Why do Christians trust YHWH?

[RobbyPants]

If we define the killings as moral and just, then they would be tautologically moral and just, and I wouldn't be offended by them. I don't think microxone was making that assumption, though.

You don't define them as moral and just, you understand that they are. Microxone was making the opposite assumption.

So the stance is "If you accept killings by God as moral and just, would you be offended by them?". That sounds like even more of a tautology. That, or we're completely talking past each other.

Oh well. I'm willing to drop this if we're talking past each other, as it was a side point to the OP, anyway.

[Rampant.A.I.]

When we look at an historical narrative, it's reasonable to consider the author as a product of their time period. Freud was a Victorian, and if he diagnoses a woman as Hysterical, or endorses the use of cocaine for treatment, we take that as an historical belief later revised.

You cannot do this with the Bible and still believe the Bible is the word of God. The OT is filled with direct quotes he supernatural being himself commanding slaughter, rape, torture, and destruction. The NT quotes Jesus as endorsing slavery, demanding execution of his enemies, outlining the jealousy of the son and the father, and threats of wrath for disobedience.

None of this is presented as information from historical sources, but as direct quotes from a supernatural entity, who also seems to be a product of the time period in which the Bible was written.

While it's easy to blame the errancy of man, and claim that God and Jesus were simply misquoted every time we don't like the implication of what they're saying, it doesn't make sense to do this with a divinely inspired, perfectly edited text with direct divine quotes.

It becomes not a critical reading of the text where the characters actions and statements line up with what we're told about them, but an exercise in apologetics: selectively reading around the parts we don't like, to create the message we want to hear.

If the Bible were as perfect a literary work as claimed, and presented the message many Christians claim it does, "you're not reading it the right way" would be nonsensical.

[Chad32]

I remember reading about women being treated for "hysteria". Basically they're horny, and it stated that one treatment was to stimulate the vagina. It's funny because people were so deep in the belief that women aren't supposed to want it, that they come up with stuff like this instead of just admitting that sometimes both genders need sex in their lives.

Sorry if that was off topic, but I agree that we can't just say these people are a product of their time, because they're supposed to be inspired by an all knowing being that should know better. Even we, in the twenty first century, will most likely be looked at as primitive and backwards compared to people centuries ahead, despite having a government that's predominantly christian.

[fr0d0]

So the stance is "If you accept killings by God as moral and just, would you be offended by them?". That sounds like even more of a tautology. That, or we're completely talking past each other.

Oh well. I'm willing to drop this if we're talking past each other, as it was a side point to the OP, anyway.

It was indeed a rhetorical question, highlighting the chasm of interpretation between accurate representation, and the deliberately inaccurate, like the skeptics annotated bible, for example.

---

I don't think he meant they thought differently than what they wrote down. They were just wrong in what they thought was just and loving and merciful.

From our interpretation of what is moral. Not theirs.

Esq, we've had this conversation before. I don't believe you have no memory of it. Your stance is that killing babies, for example, is most definitely immoral. Yet you can provide no reasoning to support the notion that your knowledge can be equal to that of Gods. You cannot fairly judge without that knowledge. That's where we left it. I'm not about to repeat that whole pointless argument with other variables, because you need to answer the challenge that covers all variables.

[Esquilax]

From our interpretation of what is moral. Not theirs.

Are you a moral relativist, then?

Esq, we've had this conversation before. I don't believe you have no memory of it. Your stance is that killing babies, for example, is most definitely immoral. Yet you can provide no reasoning to support the notion that your knowledge can be equal to that of Gods.

And at the time, I'm sure I told you that I live in a reality that exists around me, and independent of my opinions, through which the effects of actions can be monitored, and the harm or benefit of those actions determined.

How is that reality equal to god's knowledge? Well, for one, that reality definitely, really exists.

You cannot fairly judge without that knowledge. That's where we left it. I'm not about to repeat that whole pointless argument with other variables, because you need to answer the challenge that covers all variables.

Right, you want the same sort of simplistic, glib answer that you've decided to accept from god, and if I don't have one of these easy, "god sez so!" answers, then I must be wrong, eh?

Sorry, but morality is a big subject that encompasses a lot of variables. Something being more complicated than you'd like doesn't suddenly make your easy answers true. You're still starting at a presupposition you haven't been able to justify, whereas I can easily point to the real world.

[fr0d0]

The complexity of morality maskes absolutely no difference to the point you have to defend which covers all of them. The question is very simple that you have to answer. Your just being a jerk as usual.

Yeah we're stuck in the real world addressing the two world problem. The one here is: will you ever get a clue. It's nothing to do with God. It's to do with your knowledge of right and wrong. If you aren't all knowing, how are you able to judge anything that you don't have full knowledge of? You can't. So all of your accusations are best guesses.

Then we have a whole ruck of deliberate and blatant misunderstanding, which to my mind is you being deliberately dishonest. I have no doubt of that. For this reason, i'm out of this once again, pointless exchange with you.

You are a fool.

[Esquilax]

Yeah we're stuck in the real world addressing the two world problem. The one here is: will you ever get a clue. It's nothing to do with God. It's to do with your knowledge of right and wrong. If you aren't all knowing, how are you able to judge anything that you don't have full knowledge of? You can't. So all of your accusations are best guesses.

You'd... judge according to the best information you have at the time? Like everyone else does, for every other situation imaginable?

Why is this a problem? The only possible way my lack of omniscience is even an issue is if you're able to provide evidence of some actually omniscient, better source of moral wisdom that I'm not taking advantage of, and even then you'd be using your own moral judgment, based on your own incomplete knowledge, to determine whether or not that source is providing moral wisdom. You haven't solved this problem, you've just added an extra layer of complexity to it.

And as for the evidence side of things, all you've presented are ad hominems.

[fr0d0]

And as for the evidence side of things, all you've presented are ad hominems.

There cannot logically be empirical (transferable/ verifiable externally/ independently verifiable) evidence of the supernatural.

This is simple, logically bomb proof fact.

Move on.

[Esquilax]

There cannot logically be empirical (transferable/ verifiable externally/ independently verifiable) evidence of the supernatural.

This is simple, logically bomb proof fact.

Move on.

If there can't be evidence beyond your own subjective experience, then there's no rational reason for me to believe the thing in question exists at all, barring some experience with it myself.

And even then it's shaky.

[RobbyPants]

There cannot logically be empirical (transferable/ verifiable externally/ independently verifiable) evidence of the supernatural.

This is simple, logically bomb proof fact.

This is true, although, in the context of whether or not we can judge God's actions, I think we can look at two cases:

1) God exists: So, God is real, we can't prove he is real, he does things we can't comprehend, and we can't judge him for it. It's basically the case you're making.

2) God doesn't exist (at least, this version doesn't exist): God is not real and is the product of a culture vastly different than ours. They condone things that we find immoral.

I'm not going to invoke Occam's Razor to "prove" number two is correct, but working from stance number two, we judge that culture as having really twisted morals (regardless of being products of their culture) and thus, the god they create has twisted morals, too.

I understand it's logically possible for there to exist someone smarter than us that would be difficult or impossible for us to judge, but the best apologetics on the matter always come off as "I know it looks bad, but it's not, and I can't explain why".