Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
November 20, 2012 at 11:49 pm (This post was last modified: November 20, 2012 at 11:49 pm by Darkstar.)
How is it that the god of the bible (Yahweh) is called a moral being? Sometimes I have heard theists (mainly Drich) say he is 'righteous'. From how the word has been used, one can only draw the conclusion that 'righteous' = objectively moral. Whenever a story of god's immorality surfaces, one of the following apologetic arguments is used as a retort:
That was the OT.
You just don't understand the customs of the day.
Who are you to judge god?
Let's look at the first one. What did Jesus really say?
Matthew 5:17-20
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
He does not appear to have made any attempt to overturn them. Now, what if he did overturn them? This could only mean that god had made imperfect laws before.
Now, we will examine the second defense. This defense hurts its own argument more than it helps. If the laws of the OT coincide with the inferior moral views of the day (i.e. slavery permitted, semi-regular mass murders, etc.) then this is more evidence that they were created by human minds. After all, Jesus said
Ephesians 6:5-8
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.
Who are we to question his infalliable wisdom?
Oh, by total coincidence (seriously) that leads us into the final defense. Saying that we are simply not allowed to be critical of something god does is simply more evidence that his actions could not actually be defended if they were ever questioned. In order for this to be a valid argument, one would first have to prove that god was a perfectly moral being. Using the bible (it's true because it said it's true) isn't a very good method, but it seems to be the only method at all. Feel free to bring up particular examples of god's immorality for the theists to challenge (or ignore). The first immoral act of god's was his punishing Adam and Eve for commiting an act he deemed immoral. As god created them to be amoral, and even forbid them from eating the fruit that would allow them to understand morality, they could not possibly have known that god had commanded them not to eat it for any reason other thanit killing them. When the snake told them it wouldn't kill them, they no longer had any reason not to eat it.
John Adams Wrote:The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.
The answer is simple:
1) The person in charge decides what's immoral or not.
2) God is in Charge.
3) Therefore, God gets to decide that he is the paragon of morality.
And the sad thing is that however well you argue, there will be people who will argue basically the same thing as I did, except seriously.
Comparing the Universal Oneness of All Life to Yo Mama since 2010.
I was born with the gift of laughter and a sense the world is mad.
November 21, 2012 at 12:25 am (This post was last modified: November 21, 2012 at 12:25 am by Darkstar.)
Yeah, pretty much. The thing theists fail to recognize is that being in charge and writing the rules doesn't make them good rules by default. Yahweh is referred to a number of times as a jealous god. How is this the paragon of morality?
November 21, 2012 at 3:09 am (This post was last modified: November 21, 2012 at 3:12 am by Ryantology.)
I do not remember for certain, but I believe it was Drich who once outright admitted that God's authority comes, ultimately, from his infinite power. He has, on several occasions, asserted that God is not subject to judgement on the basis of human morals.
I will accept this in exchange for an admission that, going by that same logic, we cannot apply human standards of "righteousness" or "good", just as we cannot apply human standards of "morals". In other words, God is "good" only in the sense that he says he is, by his own standards in other words. What humans consider "good" does not apply to God.
This would actually be useful for the theist, as it resolves the idea of a "good" God with the inarguable fact that God is a horrible monster and that, by the standards of any non-psychopathic human, there is nothing good about him at all, and that God is "righteous" only by his own standards, whereas by our standards he would be the worst sort of criminal.
November 21, 2012 at 4:53 am (This post was last modified: November 21, 2012 at 4:54 am by Aractus.)
(November 20, 2012 at 11:49 pm)Darkstar Wrote: Whenever a story of god's immorality surfaces, one of the following apologetic arguments is used as a retort:
That was the OT.
You just don't understand the customs of the day.
Who are you to judge god?
Let's look at the first one. What did Jesus really say?
Matthew 5:17-20
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
He does not appear to have made any attempt to overturn them. Now, what if he did overturn them? This could only mean that god had made imperfect laws before.
A pretty weak straw man argument...
Quote:Now, we will examine the second defense. This defense hurts its own argument more than it helps. If the laws of the OT coincide with the inferior moral views of the day (i.e. slavery permitted, semi-regular mass murders, etc.) then this is more evidence that they were created by human minds. After all, Jesus said
Ephesians 6:5-8
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.
Who are we to question his infalliable wisdom?
No, Paul said that and his scribe wrote it down, Jesus didn't say what you just quoted.
Picking and choosing the parts of the Bible when God is angry is not going to help your argument. Consider John 14:6-11 (Jesus did say this one FYI):
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”
Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.
(John 14:6-11)
If the character of God is as immoral as you claim, then you would be able to prove it by showing everyone that the character of Jesus is immoral. But if, on the other hand, you find that the character of Jesus is moral then it can only mean that the character of God is moral. I look forward to seeing you address this specifically.
(November 20, 2012 at 11:49 pm)Darkstar Wrote: Whenever a story of god's immorality surfaces, one of the following apologetic arguments is used as a retort:
That was the OT.
You just don't understand the customs of the day.
Who are you to judge god?
Let's look at the first one. What did Jesus really say?
Matthew 5:17-20
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
He does not appear to have made any attempt to overturn them. Now, what if he did overturn them? This could only mean that god had made imperfect laws before.
A pretty weak straw man argument...
Quote:Now, we will examine the second defense. This defense hurts its own argument more than it helps. If the laws of the OT coincide with the inferior moral views of the day (i.e. slavery permitted, semi-regular mass murders, etc.) then this is more evidence that they were created by human minds. After all, Jesus said
Ephesians 6:5-8
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.
Who are we to question his infalliable wisdom?
No, Paul said that and his scribe wrote it down, Jesus didn't say what you just quoted.
Picking and choosing the parts of the Bible when God is angry is not going to help your argument. Consider John 14:6-11 (Jesus did say this one FYI):
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”
Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.
(John 14:6-11)
If the character of God is as immoral as you claim, then you would be able to prove it by showing everyone that the character of Jesus is immoral. But if, on the other hand, you find that the character of Jesus is moral then it can only mean that the character of God is moral. I look forward to seeing you address this specifically.
Before we address Jesus's morality( btw cursing a fig tree for being out of season is not a moral act) you first have to prove that he ever actually existed.
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
November 21, 2012 at 5:11 am (This post was last modified: November 21, 2012 at 5:14 am by Gilgamesh.)
(November 21, 2012 at 4:53 am)Daniel Wrote: A pretty weak straw man argument...
Clarify.
Quote:No, Paul said that and his scribe wrote it down, Jesus didn't say what you just quoted.
Okay.
Do you want to address this, now:
(November 20, 2012 at 11:49 pm)Darkstar Wrote: If the laws of the OT coincide with the inferior moral views of the day (i.e. slavery permitted, semi-regular mass murders, etc.) then this is more evidence that they were created by human minds.
?
Quote:Picking and choosing the parts of the Bible when God is angry is not going to help your argument.
Yes, it will. The topic at hand is about justification of Yahweh's immoralities. Bringing up a case where god is happy and does something nice wouldn't be relevant here.
Quote:If the character of God is as immoral as you claim, then you would be able to prove it by showing everyone that the character of Jesus is immoral.
November 21, 2012 at 5:58 am (This post was last modified: November 21, 2012 at 6:00 am by Aractus.)
(November 21, 2012 at 5:11 am)Gilgamesh Wrote:
(November 20, 2012 at 11:49 pm)Darkstar Wrote: Whenever a story of god's immorality surfaces, one of the following apologetic arguments is used as a retort:
That was the OT.
You just don't understand the customs of the day.
Who are you to judge god?
Let's look at the first one. What did Jesus really say?
Matthew 5:17-20
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
He does not appear to have made any attempt to overturn them. Now, what if he did overturn them? This could only mean that god had made imperfect laws before.
(November 21, 2012 at 4:53 am)Daniel Wrote: A pretty weak straw man argument...
Clarify.
We begin with the assumption that God is immoral and the Bible recounts examples of this. It is then claimed that Christians typically resort to "explaining away" immorality due to obviously bad arguments - that was the OT, it's out of context, we can't judge God. Having already assumed God to be immoral, Darkstar goes on to claim that since Christians acknowledge the Law of Moses is immoral (we don't) that Jesus should have overturned them, and since we ourselves don't follow them it "must mean" that it is immoral. This is an obvious straw man.
1. The law of Moses doesn't bring righteousness.
Romans 4:1-3: What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”
Galatians 3:1-7: O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith—just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?
2. The law of Moses represents an old covenant. The new covenant in Christ is able to stand on its own and does not need to be yoked-together with the law of Moses.
Acts 15:7-11: And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”
3. The law of Moses was a continuation of covenants that God had made with his chosen people (the Hebrews, the Israelites, the Jews) to set them apart from the world. Christ represents a new covenant for all people "Greek and Jew". The covenant between God and Moses was for the Israelites, thus the covenants were made by the forefathers of the Jews. The covenant was not made for the gentile nations, their forefathers did not have covenants with God. Thus Christ brought a new covenant for the whole world - not to make existing covenants "obsolete" or "abolished".
Matthew 11:27-30: All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”
Galatians 5:22-23: But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
Quote:Do you want to address this, now:
"If the laws of the OT coincide with the inferior moral views of the day (i.e. slavery permitted, semi-regular mass murders, etc.) then this is more evidence that they were created by human minds."
?
Slavery in the Bible will take a good while to discuss. Deut 23:15 for instance says that slaves that have "escaped" their masters are not to be returned to their former masters. If the Jewish men had sex with their female slaves they had to either marry them (this would give them equal rights as to their Jewish wives) or free them. Jews were not allowed to have their slaves work on the Sabbath. Male slaves had to be freed after 7 years of service (or otherwise they could choose to remain a slave to their master). Etc. Slaves had extensive rights, something other cultures did not give them.
![[Image: harmlesskitchen.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/yxR97P23/harmlesskitchen.png)
![[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo112%2Fpussinboots_photos%2FBikes%2Fmybannerglitter06eee094.gif)
