Morality in the Bible

[play_smom]

Hey - don't hold back. Hit the red button top right.

If you don't like the response don't ask the questions.

This is the apologetics board and your come bearing questions that are designed to provoke responses the answers to which you already know but lie in wait so you can promote atheist theology.

I'm a little short of sympathy for those who want to have a bit of fun tonight with much of my home state underwater.

But I will make some deletions.

I am not interested in getting you warned. Yes, I do come bearing questions, but I have done nothing to cause you to assume that I am "lying in wait" of anything. I am interested in the responses. I have promoted nothing, especially not atheist theology, especially because there is no such thing. Atheists don't have a theology, so that's sort of an impossibility isn't it?

I'm a little short of sympathy for those who want to have a bit of fun tonight with much of my home state underwater.

What? I don't even know what this means.

Also, I posted up anew question that we can focus on.

 

[wayseer]

You still don't get it. This is a Christians only board. What you have to say here does not matter as this is where God 'talks' and as you don't believe in God what is said here could not matter to you.

 

[play_smom]

*sigh* Yes, I now realize it is a christians only board. Before I suddenly cease posting, I would like to figure out why it is so and also settle the discussions I had already begun.

Don't tell me what can and cannot matter to me.

Atheist or not, I enjoy reading these topics as well as responding to them and having civilized discussions. I do not enjoy being told what I, as an atheist, can and cannot do. I, in fact, do care what god 'allegedly' has to say. I am in fact midway through reading the bible to find out what he says, because it does matter to me. I am also considering reading up on the Quran because I do in fact care.

 

[dana b]

There have been just three forms of govenment on this earth. They are written into the Holy Bible.

First when Adam and Eve were sent out into the world they followed the serpent's govenment of survival of the fittest. It is the origial law of nature and that is why in Revelations 20;2 it calls him "that old serpent." This way of govenment breeds vitality into whatever enviournment it is in such as vegetative, animal or human society. But it does nothing for the spirit and the soul of man. For the first 2000 years after Adam and Eve people followed this system. All of the first people mentioned in the Bible from Adam through Noah and then on to the 12 tribes of Israel they were still living just for themselves. They never gave thought or heed to the conditions or situations of the Egyptians or Amorites as they travelled through their counties. God helped them survive but at this time they were in it just for their selfish selves.

Then after the 12 tribes crossed the Jordan River they entered not just a new land but a new way of life. This was a life following the "law of justice." Moses taught them to follow justice by encripting a code onto stone and later parchment and paper. "An eye for an eye and a toothe for a tooth" was a fair way of govenment. But it did nothing for the human sense of compassion and mercy. At this time they followed justice and equality but were still selfish like the serpent. This government of justice also lasted for about 2000 years. The Apostle Paul tells us that the law was put in place as a school for us until the next phase of our growing up.

When Jesus Christ arrived he said "the kingdom of heaven is here, It is within you." This is because the next step above Moses's law of justice was to add to it "compassion and mercy." Jesus said " I come not to do away with Moses's law but to fufill it and magnify it." By adding compassion and mercy to the law of justice humanity can at last fulfull it's destiny of being Godlike. "Ye are Gods" it says in the Bible. This is how we are Gods. It applies only when we act like God by being just, kind and mercyful.

So these are the three laws in our world.

 

[Hamish MacWolf]

*sigh* Yes, I now realize it is a christians only board. Before I suddenly cease posting, I would like to figure out why it is so and also settle the discussions I had already begun.

Don't tell me what can and cannot matter to me.

Atheist or not, I enjoy reading these topics as well as responding to them and having civilized discussions. I do not enjoy being told what I, as an atheist, can and cannot do. I, in fact, do care what god 'allegedly' has to say. I am in fact midway through reading the bible to find out what he says, because it does matter to me. I am also considering reading up on the Quran because I do in fact care.

Play, (can I call you Play?),

I rarely throw scripture around, as many Christians use the bible as some kind of argumentative flamethrower, thinking that once you've hosed a few verses at someone, the job is done.

But I thought it would be particularly applicable here:

From Matthew 7.
“Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. 2 For you will be treated as you treat others. The standard you use in judging is the standard by which you will be judged.
3 “And why worry about a speck in your friend’s eye when you have a log in your own? 4 How can you think of saying to your friend, ‘Let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,’ when you can’t see past the log in your own eye? 5 Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend’s eye.

6 “Don’t waste what is holy on people who are unholy. Don’t throw your pearls to pigs! They will trample the pearls, then turn and attack you."

Let me quickly say, I am not "aiming" this at you. I wanted to say that I've seen Christians on this forum do exactly what Jesus is telling them in this passage not to do. And for yourself, when you come up against someone who clearly is not interested in informed discussion, but simply defending their own position in a priggish manner - remember, don't throw pearls before swine. You'll only get bit.

Ignore them, and move on.

Best wishes, Hamish.

 

[play_smom]

Yes, you may call me play. I also will go by smom.

Thank you so much for the support and if we cannot work out a way to discuss i this forum, perhaps a different forum would be better.

 

[Harry3142]

Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin. (Deuteronomy 24:16,NIV)

The mindset of mankind after 'the fall' necessitated their encountering obstacles. The pain of childbirth gave women cause to ponder whether they wanted to get pregnant (and yes, they knew how it was accomplished). They knew that frivolous relations could lead to disaster, so they formed their societies so as to have structure. This involved having laws which regulated when a woman should both legally and morally think of becoming pregnant and bearing children. They would need the help and assistance of others in the community, and a structured society would incorporate this into their customs.

As for stoning others for their offenses, we need to recognize the time in which their society existed. It was a hard time, with enemies around them who were quite willing to wipe them from the face of the earth. In order to remain strong their society also had to remain cohesive, with everyone being in lockstep concerning what was to be permitted and what was to be seen as detrimental to their strength, and thus their survival.

In such a society discipline would be harsh, but necessary. Those who willfully violated their laws weren't just asserting their independence. They were endangering the cohesiveness of the society that they were a part of, and it was that cohesiveness that made the Hebrews a formidable foe in battle. The offenders had to be dealt with in such a way as to send a clear message to others that the society they were in was not about to approve of their actions.

 

[Hamish MacWolf]

I see you point and while I don't agree with you that hell is a consequence, not a punishment, there's not a lot in your post that I can argue. It makes sense, but I disagree with it at its very foundation. I think maybe I should think of a new question to talk about....

That's grand. Did you have a new question rattling around your mind?

Your first question was a good one, and I like your openness of thought.

Seems a bit rare round these parts...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So I have a couple questions that I would like to hear responses to about the bible and the morality of its content, but sine threads tend to get muddled up, maybe it's better to look at them one at a time. I would appreciate if comments were directed only at the question at hand or one that has already been asked in this thread.

1. Is it moral to punish a person for his/her ancestor's sins?

2. Is stoning a person to death moral?

Please don't answer with: "It's moral because god did it and if it wasn't moral god wouldn't have done it because god is perfect". This argument is circular and useless. What I'm basically asking for is whether or not god's actions are moral and why or why not.


All responses are appreciated and I will respond back to as many as I can. Ready Set GO!

1. Yes
2. Yes

Why? - 'Divine Command Theory'

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Okay here is an example situation.

When Judith was a little girl, she stole a cookie from the cookie jar in her kitchen. He parents were very angry with her and punished her by spanking her until she said she was sorry. When Judith grew up and moved out, she married and had a son, Jimmy. When Jimmy's grandparents (Judith's parents) saw Jimmy, they were angry with him for the crime his mother (Judith) had committed. So they spanked him, telling him they would not stop unless he apologized for what Judith had done. Is this just?

Sure, since the 'apple never falls very far from the tree'.

If she did it, he probably will too. Might as well drill it into him now.

 

[play_smom]

1. Yes
2. Yes

Why? - 'Divine Command Theory'

Care to elaborate? I'm not sure what Divine Command Theory is, so either you can explain, or I'll have to pull out the good old google.

 

[beforHim]

((coming in WAY late))

I'll help clear some things up for you, play_smom


Divine Command Theory- remember what you said in your first post, "it's good because God said so"? That's divine command theory. Most of us here don't agree with this.


ANE = Ancient Near East. In other words, the Middle east plus some surrounding area (Turkey, Egypt) way back in the days of old.


While wayseer (nor anyone else, I'm guessing) might not need someone to defend him, he is a very good and kind Christian. Cranky sometimes it seems- but that's because he's "no BS" when it comes to Christianity: he takes it quiet seriously! But anyway, he has very good insights most of the time, and does genuinely care. Just sayin'.
((and I'm guessing he was referring to the massive flooding in Australia))



Ezekiel chp 18 is a whole chapter in Ezekiel were God is explaining to Ezekiel that the someone is NOT punished for another's sin. it says the son is not punished for the parents sins. Doesn't answer the Adam and Eve question I know- but just thought I'd explain the chapter a little more for you.

I rarely throw scripture around, as many Christians use the bible as some kind of argumentative flamethrower, thinking that once you've hosed a few verses at someone, the job is done.

That's probably the most awesome thing I've seen typed on these boards yet. I'm totally down with this.




OK, hope this helps a bit- some of these have already been hit upon, but just thought some "tidying up" might help this get along. Cheers!

 

[play_smom]

I suspected that's what it was (Divine COmmand THeory), but I was hoping that i was wrong. *Sigh*

THank you beforHim

 

[beforHim]

1. Is it moral to punish a person for his/her ancestor's sins?

Nope.

But this lead into Adam and Eve. 2 things:
a) I challenge anyone to find anywere in scripture were it says, without the shadow of a doubt, that we are held responsible for what they did. Can't find it. You can find some very confusing scriptures which might seem to say something like that. . . but you can't can't can't find the Bible saying exactly that. Plus someone who did say they found this in the Bible would still need to contend with Deuteronomy 24 and Ezekiel 18. So, please rest assured that no matter how many fundamentalist Christians you've heard say this stuff, I promise- it's really not that clear.

But more importantly to me,
2) If our concept of God includes love and justice, then this couldn't be the case. I've been tempted many times to chuck the OT- except it is very inspiring and has many good lessons and can, for the most part, be explained and coped with. But I'm not prepared to accept a God who is not, at it's core, love. I hope this is not me dismissing the question. If so just let me know and I'll think more on it.

Also, Hamish MacWolf made excellent points. I'd suggest reading Rob Bell's "Velvet Elvis" book. He explains the Adam and Eve thing very well for me.

2. Is stoning a person to death moral?

This is the harder question. I actually thought of this the other day, and came across an answer in my head, which actually explains why something as severe and brutal as stoning was actually necessary. BUT- that sounds really, really, reeeeealy bad, I know. saying "something as severe and bvrutal as stoning might be necessary" will probably get me put on the "Fundies say the darndest things" website. Therefore:

a) please rest assured I DO NOT advocate stoning or anything like that. b) I'm gonna think on it more before I try and put it into any kind of orderly format on these forums.



Cool.

 

[play_smom]

1. That makes sense, and I admit that I have no scriptural passage that indicates generational punishment, so I can accept that it may not be the case with Adam and Eve.

2. As for the stoning, I agree that it is a hard thing to conceptualize and rationalize in one's mind. I would love to hear your opinions about it when your thoughts are collected and in order.

 

[beforHim]

I suspected that's what it was (Divine COmmand THeory), but I was hoping that i was wrong. *Sigh*

THank you beforHim

No prob!


I can see the logic, and even the- if you will- desire to believe DCT.
a) If God is eternal, infinite, timeless, then whatever he says is what He says, period. It doesn't matter what we say- it is what it is. And b) if we say "It can't be good just because God said it" seems to say God is "underneath" something, or that God is not limitless. or whatever.

What this does, though, is ignores the finite, the temporal, the time bound. I can't explain it, but if both "planes" do exist- that is, the eternal, infinite, timeless plane, and the temporal, finite, time bound plane- if both exist (and it seems both do, with logic and morals), then we must account for both. People who advocate the DCT don't only account for one, and this is not correct.





Hope this helps, in some way.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Care to elaborate? I'm not sure what Divine Command Theory is, so either you can explain, or I'll have to pull out the good old google.

Play_smom,

In a nutshell, the Divine Command Theory states that what is commanded by God is right.

However, this is not to be understood that God commands x because it is right, but rather x is right because it is commanded by God.

Do keep in mind that there a variations of this theory. One version of the theory is based on God's Power. Another is based on God's impeccability or perfect character. Yet a third on God's absolute centrality; there is nothing of equivalent force besides Him or over Him.

I actually subscribe to a derivation of the Divine Command Theory called Creation Ethics. This version of the theory basically states that what is commanded by Good is good and right because God is the Creator of all. Being the Creator, He knows of the structural integrity of His Creation; His commands are given for it's maintenance and best functioning. In other words, God's will is right because God is Omniscient, and not just simply because He is Omnipotent.

Anyway, that is the simplified, short of it.

 

[play_smom]

Hmm... I still distinctly disagree with the theory though. I can't be satisfied with myself for doing something just because it's what god said if I feel that it is morally wrong. For example, if I heard a child disrespecting his/her parents, I would not stone him/her to death, although that is the punishment laid down by god and is therefore, right.

Morals are not about the way the world was created. Morals are about conscience, they're about recognizing pain in other people, they're about respecting people's rights, and they're about the golden rule.

 

[beforHim]

Like I said, DCT isgnores the temporal, finite, timebound "plane" or "part" of our existence. We must account for the eternal, infinite, timeless aspect as well as the temporal, finite, timebound.

How? I'm not sure, but DCT sure doesn't.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hmm... I still distinctly disagree with the theory though. I can't be satisfied with myself for doing something just because it's what god said if I feel that it is morally wrong. For example, if I heard a child disrespecting his/her parents, I would not stone him/her to death, although that is the punishment laid down by god and is therefore, right.

Morals are not about the way the world was created. Morals are about conscience, they're about recognizing pain in other people, they're about respecting people's rights, and they're about the golden rule.

Well, play_smom, I can understand how you may be reticent to accept it. I would propose the idea that from a prima facie position, a command to kill one's one children is odious and downright despicable. However, again, we haven't gone in depth on this yet, so I am simply going to say that there are other factors to be considered.

About the disrespecting. It is not my understanding that God's commands in the Old Testament direct Jewish parents to stone their Jewish children for every and any infraction. The context of passages of that nature typically address a situation where a child [read child of accountable age - teenager or older] brings reproach on the family for severe misconduct. We're not talking about little kids talking back or saying a cuss word, or some silly tripe like that. No, we're talking about older, juvenile delinquents. Besides, I don't think that many children were stoned to death. The presence of such a law likely acted as a deterrent in a static social structure like that of the Jews of old. Today, in our pluralistic, democratic, non-theocratic society, such laws aren't too effective as preventive measures.

Additionally, without God in the moral equation, it isn't very long before someone wakes up and starts asking questions like, "Says who?!"

For instance, we can take the principle of human rights, and we can accept the principle dogmatically, or we can ask, "Who says human rights are supreme?!" "What makes that codifier of law authoritative?"