Jump to content

Faith vs UnFaith IV


Lord Mord

Recommended Posts

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.

Curious. I know I have my own issues with the Biblical God, so I am willing to assume that I have selective memory when it comes to the stories. So, if you don't mind, can you list 5 (or a few) of the most outstanding moments of God's charity towards mankind? I'll give you the whole creation bit, given the narrative. So, what is it that God has done since making us that has pushed him from the villain column to the ambiguous column for you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the silent speaker,

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.

The point I think you haven't understood, though, is that when we speak of these things, I don't hear God. I hear only you.

You swagger in here and say this is damned and that is damned and only by giving those things up can I escape retribution. I think you'll have to excuse me for wanting at least some nod to my intellect. I'm not going to get it from God? Then, fine, I'd like to have it from you.

Tell me why I should follow a god that hates what I am, that amounts to something more than "because I say so, dammit!", or I can only conclude that you're trying to con me, and that you haven't even the decency to make your lies plausible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You swagger in here and say this is damned and that is damned and only by giving those things up can I escape retribution.

I haven't used the word "damned" once. Wearing wool and linen is simply prohibited -- and it's prohibited for me, not for you; you're not Jewish. I'm not interested in weighting sins. That's God's job and He's welcome to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't used the word "damned" once. Wearing wool and linen is simply prohibited -- and it's prohibited for me, not for you; you're not Jewish. I'm not interested in weighting sins. That's God's job and He's welcome to it.

That's just side-stepping, for there are many homosexual Jewish people, some of them even from traditional and/or Hasidic background. They struggle with their reconciliation between who they are and what they think their creator wants of them, no differently than a person growing up in a fundamentalist Protestant household struggles with the same issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the silent speaker,

I haven't used the word "damned" once. Wearing wool and linen is simply prohibited -- and it's prohibited for me, not for you; you're not Jewish. I'm not interested in weighting sins. That's God's job and He's welcome to it.

Oh. Well, first off, my apologies for having conflated you with others. It was not well done or considered.

Secondly, may I assume then that you don't believe in legislating the behavior of individuals to prevent sin?

ETA: I don't follow your point about "side-stepping.". What is it you think I am avoiding?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

The problem arises when its discovered that Ernie regularly beat his kids and at one point killed one of them, but the family continues to insist that he was always right and that everyone on earth should live by his bestselling self help book.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?)

How so?

HPZ,

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?

There has been plenty of attempts to resolve the contradictions, not only in the Hebrew Bible but also the New Testament (i.e., the Gospels). Such attempts generally occurred in rabbinic midrash or the early Christian Church patristics. The necessity to resolve these contradictions came with the process of canonization of the Hebrew bible and the later Christian New Testament. And the laws that are 'possible' are determined by rabbinic tradition. (Incidentally, this is the first time since the name change that I have been referred to as HPZ as opposed to MFC.)

Curious. I know I have my own issues with the Biblical God, so I am willing to assume that I have selective memory when it comes to the stories. So, if you don't mind, can you list 5 (or a few) of the most outstanding moments of God's charity towards mankind? I'll give you the whole creation bit, given the narrative. So, what is it that God has done since making us that has pushed him from the villain column to the ambiguous column for you?

Towards mankind or just Israel? Even the universalistic passages focus on Israel. Because the focus is almost overwhelmingly on the Israelites and their relationship with God. What constitutes charitable for the author and his audience will honestly probably not satisfy you. Just like in any fantasy story, the hero is selective of who they save and protect and who they kill without a second thought. For example, you generally do not hear about Gandalf being morally ambiguous for killing orcs, balrogs, and trolls.

The problem arises when its discovered that Ernie regularly beat his kids and at one point killed one of them, but the family continues to insist that he was always right and that everyone on earth should live by his bestselling self help book.

I think that the bold realistically pushes it for the analogy, biblically speaking. In general, it takes the parental/family analogy into some potentially touchy waters for future discussion. I still get the point you are trying to make.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Towards mankind or just Israel? Even the universalistic passages focus on Israel. Because the focus is almost overwhelmingly on the Israelites and their relationship with God. What constitutes charitable for the author and his audience will honestly probably not satisfy you.

A fair point.

Yet, Christians of most varieties do not disregard the OT in their interpretation of God's will and God's character, even if the intended audience was Jews. Sure, they favor the NT more heavily, because they pretty much have to in order to overcome the fact that they're gentiles and that God had not really paid much attention to them until Paul of Tarsus brought up the point, but they don't entirely discard the OT, do they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A fair point.

Yet, Christians of most varieties do not disregard the OT in their interpretation of God's will and God's character, even if the intended audience was Jews. Sure, they favor the NT more heavily, because they pretty much have to in order to overcome the fact that they're gentiles and that God had not really paid much attention to them until Paul of Tarsus brought up the point, but they don't entirely discard the OT, do they?

True, but that is because Christians, until certain fairly recent trends among some denominations, have believed that their beliefs supersede Judaism, and that Israel's covenant was preparatory for Jesus. But Christian understanding of the OT has changed and was reappropriated early in its history. Not only did the early Christians need to make a greater place for Gentiles in the narrative, but many theological terms, concepts, and stories in the OT were reinterpreted through a Christian understanding. This is why PWWP had a 5+ page discussion on interpreting Isaiah 40-55.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, let me rephrase the question then.

When you said that seeing the Biblical God as a villain is an inaccurate way of interpreting the Bible, you also said, or at least heavily implied, that in your view, it'd be more accurate to say that the Biblical God is morally ambiguous. That seems to me would indicate that you see that God has done something good, in one way or another. I'm curious to find out what those might be, according to you. What events in the Bible come across to you as indicative of God behaving in a morally responsible way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, but that is because Christians, until certain fairly recent trends among some denominations, have believed that their beliefs supersede Judaism, and that Israel's covenant was preparatory for Jesus. But Christian understanding of the OT has changed and was reappropriated early in its history. Not only did the early Christians need to make a greater place for Gentiles in the narrative, but many theological terms, concepts, and stories in the OT were reinterpreted through a Christian understanding. This is why PWWP had a 5+ page discussion on interpreting Isaiah 40-55.

How should Christians view the god of the Old Testament then? (not directed specifically at MFC)

I favor Calvinism- deciding that god actually is kind of a dick, but at least he's fairly consistent.

Really though, is the best approach to the multiple accounts of a morally ambiguous, non-historically accurate god to just decide that the OT writers were simply limited in their understanding of god and brought a lot of their own ideas and prejudices into their accounts? Perhaps even that some of the actions they took as a nation which they claimed were commanded by god were their own interpretations and not direct commands- since they did those things and they were god's chosen people, they felt that god must have led them to do so? Does this undermine some of the doctrines of the NT?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, let me rephrase the question then.

When you said that seeing the Biblical God as a villain is an inaccurate way of interpreting the Bible, you also said, or at least heavily implied, that in your view, it'd be more accurate to say that the Biblical God is morally ambiguous. That seems to me would indicate that you see that God has done something good, in one way or another. I'm curious to find out what those might be, according to you. What events in the Bible come across to you as indicative of God behaving in a morally responsible way?

And do you think that God does not act in a morally responsible way? While God does quite a bit of punishment, such an analysis will generally ignore that these judgments are in response to repeated, fragrant breeches of the covenantal contract. God's response to these offenses act almost as if they were a natural law. Such a worldview was certainly present in the ancient Near East. Here's my question to you: how many times do you forgive people who break your trust, promises, and betrays your relationship? How would a righteous God act in history?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

HPZ,

There has been plenty of attempts to resolve the contradictions, not only in the Hebrew Bible but also the New Testament (i.e., the Gospels). Such attempts generally occurred in rabbinic midrash or the early Christian Church patristics. The necessity to resolve these contradictions came with the process of canonization of the Hebrew bible and the later Christian New Testament. And the laws that are 'possible' are determined by rabbinic tradition. (Incidentally, this is the first time since the name change that I have been referred to as HPZ as opposed to MFC.)

Well, I admit that I'd figured attempts had been made in the past, but my intention was to ask about Judaism specifically, and if there were a major concerted effort in Jewish scholasticism to end the chaos of the contradictions, or if it were believed, now, that the contradictions will simply always be there?

Also: is it all right that I call you HPZ? :)

ETA: As for rabbinic tradition ... is there anything in it allowing for or even recommending a separation of church and state?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PWWP--

the argument about divine morality is part of the argument for divine existence, as far as i'm concerned. what makes me right is that i demand the alleged deity adhere to the law it has proclaimed regarding, for instance, murder. if the deity in the bible exists, then we live in a lovecraftian universe, and the alleged deity is aporetic.

Murder? God doesn't murder. Has He killed? Yes. But murder is the killing of innocent. None are innocent before God, because all have violated His law.

We have been through this so many freaking times. One person DOES NOT decide what is morally right SOCIETY DOES.

That only works when God is absent. If society is always right, then how is it that a person living in a society promoting slavery can stand up and say it's "morally wrong"? Why is society always right in the first place? When it comes down to it, in the absence of God, morality is only determind by the whims of the people. Which I find odd, since God's morality being based "on His whims" was used against Him earlier.

I'm not trying to be rude, but if you're no longer enjoying participating, you don't have to continue.

I was saying it because I missed the last few pages of the previous thread.

And yet, you insist on asking the same question as you have before, as if people had not already typed up pages and pages of response to you. It is made the more curious as you have participated in the questioning of our answers to this issue. It's almost as if you saw the posts, responded, but comprehended nothing.

The only responses you guys have cooked up are based on your own opinions. Which don't overrule the Law that God's established.

No, it's more like a child complaining about hypocrisy when the father demands that the child abstain from using profanity while telling the child to shut the fuck up.

Only God has never violated His laws. We've been over this. We can't kill, unless the person has done a crime worthy of death (if one believes in the death penalty). God has the right to kill because all are guilty before Him, and so on. The laws God gave to us laws not to kill, steal, and so on, because nothing is ours. On the other hand, everything belongs to God. As much as you may not like it, God writes the rules and you don't.

Also, you still haven't gotten over the point that your argument only works for people who already believe in God. For those who do not believe in a creator, we are not going to be swayed by your reasoning that our creator is the right of everything. We've also typed up pages to explain that even if there was a creator, that still does not mean that everything and anything that it does is morally just.

Your argument only seems to work in absence of a Creator. If one puts the Creator back into the equation, yes, everything He does is morally just because He's the writer of the rules, despite whether or not you like it or agree. This isn't a very difficult concept to grasp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Why trust only your judgement when you, too, are sinful? God not only knows a great deal more than you on the subject of morality, He's also without sin. The logical choice would be to trust in one with better judgement, would it not?

Not proved.

Forgive me, but it seemed the basis for this argument was that God (if existing) was wrong. If you want to change it to the topic of God's existence, then alright.

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

Because just because your opinion doesn't match up with God's doesn't make Him wrong.

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."

More like the Dad kicks the kid out of his room. We don't know WHAT Hell is. Revelation talks of Hell, I believe (I'll have to read it again), but most of that book is symbolic. All we know for sure is that Hell is a place of separation from God. On a personal level, I think I hold with C.S. Lewis' position, but I'm not sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Murder? God doesn't murder. Has He killed? Yes. But murder is the killing of innocent. None are innocent before God, because all have violated His law.

So if nobody is innocent then there is no murder in the world, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Interesting. I made it through with zero hits but one bullet.

You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists. The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true. So it seems that you require certain, irrevocable proof for God's existence, but accept evolutionary theory without certain proof. So you've got a choice: (a) Bite a bullet and claim that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution. (B) Take a hit, conceding that there is a contradiction in your responses.

You chose to bite the bullet.

I'm still not convinced that this is actually contradictory. They claimed I am setting a higher standard for God's existence than for evolutionary theory...but I stand by the adage "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it comes down to it, in the absence of God, morality is only determind by the whims of the people. Which I find odd, since God's morality being based "on His whims" was used against Him earlier.

If morality is dependent on God then God would have the ability to make torturing kittens a morally right act. If God doesn't make torturing kittens morally right, then the question arises as to why He doesn't. If God doesn't endorse the torturing of kittens because it is inherently bad then torturing kittens is sinful whether God wants it or not. If He can make torturing kittens Good but simply refuses to then that still leaves open the possibility that He could, at some time in the future, make torturing kittens a morally right act.

Which is to say that either morality exists independently of God, or alternatively that morality could change tomorrow if a Supreme Being changed His mind. Replacing "God" with "Society" arrives at the same result - but then atheists don't tend to argue that morality can only exist in the absence of God, and if we know Society exists (which it does) then we don't need a God to promote morality, since God doesn't add anything to what we already have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...