Faith vs UnFaith IV

[Dornish]

I would say that the scriptures present God as more along the lines of a morally ambiguous protagonist. Saying that God would be the villain is something of a shallow reading of scripture.

There's nothing morally ambiguous about genocide. And god's an old pro at it.

[Stubby]

God is right not only because He made you and the Universe, but because His law is THE law.

Despite oodles of evidence supporting the existence of moral codes and conduct in cultures existing thousands of years before the Christian religion was conceived, and discounting the philosophies of Eastern religions and cultures that never came into contact with your version of religion, you dismiss that evolution of morality out of hand because it doesn't sit well with your beleif.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

There's nothing morally ambiguous about genocide. And god's an old pro at it.

So you are still at the shallow reading of scripture I see?

[The Stranger]

per the trouble with linen weaves, an oldy but goody

[Dornish]

So you are still at the shallow reading of scripture I see?

Please understand I'm talking about god the character and not the concept. And as I recall the character nixed all life on earth save Noah and his menagerie.

ETA: and before you start on historical context, god doesn't have an historical context god is imaginary. In the story of the flood the god character is quite genocidal.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Please understand I'm talking about god the character and not the concept. And as I recall the character nixed all life on earth save Noah and his menagerie.

Please understand that I am talking about the same. And as I recall vets put down sick and unwanted pets, while park rangers start controlled, periodic forest fires to clear brush.

[Lord Mord]

PWWP,

The main issue I have with the God vs. Human morality argument is that the faithless claim that God's will is unjust because it conflicts with theirs. "Why is God right?" you ask...why are YOU right?!?!?

Well, I have to trust my judgment at some point. Either I have to trust my judgment on each individual law, which seems to me the most responsible choice, or else I have to trust my judgment in the act taking some wild guess and throwing in my lot with (xy), whoever that may be, and accepting whatever that person says in its entirety. This strikes me as an attempt, basically, to escape responsibility and escape having to think.

God is right not only because He made you and the Universe,

Not proved.

If you don't like those laws, that's another thing, but don't tell me God's wrong because you, who are subject to the laws of Universe, don't like them.

Why shouldn't I? Is it rude to tell you how I feel?

It's like a whiney child whining because Daddy told him to clean up his room.

If that's true, then the way the Bible paints the end of this scenario is akin to Daddy reacting to his, oh, admittedly, very whiny little child not picking up his room, by holding him in a dull, dank closet where he tortures him for the rest of his natural life. You say, essentially, "Swell kid," and I say, "Yeah, well, swell fucking dad."

[Dornish]

Please understand that I am talking about the same. And as I recall vets put down sick and unwanted pets, while park rangers start controlled, periodic forest fires to clear brush.

Both examples being poor analogies.

A better analogy to the flood situation would be killing all but five dogs on earth, by drowning. The purveyor of such would be rightly considered a monster by all sane thinking people.

ETA: To be less obtuse, I do see what you're getting at with this line of reasoning. If the god we were discussing were Poseidon rather than Yahweh I'd largely agree. Lots of evil people, what's a god of the sea to do but warn the good ones and send a flood? Yahweh, being omnipotent, has other options, infinite other options.

[Crazydog7]

I'm curious granted I've been out of the threads for awhile has anyone posted this clip from The West Wing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHaVUjjH3EI

Pretty much sums up of the problems I've ever had with my more literalistic family members. Biblical morality is great and the best thing about it is such morality can be whatever you want it to be.

Moral good people are good people because they are good people not because they got this morality out of a 2000 year old book. It it my position that they are good people in spite of all that religion tries to shackle them with.

As for being a soft atheist this is an incredible feeling of liberation to be able to say loudly and with pride I don't have all the answers to all of life's questions. The best part is I couldn't give a shit if someone else ever comes around to my point of view its important to know what I believe (or rather what I don't believe)

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Both examples being poor analogies.

A better analogy to the flood situation would be killing all but five dogs on earth, by drowning. The purveyor of such would be rightly considered a monster by all sane thinking people.

ETA: To be less obtuse, I do see what you're getting at with this line of reasoning. If the god we were discussing were Poseidon rather than Yahweh I'd largely agree. Lots of evil people, what's a god of the sea to do but warn the good ones and send a flood? Yahweh, being omnipotent, has other options, infinite other options.

And therein lies the problem: your modern understanding of omnipotence differs from the various contradictory views of omnipotence held by the ancient authors.

[Dornish]

And therein lies the problem: your modern understanding of omnipotence differs from the various contradictory views of omnipotence held by the ancient authors.

That makes sense. Not very imaginative with the omnipotence then, eh? I suppose Superman's writers have the same problem. But then a rather huge problem arises when the current believers claim their god to be the same as that in the story, and further is eternal and unchanging and Always right.

[The Marquis de Leech]

I've stumbled upon this game, which tests how logically consistent your positions on religious matters actually are:

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.htm

(For the record, I took zero hits, but had to bite one bullet. Basically, while I do not believe in God, I do think that any being worthy of being named God operates outside the realm of rationality).

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

That makes sense. Not very imaginative with the omnipotence then, eh? I suppose Superman's writers have the same problem. But then a rather huge problem arises when the current believers claim their god to be the same as that in the story, and further is eternal and unchanging and Always right.

I would not say that the limitation was one of imagination but of focus. The Bible does not attempt to be a logically consistent book of systematic theology. It takes various events purported, whether mythical or historical, to have happened in the religious history of the Israelite people and uses it to make theological statements about how God acts in history. The Flood story was almost an accepted reality in the ancient Near East. So while God could have potentially acted in 'infinite' ways, those other ways do not matter. What matters is that God did use the waters of the primordial chaos to purge creation.

Furthermore, contradiction is not something that is shunned, but rather, embraced. This is why you will frequently find multiple versions of creation, the flood, various laws or events (i.e., Samuel-Kings and Chronicles) beside or near each other. This is why you will see one testimony on God's righteousness in Proverbs, but one testimony questioning God's righteousness in Ecclesiastes. It's a different mindset. It's like gathering stories about your Grandfather Ernie and placing two contradictory stories in a collection from Ernie's eldest and youngest daughters about "that one time we got in trouble over the cookie jar" as well as the same story from the Ernie's grandson born from his middle son.

[Artas]

Please understand that I am talking about the same. And as I recall vets put down sick and unwanted pets, while park rangers start controlled, periodic forest fires to clear brush.

Yet vets don't put down sick and unwanted *people*, nor do park rangers start fires to burn people. We're talking about human beings here, not about plants or animals. That makes a huge difference. (And even if we were, the scale of the flood matters. As someone said earlier, it's like a vet killing all but a few dogs in the world. Is that supposed to be moral?)

[Falagar]

I have not read the book, but I have been able to find out about the book since you have posted your question. Based upon the various ideas which I have heard the book discusses, then yes, it falls in line with most biblical archaeological and textual thought. There are probably some matters and details that are subject to debate, but that is always the case. Also most biblical theologians do not find these facts problematic, as this is 'stuff' that has been known within the field to some extent or another for some time now. But the Bible Unearthed appears to make most of this information more accessible for the lay reader.

Thanks. :) Was surprised at the archeological indication for the non-existence of the united monarchy, for example, or the anachronistic geography of the exodus, so had to ask. ;) Lots of interesting stuff; great read.

Yet vets don't put down sick and unwanted *people*, nor do park rangers start fires to burn people. We're talking about human beings here, not about plants or animals. That makes a huge difference. (And even if we were, the scale of the flood matters. As someone said earlier, it's like a vet killing all but a few dogs in the world. Is that supposed to be moral?)

My understanding is that the God presented in the Bible isn't necessarily supposed to be morally right in every situation: he's a deity constantly trying to do the right thing and helping out his people - still, he sometimes makes mistakes and/or gets carried away.

[TheLoneliestMonk]

Thanks. :) Was surprised at the archeological indication for the non-existence of the united monarchy, for example, or the anachronistic geography of the exodus. Great read though.

My understanding is that the God presented in the Bible isn't necessarily supposed to be morally right in every situation: he's a deity constantly trying to do the right thing and helping out his people - still, he sometimes makes mistakes.

so god isn't a jerk, it's just a moron? I think I like that even less.

[Falagar]

so god isn't a jerk, it's just a moron? I think I like that even less.

Compared to the other powerful deities of ancient mesopotamia, or the ancient world in general for that matter, this guy's a genius and a saint.

[TheLoneliestMonk]

God's in general have really set the bar low, haven't they.

Makes me feel better about my track record though. The way I see it, as long as I don't kill almost everything, I'm actually nicer than god. Really puts things in perspective.

[the silent speaker]

Do you, then, also follow any of the other Levitical laws in addition to the observance of not wearing wool/linen mix?

I try to. Obviously laws such as those pertaining to the sacrifices apply only when there is a Temple to offer them, and so forth, and I'm not going to claim that I never lied, but I try to keep what applies to me.

alright, i understand the dietary codes and ritual uncleannesss stuff--but why would YHWH care about fabrics?

is there an aitiological explanation

I've seen a suggestion of symbolism connected to Cain and Abel. But in the end, does it matter? It's not like someone is getting hurt. The message could easily be to wean you off of the self-centered notion that God owes you a ruleset that consists wholly of what you would want to do anyway. The assumption that any (even otherwise legitimate) order owes the generic you personally a full justification and can be ignored unless one is proffered is the mark of a four-year-old.

[Lord Mord]

HPZ,

Furthermore, contradiction is not something that is shunned, but rather, embraced. This is why you will frequently find multiple versions of creation, the flood, various laws or events (i.e., Samuel-Kings and Chronicles) beside or near each other. This is why you will see one testimony on God's righteousness in Proverbs, but one testimony questioning God's righteousness in Ecclesiastes. It's a different mindset. It's like gathering stories about your Grandfather Ernie and placing two contradictory stories in a collection from Ernie's eldest and youngest daughters about "that one time we got in trouble over the cookie jar" as well as the same story from the Ernie's grandson born from his middle son.

Is there any attempt to resolve the contradiction, or is it merely supposed that no resolution exists?

If the latter, then what laws are possible, since God's real will is unknowable?