Morality in Bible stories that you don't understand

[steve_bank]

I heard the idea Jesus was gay in the 70s. I seem to remember a book.

 

[Thomas II]

I thought he was married to Mary Magdalene and kissed her in the mouth...

 

[Politesse]

I thought he was married to Mary Magdalene and kissed her in the mouth...

Often. He kissed her often on the mouth. And Peter, who he had nicknamed "his Rock", was jealous as hell about it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If God did it ... to you "it's rape and murder".

However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God.

That is genocide, whether Yahweh commands this or Bob Dole commands it. You want to justify it as preventing future war. That is quite possibly one or the absolute worst moral arguments in the history of moral arguments. And for two reasons.

1) justifying definite genocide to prevent possible future killings is reprehensible
2) the justification in 20:18 isn't about preventing future violence, but to help the stupid Hebrews who apparently will sin like crazy is anyone who isn't a follower of Yahweh is left alive.

 

[Politesse]

Isn't God responsible for every genocide, no matter what He might say about them? He is the one Being in the universe that could, with a flick of a metaphorical hand, prevent any and all of them from occurring.

And He chooses not to. Even when it is His own supposedly favorite race of people that are being targeted.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Isn't God responsible for every genocide, no matter what He might say about them? He is the one Being in the universe that could, with a flick of a metaphorical hand, prevent any and all of them from occurring.

Genesis 50:19-21 covers that.

What Genesis 50:!9-21 doesn't cover is that Yahweh is commanding the complete annihilation of several tribes of people. Because if that doesn't happen, their seductive ways of life will corrupt the Hebrews. In other words, they must all die so the Hebrews are protected from their beliefs, customs, and culture. Not because they did something wrong, mind you. This wasn't a crusade for justice, to right wrongs, free the enslaved. It was genocide for evangelical convenience.

And a theist in here tried to actually justify that excuse.

 

[Learner]

(responding in no particular order)

Genocide the context to murder? Can the word genocide also be used in context of there being a necessity, as in defending oneself or retaliating from the first initial attempt of genocide from the aggressor against the defender?

I'm ok using genocide in any dialogue.. in a mutually agreed understanding clarification. Definitions applied in varied contextual meanings depending on the specific scenario details. Otherwise for example, I would be subject to being pinned down to a disengenous one-side-only linguistic - even when that view could still be monstrously wrong.

A view like saying: when those nations were destroyed by the Israelites, the impression you (plural) give is like portraying these nations to be "harmlessly seeming, gentle, moral and meek while being persecuted without any justifiable reason at all".

I don't think some (want to) understand about those harsh times because... genocide was the norm in those ancient times, right across the world!

 

[Politesse]

Genesis 50:19-21 covers that.

I do not particularly agree.

Joseph's god was a local deity, powerful but not all powerful. Perhaps He really couldn't think of any other way to accomplish his ends than by tempting someone into murdering their brother. If someone wants to make grand claims about universal monotheism however, it's on them to explain the moral ambiguity of all existing things, and to accept that the God who created death is also its merchant. It doesn't matter what you say you value, if your actions prove you indifferent to the suffering of your neighbor.

 

[Politesse]

I don't think some (want to) understand about those times because... genocide was the norm in those ancient times, right across the world!

Would you describe yourself as not caring about the death of the Canaanites? Or do you care that they died? Do you grieve for those lost children, as you would if it were your own sister or brother who died while still a youth? When you came upon their lifeless little body, hacked to pieces by a maniac with a sword and a holy book, would you shrug and say "that's very unfortunate, but after all, I do live in warlike times. These things happen! Whoopsie doopsie!"

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Genesis 50:19-21 covers that.

I do not particularly agree.

Joseph's god was a local deity, powerful but not all powerful. Perhaps He really couldn't think of any other way to accomplish his ends than by tempting someone into murdering their brother. If someone wants to make grand claims about universal monotheism however, it's on them to explain the moral ambiguity of all existing things, and to accept that the God who created death is also its merchant. It doesn't matter what you say you value, if your actions prove you indifferent to the suffering of your neighbor.

Disagree all you like, that is the most important ontological statement in the entire book. If there is a god, why does bad things happen... because god makes good from it. You don't need to agree with it, but that is the proclamation.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

(responding in no particular order)

Genocide the context to murder? Can the word genocide also be used in context of there being a necessity, as in defending oneself or retaliating from the first initial attempt of genocide from the aggressor against the defender?

I'm ok using genocide in any dialogue.. in a mutually agreed understanding clarification. Definitions applied in varied contextual meanings depending on the specific scenario details. Otherwise for example, I would be subject to being pinned down to a intellectual one-side-only linguistic - even when that view could still be monstrously wrong.

A view like saying: when those nations were destroyed by the Israelites, the impression you (plural) give is like portraying these nations to be "harmlessly seeming, gentle, moral and meek while being persecuted without any justifiable reason at all".

I don't think some (want to) understand about those harsh times because... genocide was the norm in those ancient times, right across the world!

Tu quoque? OMFG!

God's morality isn't to be judged in ordering genocide because man was committing genocide too?

 

[Politesse]

Genesis 50:19-21 covers that.

I do not particularly agree.

Joseph's god was a local deity, powerful but not all powerful. Perhaps He really couldn't think of any other way to accomplish his ends than by tempting someone into murdering their brother. If someone wants to make grand claims about universal monotheism however, it's on them to explain the moral ambiguity of all existing things, and to accept that the God who created death is also its merchant. It doesn't matter what you say you value, if your actions prove you indifferent to the suffering of your neighbor.

Disagree all you like, that is the most important ontological statement in the entire book. If there is a god, why does bad things happen... because god makes good from it. You don't need to agree with it, but that is the proclamation.

It's not sufficient, no. Nor an ontological statement. What good is it to say there is a clear answer in between the lines if the answer is in no wise convincing? "I did the best I could with what I had" is an understandable argument from anyone except for an all powerful superbeing who could have resolved the situation any way they liked. This isn't about the Book of Genesis, which I think is pretty straightforward if you accept it on its own terms. Trying to apply 21st century Christian theology and moral thinking to it, however, makes for an illogical and morally indefensible mess.

 

[Learner]

double post

 

[Learner]

(responding in no particular order)

Genocide the context to murder? Can the word genocide also be used in context of there being a necessity, as in defending oneself or retaliating from the first initial attempt of genocide from the aggressor against the defender?

I'm ok using genocide in any dialogue.. in a mutually agreed understanding clarification. Definitions applied in varied contextual meanings depending on the specific scenario details. Otherwise for example, I would be subject to being pinned down to a intellectual one-side-only linguistic - even when that view could still be monstrously wrong.

A view like saying: when those nations were destroyed by the Israelites, the impression you (plural) give is like portraying these nations to be "harmlessly seeming, gentle, moral and meek while being persecuted without any justifiable reason at all".

I don't think some (want to) understand about those harsh times because... genocide was the norm in those ancient times, right across the world!

Tu quoque? OMFG!

God's morality isn't to be judged in ordering genocide because man was committing genocide too?

No surprise to the response. Yeah sure..genocide the word means a group of people killed. And your preference for use is what? Murder or Necessity?

 

[Politesse]

(responding in no particular order)

Genocide the context to murder? Can the word genocide also be used in context of there being a necessity, as in defending oneself or retaliating from the first initial attempt of genocide from the aggressor against the defender?

I'm ok using genocide in any dialogue.. in a mutually agreed understanding clarification. Definitions applied in varied contextual meanings depending on the specific scenario details. Otherwise for example, I would be subject to being pinned down to a intellectual one-side-only linguistic - even when that view could still be monstrously wrong.

A view like saying: when those nations were destroyed by the Israelites, the impression you (plural) give is like portraying these nations to be "harmlessly seeming, gentle, moral and meek while being persecuted without any justifiable reason at all".

I don't think some (want to) understand about those harsh times because... genocide was the norm in those ancient times, right across the world!

Tu quoque? OMFG!

God's morality isn't to be judged in ordering genocide because man was committing genocide too?

No surprise to the response. Yeah sure..genocide the word means a group of people killed. And your preference for use is what? Murder or Necessity?

The attempted extermination of an entire people is never a "necessity". It doesn't even help. It cannot be actually accomplished, and the effort to do so makes the party that tries it a natural target for every other power in their region that does not want to meet the same fate. Alliances form, kings are overthrown, and you're back at square one with a lot of blood on your hands and nothing to show for it. As indeed happens to Israel at least twice in the Hebrew Scriptures. Easily explainable as human folly, but God is supposedly wiser than a human, faultless even. So why does he come across as being just as stupid as any common dictator?

 

[steve_bank]

Learner is doing the old Christian two-step, dancing around the issue.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

(responding in no particular order)

Genocide the context to murder? Can the word genocide also be used in context of there being a necessity, as in defending oneself or retaliating from the first initial attempt of genocide from the aggressor against the defender?

I'm ok using genocide in any dialogue.. in a mutually agreed understanding clarification. Definitions applied in varied contextual meanings depending on the specific scenario details. Otherwise for example, I would be subject to being pinned down to a intellectual one-side-only linguistic - even when that view could still be monstrously wrong.

A view like saying: when those nations were destroyed by the Israelites, the impression you (plural) give is like portraying these nations to be "harmlessly seeming, gentle, moral and meek while being persecuted without any justifiable reason at all".

I don't think some (want to) understand about those harsh times because... genocide was the norm in those ancient times, right across the world!

Tu quoque? OMFG!

God's morality isn't to be judged in ordering genocide because man was committing genocide too?

No surprise to the response. Yeah sure..genocide the word means a group of people killed. And your preference for use is what? Murder or Necessity?

*eye bulge*

 

[bilby]

Yeah sure..genocide the word means a group of people killed. And your preference for use is what? Murder or Necessity?

Genocide is only ever a "necessity" for evil despots who put their own power above all other considerations.

Which is an excellent description of the "God" character from the old testament stories.

The audience are supposed to cheer for Him, because He's their evil despot, so their interests largely coincide with His, and He is more likely to smite their neighbours than themselves.

None of which changes the fact that He is an evil murderer who acts with malice aforethought to achieve His own aggrandisement by the simple dint of killing anyone who disagrees with Him, and anyone who is even remotely associated with anyone who disagrees with him, to the point of killing everyone on Earth, with just a tiny number of exceptions.

What possible "necessity" could justify such an act?

 

[ideologyhunter]

And yet, Noah's ark is a 'colorful', dramatic Bible yarn that all kids know about. Look at it squarely and you see what a primitive narrative it is. How did I miss that, as a kid??? How did the adults who told it to us, not see that? When I worked at a church camp 50 years ago, our sing-alongs included Joshua Fit the Battle, and we'd sing that old chestnut with a surging beat and hand claps. And again.....holy Hitler. Gotta love it when Biblical inerrantists, who will go on and on about God's mercy and divine love, explain the morality of these crazy old legends.

 

[Learner]

I don't think some (want to) understand about those times because... genocide was the norm in those ancient times, right across the world!

Would you describe yourself as not caring about the death of the Canaanites? Or do you care that they died? Do you grieve for those lost children, as you would if it were your own sister or brother who died while still a youth?

Of course I would care. It is demanded for humans to 'love their enemies' but not to be Judge! That's Christianity 101.

Just a side mention:
Questions similar to these, like the other posts arguing the morality in the OT, has a hint of intriguing irony. When asked these questions, often queried in many new threads. It's usually aimed at Christians and not Jews. It sort of seems to be the atheists main "best shot" approach.. using the 'morality discussion' against Christianity, which in response to that...Christians will argue in defense of the Torah.

When you came upon their lifeless little body, hacked to pieces by a maniac with a sword and a holy book, would you shrug and say "that's very unfortunate, but after all, I do live in warlike times. These things happen! Whoopsie doopsie!"

I would take that perspective as being so human level. The vast distance between levels of understanding things between God and humans are in concept grossly mismatched! The power of God who can resurrect or create life, keep to the covenants and make commandments 'thall shalt not murder' etc.. should be an obvious ... your reading (plural) and perspective of the OT is conceptually at odds with the texts.

Right on...we live in warlike times ... thousands of years of "progress" later.