back to my point. I'm not sure you have even tried to defend the Biblical version of God's immoral actions. If Christians are meant to be like God I can understand why they are so immoral at times. No wonder born again Bush is so fond of death and destruction.

His actions were for the end of creating a Jewish state that could not otherwise exist. Without these actions, the state would have toppled and the climax that God was looking for, in coming to the earth as Christ, could never be achieved because the most core doctrines would not have been promulgated.

In order for there to be a world prepared for the teahings of Christ there must be an entire heritage of other teachings and lessons.

 

[AgnosticMike]

G’day JM VERVILLE



Are you a politician? I’m glad you’re not a teacher in the church as I don’t think anyone would get their questions answered. I suppose you need to define your own version of moral as we obviously have different standards of morality. My version of morality starts with the sacredness of all life and is about liberating people from political, religious and moral oppression. I believe that selfishness is OK in so far as it doesn’t adversely affect other people. That ethic extends to the natural world too in many ways.



You may not see God’s unchanging nature as a point but the Bible certainly does. Are you prepared to throw that particular doctrine out? You seem to have missed my question or at least misunderstood it. I agree that humanities standards do change as society evolves. However, God seems to be suffering from schizophrenia in that he creates life and then commands other people to destroy it. He then creates being he knows will destroy more ie Satan. Are these the actions of a moral God?



I understand you point about God’s teachings evolving. My Jehovah’s Witness friends say the same thing. They say that there is a constant tacking but always in the one general direction. I just wonder who decides when the teachings of God change. I have other friends who are dispensationalists and who believe that in each of the seven periods of Biblical time God’s teachings have changed. It all gets very complicated and hard to swallow. It looks like you can just decide to change things when the oven gets a bit hot.



As for God creating political powers as cradles for important lessons. You should outline those lessons.



Proof about the Centurion. Well there is not a lot that can be proven from external evidence. However, my reading of the Bible shows me that he had “faith”. Now I doubt that Jesus was praising him for his faith in Caesar or any of the other deities. So that makes him at least a God fearer or a proselyte. The point that Jesus makes “greater faith than any Israelite he had met” certainly gives him a big rap and indicates a worthy faith. If this faith is about a renewed heart and mind well it looks like Jesus is attributing this to him.



I’m not sure it was Jesus’ religion. He was a Jew through and through and he did not seem to have his own religion. As for Jesus saying he only came for the Jew you will find it in Matthew. Firstly in Matt 10:5,6 he sends his disciple to only the lost sheep of Israel. Secondly in Matt15:24 he states “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel”.



Finally, I think it’s strange that you make comments that you don’t have a problem with the morality of God. Of course you don’t! you’re a Christian. You must understand we are not discussing your feelings but my own feelings that God is immoral. As such the burden of proof lies in your court.



As for succeeding, what do you do to further Jesus’ message. Another of the great ironies of Christian belief is the unwillingness to take the message of Jesus to others. I am interested in your part of this mission. Words are often cheap and I am more than willing to testify to my own morality and message of hope, are you?



As for the Jewish State. Are you saying that Jesus failed in that mission? You may have to elaborate here because I’m not sure what you are getting at.

 

[imperfectchristian]

If followers of the Biblical version of God are supposed to be like him it is not unusual that there is so much immorality within the Christian religions. The idea of not murdering someone seems good, until the being that gives the command, then demands that all the Caananites be killed. Even that is not so bad until we see the Israelite people being allowed to spare the virgins. What is going on here? I'm not sure how this can be justified.

Interested in your comments

Agnostic Mike

I can understand....I would most definitely spare the virgins....unless they were really ugly.....I mean they would have to be really, really ugly for me not to spare them. Think of the morale builder here for the israeli men... men would be signing up to fight left and right if they did something like that today.....Go Army....

 

[TheThinker2]

I can understand where you're coming from Mike.

I also have an isue with the morality of God. However, my definition of God is "the one who put us here in the first place"and is more powerful than us" (maybe he is not even omnipotent as otherwise why is the Devil still around except as a ploy) rather than some perfect being. It is probably true, especially if you look at the Bible that God is not as moral as he makes out, and seems to "choose" special people and thereby exercise favouritism. But then, if this it the God we're stuck with, and he's got the power to send us to hell (unless he's lying so that we fear him?) then our only option is to surrender or rebel or suffer the consequences.....whatever they may be.......being a person of principle, i'm leaning more to the rebel and suffer the conseuences side of things at the moment

 

[AgnosticMike]

G'day to TheThinker.

You make some valuable observations in my opinion. The fact that you are prepared to question the sterotypical idea of God reveals that you are a person who thinks about things. Let's face it the real God (if there is one) may be like the Bible version of God or he, it or whatever may be quite different. The average Christians don't seems to be able to offer much in way of a reasonable response to this question of God's morality.

I think if Christians are serious about spreading their "good news" it should at least sound like good news. At the moment the news looks fairly dismall. I'm not sure I'm ready to surrender my thinking to Christianity or my life to a being who is a tyrant even if it is the only choice.

Thanks again, I appreciated your observations

 

[AgnosticMike]

Well that was the land promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and God fulfilled His promise.
In their dreams!!!!

Yes another example of immorality, broken promises.

 

[Torchwood]

If you view god in the traditional sense, then yes he is moral. As a creator and supreme being, he has different rules for himself then for his children. Any parent or pet owner can easily understand the morality of god.

It is impossible for god to be immoral from a religion standpoint. I do not let my pets kill, yet I may have to kill them if they become ill, or injured badly. If my dog killed someone, I might have to put him down. I can go to war in the military to drive other people from my lands. I might not allow my dog to do the same to other animals coming to his yard.

We give our children rules, that we do not follow, nor do we as adults need to follow. Tell your children not to start fights, but our country might have to go to war, or censor another country because of its actions.

We decide life and death over bugs, animals, other people. Those things do not make us immoral. The reasons behind them might.

You cannot bring a being so far above you to task for its choices, or actions.

 

[AgnosticMike]

If you view god in the traditional sense, then yes he is moral. As a creator and supreme being, he has different rules for himself then for his children. Any parent or pet owner can easily understand the morality of god.

It is impossible for god to be immoral from a religion standpoint. I do not let my pets kill, yet I may have to kill them if they become ill, or injured badly. If my dog killed someone, I might have to put him down. I can go to war in the military to drive other people from my lands. I might not allow my dog to do the same to other animals coming to his yard.

We give our children rules, that we do not follow, nor do we as adults need to follow. Tell your children not to start fights, but our country might have to go to war, or censor another country because of its actions.

We decide life and death over bugs, animals, other people. Those things do not make us immoral. The reasons behind them might.

You cannot bring a being so far above you to task for its choices, or actions.

I don't view God in any sense actually, but I am curious about your thoughts.

So God's rules are different from ours you are saying. So I thought that being "holy" was all about being like God.

You talk about going to war to drive people from your land. What makes it yours? I thought it all belonged to God.

Look the point is that if we aim at being "holy" like God then we all become pshycopathic killers deciding who so stay and who should go. Have you read Numbers 34 for example. Kill all the Caananites but just keep the virgins for yourselves.

 

[ebia]

If you view god in the traditional sense, then yes he is moral. As a creator and supreme being, he has different rules for himself then for his children. Any parent or pet owner can easily understand the morality of god.

If God sets his own morality, then it's is meaningless to call him moral.

It is impossible for god to be immoral from a religion standpoint. I do not let my pets kill, yet I may have to kill them if they become ill, or injured badly. If my dog killed someone, I might have to put him down. I can go to war in the military to drive other people from my lands. I might not allow my dog to do the same to other animals coming to his yard.

But both sets of rules are informed by the same morality.

We give our children rules, that we do not follow, nor do we as adults need to follow. Tell your children not to start fights, but our country might have to go to war, or censor another country because of its actions.

Most parents are hypocrites, therefore God is a hypocrite?

You cannot bring a being so far above you to task for its choices, or actions.

So not only is it impossible for us to become Christlike, it is immoral for us even to aspire to it.

 

[AgnosticMike]

G’day Ebia



If I may comment



The Biblical version of God is somewhat schizophrenic. That is probably better than hypocritical.



As for being Christlike: I find this whole idea rather hard to grab a hold of. I tend to think the idea of Jesus may have been propped up by people wanting to establish their new religion. I think your fellow Anglican John Spong even gravitates to this idea. I cannot be certain, but find the myth of Jesus a largely worthy aspiration. I do so also for Ghandi, Fred Hollows and many other great people.



So no it is not immoral to aspire to the ethic of Jesus as told in the Sermon on the Mount. I do have problems with some other stuff but. When it comes to the larger picture of God it all gets very ugly. I’m talking about all that Old Testament stuff.

 

[ebia]

G’day Ebia



If I may comment



The Biblical version of God is somewhat schizophrenic. That is probably better than hypocritical.

Perhaps both. Or maybe schizophrenics are prone to being hypocritical - I should ask my other half.

As for being Christlike: I find this whole idea rather hard to grab a hold of. I tend to think the idea of Jesus may have been propped up by people wanting to establish their new religion. I think your fellow Anglican John Spong even gravitates to this idea. I cannot be certain, but find the myth of Jesus a largely worthy aspiration. I do so also for Ghandi, Fred Hollows and many other great people.

No problem with that (with the caveat that I know next to nothing about Fred Hollows and I'm not a fan of +Spong).

So no it is not immoral to aspire to the ethic of Jesus as told in the Sermon on the Mount. I do have problems with some other stuff but. When it comes to the larger picture of God it all gets very ugly. I’m talking about all that Old Testament stuff.

Which is all fine if you look at it as an ancient people coming to grips with the nature of God and their relationship with him. If you treat it as an accurate portrayal of God then yes, that God would need locking up, or at least some pretty heavy medication.

 

[AgnosticMike]

Oh Ebia and you call yourself an Aussie.

The great man who gave his life for the poor and gave sight to the blind. Certainly a Aussie saint. A man who lived the mission of Jesus more than any other Australian I know.

 

[ebia]

Oh Ebia and you call yourself an Aussie.

Um no. I'm a pom who just happens to live here.

 

[MQTA]

Pom?