Morality in Bible stories that you don't understand

[Politesse]

Do? If contradictions are to be found within a holy book, does this not pose a problem for whatever religion it represents?

I suppose it might. And?

Isn't that enough to raise questions in regard to the validity of what they teach? That given the contradictions, something is wrong?

Sure.

 

[Thomas II]

https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/reasons-humanists-reject-bible/

Humanists reject the claim that the Bible is the word of God. They are convinced the book was written solely by humans in an ignorant, superstitious, and cruel age. They believe that because the writers of the Bible lived in an unenlightened era, the book contains many errors and harmful teachings.

Humanists receive much criticism due to their position on the Bible. Some critics even accuse them of being evil. This article attempts to clarify the reasons why Humanists hold negative views about the Bible.​

 

[steve_bank]

Well, to be fair.

I am not a Buddhist but I found some parts of Buddhism useful. I read a book by the Dali Lama. As with Christianity there is a supernaturl aspect to Buddhism.

I read Mother Teresa's book, I was impressed by her commitment to helpng the poor regrdless of her motivation. For her the supernatural of Christianity was very real.

As I say I am not anti religion per se, just the extremes taken in the name of religion.

I read the Koran and the bible. I did not find anything all that useful about dealing with klfe.

Job is a great perennial story. In modern parlance 'shit happens to good people'.

Eclesiates is a good story as I remember it. May have the book wrong.

A man has to toil at farming to get enough to eat. He watches birds flying free eating off nartre's bounty and bemoans his fate. He has the ancient Jewish blues.

But in general the OT and NT are an incongruent hodge podge of moral dictates stretched over centuries by a number of people, a lot of it bizarre and brutal.

There are 613 commands that can be pulled out of the bible. There is a thread on it.

You can ignore the supernatural aspects of the NT Jesus and cherry pick what you elevate.

The Jesus I see is delusional and bipolar, extreme mood swings.

In contrast the Buddha narrative s of a man who has everything by birth and goes off on a journey of self discovery looking for answers to questions of life. Much more appealing than the the Jesus story.

People seem to become infatuated with their image of Jesus.

I read a book on traditional Buddhist stories and traditional Indian-Hindu stores. The stories as moral literature make the bible seem coarse and crude.

 

[James Brown]

Noah who was a righteous man predates Jesus too.

Well, so saith the anonymous author of Genesis. There's nothing to show for his righteousness in his story. When told that YHWH was going to destroy a city, Abraham at least tried to bargain with the god. When told that YHWH was going to destroy the Israelites, Moses convinced him that it would make him look foolish. When told that YHWH was going to slaughter every man, woman, and child, Noah simply asked, "How big should the boat be that saves me and my family?"

I would have been more impressed if Noah had given up his seat on the Ark to one of his neighbors. What was that Jesus said about "Greater love has no man than this"?

After the flood, Noah forthwith plants a vineyard because he had been dry for over a year. He gets blind drunk, and when one of his sons accidentally sees him naked, Noah curses his own grandson for some inscrutable reason. Presumably YHWH obeys Noah.

Back to the OT of this thread--baffling morality in the Bible. Assume for argument's sake that getting drunk or seeing your father naked are actual sins that makes God irate. Noah deliberately sinned, and wasn't punished. His son Ham accidentally sinned, and wasn't punished. Ham's son Canaan didn't do one thing wrong, and was cursed to slavery to his brothers for the rest of his life. And that curse has been justified to discriminate, enslave, and hate Africans and their direct descendants for five thousand years--surely well beyond any reasonable statute of limitations.

If Noah is a righteous man, then we could do with a little less of that kind of righteousness.

 

[Learner]

Noah who was a righteous man predates Jesus too.

Well, so saith the anonymous author of Genesis.

Genesis I'm assuming, would also be the same to you for Jesus and the NT?

There's nothing to show for his righteousness in his story. When told that YHWH was going to destroy a city, Abraham at least tried to bargain with the god. When told that YHWH was going to destroy the Israelites, Moses convinced him that it would make him look foolish. When told that YHWH was going to slaughter every man, woman, and child, Noah simply asked, "How big should the boat be that saves me and my family?"

I would have been more impressed if Noah had given up his seat on the Ark to one of his neighbors. What was that Jesus said about "Greater love has no man than this"?

I'm sure you would be impressed as you mention but your view of this scenario is a tad short sighted or argument misplaced, for example:
If God Himself gave Noah instructions, and the seat that was strictly intended for Noah. Then why would Noah go against the God he loves and trusts - seeing that God is the most righteous? Overall, what was accomplished in that scenario segment about 'Noah giving up his seat' was that: Noah survived and became the forefather of every person on the earth.

What Jesus said about " Greater love has no man than this" was said long after Noah. Not that that this would have been an issue anyway.

After the flood, Noah forthwith plants a vineyard because he had been dry for over a year. He gets blind drunk, and when one of his sons accidentally sees him naked, Noah curses his own grandson for some inscrutable reason. Presumably YHWH obeys Noah.

This is often the type of descriptions I've seen, that suggest an idea from the text. An idea presumed... that isn't often clear or sure of what is being stated.

Back to the OT of this thread--baffling morality in the Bible. Assume for argument's sake that getting drunk or seeing your father naked are actual sins that makes God irate. Noah deliberately sinned, and wasn't punished. His son Ham accidentally sinned, and wasn't punished. Ham's son Canaan didn't do one thing wrong, and was cursed to slavery to his brothers for the rest of his life. And that curse has been justified to discriminate, enslave, and hate Africans and their direct descendants for five thousand years--surely well beyond any reasonable statute of limitations.

If Noah is a righteous man, then we could do with a little less of that kind of righteousness.

In this particular context perhaps you're right. I used Noah in my previous response to steve_b 'in mind' that Noah was righteous in Gods eyes before the flood. I could have used other parts of scriptures as a similar response instead of Noah.

 

[Thomas II]

Noah who was a righteous man predates Jesus too.

Well, so saith the anonymous author of Genesis. There's nothing to show for his righteousness in his story. When told that YHWH was going to destroy a city, Abraham at least tried to bargain with the god. When told that YHWH was going to destroy the Israelites, Moses convinced him that it would make him look foolish. When told that YHWH was going to slaughter every man, woman, and child, Noah simply asked, "How big should the boat be that saves me and my family?"

I would have been more impressed if Noah had given up his seat on the Ark to one of his neighbors. What was that Jesus said about "Greater love has no man than this"?

After the flood, Noah forthwith plants a vineyard because he had been dry for over a year. He gets blind drunk, and when one of his sons accidentally sees him naked, Noah curses his own grandson for some inscrutable reason. Presumably YHWH obeys Noah.

Back to the OT of this thread--baffling morality in the Bible. Assume for argument's sake that getting drunk or seeing your father naked are actual sins that makes God irate. Noah deliberately sinned, and wasn't punished. His son Ham accidentally sinned, and wasn't punished. Ham's son Canaan didn't do one thing wrong, and was cursed to slavery to his brothers for the rest of his life. And that curse has been justified to discriminate, enslave, and hate Africans and their direct descendants for five thousand years--surely well beyond any reasonable statute of limitations.

If Noah is a righteous man, then we could do with a little less of that kind of righteousness.

Was Noah sexually assaulted? By whom? Why was Canaan cursed to slavery?

 

[steve_bank]

Did somebody say Noah?

 

[Thomas II]

Noah?

 

[Thomas II]

 

[ideologyhunter]

About Noah...as long as we agree upfront that it's a narrative about a 600-year-old man with a drinking problem who built a 500-foot-long gopher wood boat without absentmindedly nailing his own dick to the deck planks...then, sure, I'll play. That could happen.

 

[James Brown]

Then why would Noah go against the God he loves and trusts - seeing that God is the most righteous?

Nobody who commits genocide can be called "the most righteous."

If the people of Noah's generation were all that wicked (Assumes facts not in evidence), then why didn't YHWH incarnate himself, live amongst them for a few years, show them a thing or two about righteous living, then allow himself to be martyred for their sins? Had YHWH not thought of that solution? The only thing he could come up with is to wipe everyone out and start over?

And if the purpose of the flood was to rid the world of evil....did it work?

Overall, what was accomplished in that scenario segment about 'Noah giving up his seat' was that: Noah survived and became the forefather of every person on the earth.

Non-sequitur argument. According to Genesis, Noah had no children after the flood. His three sons and their wives repopulated the earth. So even if Noah had saved someone else's life (the act of a righteous man) he still would be the forefather of billions. Plus there would have been more genetic diversity post-deluge in humanity, which can only be a good thing.

What Jesus said about " Greater love has no man than this" was said long after Noah.

Ah, situational ethics. In Noah's day, it's every man for himself. In Jesus' day, self-sacrifice is best. I'll keep that in mind when someone tells me that God is the source of Objective Morality™.

This is often the type of descriptions I've seen, that suggest an idea from the text. An idea presumed... that isn't often clear or sure of what is being stated.

And I'll keep this in mind when apologists complain that we should just read the Bible as it is written, without trying to explain away any supernatural elements or introduce modern-day interpretations to make it more relevant. So if it "isn't clear" why Noah cursed his grandson for doing nothing wrong, but still is forever exalted as a "righteous man," then the original premise of this thread is strengthened.

The Bible, touted as the be-all and end-all of human morality, contains inscrutable morality and outright immorality.

I'm glad we finally agree on something.

 

[Thomas II]

Then why would Noah go against the God he loves and trusts - seeing that God is the most righteous?

Nobody who commits genocide can be called "the most righteous."

If the people of Noah's generation were all that wicked (Assumes facts not in evidence), then why didn't YHWH incarnate himself, live amongst them for a few years, show them a thing or two about righteous living, then allow himself to be martyred for their sins? Had YHWH not thought of that solution? The only thing he could come up with is to wipe everyone out and start over?

And if the purpose of the flood was to rid the world of evil....did it work?

Overall, what was accomplished in that scenario segment about 'Noah giving up his seat' was that: Noah survived and became the forefather of every person on the earth.

Non-sequitur argument. According to Genesis, Noah had no children after the flood. His three sons and their wives repopulated the earth. So even if Noah had saved someone else's life (the act of a righteous man) he still would be the forefather of billions. Plus there would have been more genetic diversity post-deluge in humanity, which can only be a good thing.

What Jesus said about " Greater love has no man than this" was said long after Noah.

Ah, situational ethics. In Noah's day, it's every man for himself. In Jesus' day, self-sacrifice is best. I'll keep that in mind when someone tells me that God is the source of Objective Morality™.

This is often the type of descriptions I've seen, that suggest an idea from the text. An idea presumed... that isn't often clear or sure of what is being stated.

And I'll keep this in mind when apologists complain that we should just read the Bible as it is written, without trying to explain away any supernatural elements or introduce modern-day interpretations to make it more relevant. So if it "isn't clear" why Noah cursed his grandson for doing nothing wrong, but still is forever exalted as a "righteous man," then the original premise of this thread is strengthened.

The Bible, touted as the be-all and end-all of human morality, contains inscrutable morality and outright immorality.

I'm glad we finally agree on something.

Who did what to whom in the tent , and what did an editor cover...
https://www.thetorah.com/article/noah-ham-and-the-curse-of-canaan-who-did-what-to-whom-in-the-tent

 

[James Brown]

I've seen this elsewhere, and I don't find it very compelling.

"This story on the face of it makes no sense, so there must have been some vile sexual depravity to justify the outcome."

The story of Balaam and his donkey gets the same treatment to explain why YHWH was so pissed that Balaam was doing exactly what YHWH wanted. "He must have been going to visit a brothel!" saith the apologist, which allows him to declare that everything YHWH does is righteous and good after all.

 

[Thomas II]

I've seen this elsewhere, and I don't find it very compelling.

"This story on the face of it makes no sense, so there must have been some vile sexual depravity to justify the outcome."

The story of Balaam and his donkey gets the same treatment to explain why YHWH was so pissed that Balaam was doing exactly what YHWH wanted. "He must have been going to visit a brothel!" saith the apologist, which allows him to declare that everything YHWH does is righteous and good after all.

 

[Thomas II]

I've seen this elsewhere, and I don't find it very compelling.

"This story on the face of it makes no sense, so there must have been some vile sexual depravity to justify the outcome."

The story of Balaam and his donkey gets the same treatment to explain why YHWH was so pissed that Balaam was doing exactly what YHWH wanted. "He must have been going to visit a brothel!" saith the apologist, which allows him to declare that everything YHWH does is righteous and good after all.

https://www.massbible.org/exploring...nswers/whats-issue-noahs-son-seeing-him-naked

 

[Thomas II]

 

[Thomas II]

Let's get the story right...

 

[Thomas II]

Well, what do you know! THIS is interesting!!!...

 

[Thomas II]

This just out...

 

[Learner]

Then why would Noah go against the God he loves and trusts - seeing that God is the most righteous?

Nobody who commits genocide can be called "the most righteous."

Genocide the word, is commonly understood to be an intentional act against a group of people", denoting the act of murder. Murder being driven from the evil motives of hate. I don't therefore ascribe to your description, being far removed from the description of the biblical God. Your false image of God in the same sentence with genocide is a 'language trap' dialogue I won't fall into.

If the people of Noah's generation were all that wicked (Assumes facts not in evidence), then why didn't YHWH incarnate himself, live amongst them for a few years, show them a thing or two about righteous living, then allow himself to be martyred for their sins? Had YHWH not thought of that solution? The only thing he could come up with is to wipe everyone out and start over?

Noah's generation may have been worse than those in Jesus's time. Many listened to Jesus but the people still wanted to kill him. Do you think those in Noah's time would be turning from their evil ways, unlike the Jews, the Sanhedrin or Romans who still crucified Jesus?

Not really a solution for Noah's generation as you're seeing it.

And if the purpose of the flood was to rid the world of evil....did it work?

What made you think evil (its entirety) was supposed to end at the flood? Quite a lot of atheists make this theological argument error. This was never a considered "expectation". Although, it was for those people during Noah's time, yes. Their evil practices traditions through several generations was to end there.

Overall, what was accomplished in that scenario segment about 'Noah giving up his seat' was that: Noah survived and became the forefather of every person on the earth.

Non-sequitur argument. According to Genesis, Noah had no children after the flood. His three sons and their wives repopulated the earth. So even if Noah had saved someone else's life (the act of a righteous man) he still would be the forefather of billions. Plus there would have been more genetic diversity post-deluge in humanity, which can only be a good thing.

Well spotted, good thinking. Yes Noah already had sons and he would still be father of billions. But as I also said previously, Noah would follow God instructions - in which there was a covenant made for Noah... to be on the ark, meaning Noah would be 'keeping his seat' as it were.

Gen 6:18 But I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall go into the ark—you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you.

What Jesus said about " Greater love has no man than this" was said long after Noah.

Ah, situational ethics. In Noah's day, it's every man for himself. In Jesus' day, self-sacrifice is best. I'll keep that in mind when someone tells me that God is the source of Objective Morality™.

The argument is a contextual flaw. Noah's situation was not an "every man for himself" scenario! As mentioned above: Noah was following Gods instructions; keeping to the covenant GOD made with him.

This is often the type of descriptions I've seen, that suggest an idea from the text. An idea presumed... that isn't often clear or sure of what is being stated.

And I'll keep this in mind when apologists complain that we should just read the Bible as it is written, without trying to explain away any supernatural elements or introduce modern-day interpretations to make it more relevant. So if it "isn't clear" why Noah cursed his grandson for doing nothing wrong, but still is forever exalted as a "righteous man," then the original premise of this thread is strengthened.

That's fine, I'm ok with as you say: " the original premise of this thread is strengthened" which case by case may vary between particular subject matter in a discussion.

The Bible, touted as the be-all and end-all of human morality, contains inscrutable morality and outright immorality.

I'm glad we finally agree on something.

If only we did, preferably as I do, if we did agree of course - seeing the bible as containing the moral 'do's' and 'don'ts'.