Morality in Bible stories that you don't understand

[Politesse]

Of course I would.

Do you see how your dismissive comments don't give the impression that you see the victims of these ancient aggressions to be as human and worthy of rights as yourself?

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.

I'm not an atheist, and I would have the same question of any religious Jew who wanted to defend the same passages on the same grounds. Though I would note that textual literalism, or even just doctrines in general, are far more rare among Jews than Christians.

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.

If that's the case, I would expect better conduct of a supposedly benevolent God, not worse.

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

Progress? We kill each other over the same stupid things we always did. But why are the gods egging us on in these atrocities, if indeed they are?

And two thousand years may be a long time relative to a life, but not to a culture; it is only a hundred or so generations. Twenty or thirty degrees of personal separation. It is not surprising to me that our societies, which have long memories for trauma and learned behavior, are still all wrapped up in the conflicts described in these pages.

 

[excreationist]

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!

Jesus said a related thing about this:

Matthew 19:8
Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning."

Mark 10:4-5
They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”
“It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

The Tanakh's text isn't really contradicting itself, Christians are wrapping themselves into pretzels to accommodate these events with their babyface god of the New Testament.

Ordering the massacre of several tribal people because, if they were allowed to survive (any of them) it would corrupt the Hebrew's faith, isn't justifiable. This isn't Sodom and Gomorrah where the story claims the people were wicked. Instead, these people followed different beliefs. That you'd try to justify such wicked actions against people of different culture and religious beliefs, and exclusively due to those differences, is well... deplorable.

You can't just scream out "The covenant! The Covenant!" and it all goes away like uttering the term "tuble cane" under your breath to the judge in court. It is a massacre. You can't say, "Well, times were tough back then." We murdered many more people in the 1910s and 1930-40s that were ever murdered back then. I'm willing to bet dollars to doughnuts you aren't going to call for the extermination of Hindus or Muslims, because god fears their beliefs might impact your faith.

 

[ideologyhunter]

The assumption that the divorce teaching has any bearing on Biblical genocide is doubtful, to say the least. Biblical genocide is commanded by Jehovah. He tells them to do it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Technically, this is aimed at the people trying to justify it. Currently, there are no Jewish people in this thread defending the genocide. And if there were, we'd be raising our objections to them. It is funny how some Christians actually pose this argument at all. "You don't tell this to Jewish people." Most of those that are Jewish don't have the nonsensical understanding of the Tanakh that many Christians have. Creationists, YEC'ers have taken the Tanakh and taken allegory for history.

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.

The Jewish holy book is the Tanakh. The Torah is the first five books. Yes, Deuteronomy is in the Torah, but I thought I'd just toss the fact out there.

 

[Politesse]

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.

The Jewish holy book is the Tanakh. The Torah is the first five books. Yes, Deuteronomy is in the Torah, but I thought I'd just toss the fact out there.

If anyone is curious about these issues, a while back I started quite a wordy thread on the Hebrew Scriptures and the contours along which they were reinterpreted as a Christian document, which you can find here.

 

[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.

The Tanakh's text isn't really contradicting itself, Christians are wrapping themselves into pretzels to accommodate these events with their babyface god of the New Testament.

How ever you preferably put it in your words, the New Testament doesn't need unwarranted adjusting to accommodate past events. The NT and the OT in easy to read plain text, naturally accommodate each other.

Ordering the massacre of several tribal people because, if they were allowed to survive (any of them) it would corrupt the Hebrew's faith, isn't justifiable. This isn't Sodom and Gomorrah where the story claims the people were wicked. Instead, these people followed different beliefs. That you'd try to justify such wicked actions against people of different culture and religious beliefs, and exclusively due to those differences, is well... deplorable.You can't just scream out "The covenant! The Covenant!" and it all goes away like uttering the term "tuble cane" under your breath to the judge in court. It is a massacre.

It's not so two dimensional as you seem to make it. The covenant with Israel as a brief example is that they're bound to the consequences of doom, in a manner of speaking. Any corruption slips going against the promises of the covenant from outside foreign influences is destruction for the Israelites. Their survival obviously in contrast to all the aspects of Christian faith... is essential to God's directive expectation for David's line, Jesus's birth and prophesy fulfillment.

You can't say, "Well, times were tough back then." We murdered many more people in the 1910s and 1930-40s that were ever murdered back then.

What I was alluding to, right here, was getting peoples perspective... seeing how they relate to morals of a God to the atrocities and deaths of 70 million... caused by humans without a God.

I'm willing to bet dollars to doughnuts you aren't going to call for the extermination of Hindus or Muslims, because god fears their beliefs might impact your faith.

I would say to that before you think to make any bets. Make sure you get the theology right. Christians are suppose to love their neighbours and their enemies.

Christians are not even supposed to mock Satan nor rejoice in their enemies downfall.

The concept anyway: Judgement is in Jesus/ God's hands only.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Ordering the massacre of several tribal people because, if they were allowed to survive (any of them) it would corrupt the Hebrew's faith, isn't justifiable. This isn't Sodom and Gomorrah where the story claims the people were wicked. Instead, these people followed different beliefs. That you'd try to justify such wicked actions against people of different culture and religious beliefs, and exclusively due to those differences, is well... deplorable.You can't just scream out "The covenant! The Covenant!" and it all goes away like uttering the term "tuble cane" under your breath to the judge in court. It is a massacre.

It's not so two dimensional as you seem to make it. The covenant with Israel as a brief example is that they're bound to the consequences of doom, in a manner of speaking. Any corruption slips going against the promises of the covenant from outside foreign influences is destruction for the Israelites. Their survival obviously in contrast to all the aspects of Christian faith... is essential to God's directive expectation for David's line, Jesus's birth and prophesy fulfillment.

God commands them to commit atrocities so that HE doesn't have to kill them. Who is he, Charles Manson?

You can't say, "Well, times were tough back then." We murdered many more people in the 1910s and 1930-40s that were ever murdered back then.

What I was alluding to, right here, was getting peoples perspective... seeing how they relate to morals of a God to the atrocities and deaths of 70 million... caused by humans without a God.

Without a god commanding it, you mean?

I'm willing to bet dollars to doughnuts you aren't going to call for the extermination of Hindus or Muslims, because god fears their beliefs might impact your faith.

I would say to that before you think to make any bets. Make sure you get the theology right. Christians are suppose to love their neighbours and their enemies.

Be careful with that one. Yahweh might get a bit iffy with people who aren't Hebrews again, but it'll be okay, because if they don't kill you, he has to doom them.

And tomorrow on Apologetics That Only Make Christianity Look Worse...

 

[Politesse]

I would say to that before you think to make any bets. Make sure you get the theology right. Christians are suppose to love their neighbours and their enemies.

An easy bar to reach, if you define handwaving away the reality of genocide as "loving" the victims thereof.

 

[bilby]

The concept anyway: Judgement is in Jesus/ God's hands only.

This too is a characteristic claim of an evil dictator and his supporters.

Moral judgment is open to all. It's not handed down by an authority.

Indeed, as the Euthyphro dilemma demonstrates, it cannot possibly be handed down from any authority.

Certainly it's immoral to declare that a single authority has the sole power to judge.

 

[Learner]

Ordering the massacre of several tribal people because, if they were allowed to survive (any of them) it would corrupt the Hebrew's faith, isn't justifiable. This isn't Sodom and Gomorrah where the story claims the people were wicked. Instead, these people followed different beliefs. That you'd try to justify such wicked actions against people of different culture and religious beliefs, and exclusively due to those differences, is well... deplorable.You can't just scream out "The covenant! The Covenant!" and it all goes away like uttering the term "tuble cane" under your breath to the judge in court. It is a massacre.

It's not so two dimensional as you seem to make it. The covenant with Israel as a brief example is that they're bound to the consequences of doom, in a manner of speaking. Any corruption slips going against the promises of the covenant from outside foreign influences is destruction for the Israelites. Their survival obviously in contrast to all the aspects of Christian faith... is essential to God's directive expectation for David's line, Jesus's birth and prophesy fulfillment.

God commands them to commit atrocities so that HE doesn't have to kill them. Who is he, Charles Manson?

No it's the 'eye for an eye' rule that is well accepted and implemented today in national defences worldwide.

You can't say, "Well, times were tough back then." We murdered many more people in the 1910s and 1930-40s that were ever murdered back then.

What I was alluding to, right here, was getting peoples perspective... seeing how they relate to morals of a God to the atrocities and deaths of 70 million... caused by humans without a God.

Without a god commanding it, you mean?

No, more like determining if it's seen through their eyes as murder or necessity (for defense), depending on the initial aggressor, but also from which angle one is viewing the events from, in terms of there being some elements of hypocrisy.

I'm willing to bet dollars to doughnuts you aren't going to call for the extermination of Hindus or Muslims, because god fears their beliefs might impact your faith.

I would say to that before you think to make any bets. Make sure you get the theology right. Christians are suppose to love their neighbours and their enemies.

Be careful with that one. Yahweh might get a bit iffy with people who aren't Hebrews again, but it'll be okay, because if they don't kill you, he has to doom them.

And tomorrow on Apologetics That Only Make Christianity Look Worse...

Non argument statement, noted.

 

[Learner]

I would say to that before you think to make any bets. Make sure you get the theology right. Christians are suppose to love their neighbours and their enemies.

An easy bar to reach, if you define handwaving away the reality of genocide as "loving" the victims thereof.

What are you on about Poli? There's no handwaving from me. You must understand the significance of the proposition you're making which is foreign to my understanding of Christianity. It absolutely opposes God and Jesus, who doesn't refute any of the past events before him but Jesus does promote the scriptures of Moses and the OT. It's not at all the case of any "denial" or "handwaving" because I don't agree with you. If as I said, Jesus and the Gospels promote the OT.. then it means to me, you (plural) are reading (into) the text incorrectly!

 

[Politesse]

I would say to that before you think to make any bets. Make sure you get the theology right. Christians are suppose to love their neighbours and their enemies.

An easy bar to reach, if you define handwaving away the reality of genocide as "loving" the victims thereof.

What are you on about Poli? There's no handwaving from me. You must understand the significance of the proposition you're making which is foreign to my understanding of Christianity. It absolutely opposes God and Jesus, who doesn't refute any of the past events before him but Jesus does promote the scriptures of Moses and the OT. It's not at all the case of any "denial" or "handwaving" because I don't agree with you. If as I said, Jesus and the Gospels promote the OT.. then it means to me, you (plural) are reading (into) the text incorrectly!

It's not in me to value texts over people, no. If that's incorrect, I have no objection to being incorrect. Mind you, I do not think it is correct to read the HS as a guide to correct moral conduct, or as an accurate account of any god's opinions on human politics.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Ordering the massacre of several tribal people because, if they were allowed to survive (any of them) it would corrupt the Hebrew's faith, isn't justifiable. This isn't Sodom and Gomorrah where the story claims the people were wicked. Instead, these people followed different beliefs. That you'd try to justify such wicked actions against people of different culture and religious beliefs, and exclusively due to those differences, is well... deplorable.You can't just scream out "The covenant! The Covenant!" and it all goes away like uttering the term "tuble cane" under your breath to the judge in court. It is a massacre.

It's not so two dimensional as you seem to make it. The covenant with Israel as a brief example is that they're bound to the consequences of doom, in a manner of speaking. Any corruption slips going against the promises of the covenant from outside foreign influences is destruction for the Israelites. Their survival obviously in contrast to all the aspects of Christian faith... is essential to God's directive expectation for David's line, Jesus's birth and prophesy fulfillment.

God commands them to commit atrocities so that HE doesn't have to kill them. Who is he, Charles Manson?

No it's the 'eye for an eye' rule that is well accepted and implemented today in national defences worldwide.

No it isn't. That would mean that someone did someone wrong. The people doing the wrong are the Hebrews who have been commanded by their god to wipe out several tribes of people... so as to keep their faith pure.

I'm willing to bet dollars to doughnuts you aren't going to call for the extermination of Hindus or Muslims, because god fears their beliefs might impact your faith.

I would say to that before you think to make any bets. Make sure you get the theology right. Christians are suppose to love their neighbours and their enemies.

Be careful with that one. Yahweh might get a bit iffy with people who aren't Hebrews again, but it'll be okay, because if they don't kill you, he has to doom them.

And tomorrow on Apologetics That Only Make Christianity Look Worse...

Non argument statement, noted.

What do you mean non-argument? You suggested it wasn't all that bad, the genocide and all, but if I bring you being caught up and genocided because Yahweh got an urge to purge, you think it isn't relevant? Is it only okay because the people slaughtered lived thousands of miles away, thousands of years ago?

 

[James Brown]

I'm reminded of Israeli psychologist George Tamarin's experiment, offering the Biblical account of Joshua's conquering of Jericho to over a thousand Israeli schoolchildren. He then asked, "Do you think Joshua and the Israelites acted rightly?"

Sixty-six percent of the children gave total approval of the slaughter of men, women, children, and animals in Jericho, and 26 percent gave partial approval.

He then gave a control group the same story, except he changed "Joshua" to "General Lin" and he changed "Israel" to "a Chinese kingdom 3,000 years ago." When asked the same question if General Lin acted rightly, this time the results were reversed. Only 7 percent approved, and 75 percent partially or completely disapproved. Richard Dawkins summarizes it in The God Delusion:

In other words, when their loyalty to Judaism was removed from the calculation, the majority of the children agreed with the moral judgements that most modern humans would share. Joshua's action was a deed of barbaric genocide. But it all looks different from a religious point of view. And the difference starts early in life. It was religion that made the difference between children condemning genocide and condoning it.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The assumption that the divorce teaching has any bearing on Biblical genocide is doubtful, to say the least. Biblical genocide is commanded by Jehovah. He tells them to do it.

Despite Jesus commanding his followers to not divorce, statistically, atheists are less likely to divorce than self identified Christians. Whose divorce rate is no different from average Americans.

 

[bilby]

No it's the 'eye for an eye' rule that is well accepted and implemented today in national defences worldwide.

Where do you pull this tripe from?

No such rule is accepted nor implemented in international treaties, protocols, or defence policies.

I challenge you to find the phrase "eye for an eye" in any defence policy document or any diplomatic document or treaty anywhere in the world, and post a link to it.

 

[excreationist]

The assumption that the divorce teaching has any bearing on Biblical genocide is doubtful, to say the least. Biblical genocide is commanded by Jehovah. He tells them to do it.

Despite Jesus commanding his followers to not divorce, statistically, atheists are less likely to divorce than self identified Christians. Whose divorce rate is no different from average Americans.

Apparently it has something to do with their "hearts being hard"..... (Matthew 19:8 / Mark 10:4-5)

 

[Learner]

No it's the 'eye for an eye' rule that is well accepted and implemented today in national defences worldwide.

Where do you pull this tripe from?

No such rule is accepted nor implemented in international treaties, protocols, or defence policies.

Take it easy sport. I was just figuratively speaking.

I challenge you to find the phrase "eye for an eye" in any defence policy document or any diplomatic document or treaty anywhere in the world, and post a link to it.

An exciting challenge you must have thought. Sorry to disappoint.

Yeah so. ..figuratively speaking I mean in the sense that...if there were nuclear missiles coming towards you, retaliation (as it has been i n past wars World wars) would be likely.

These weapons may be deterrents and they certainly aren't decorations to merely look at and admire. They're there 'ready' to be used in the event of any attack.

 

[Thomas II]

And then we get to Ezekiel 4...

​

4 “Now, son of man, take a block of clay, put it in front of you and draw the city of Jerusalem on it. 2 Then lay siege to it: Erect siege works against it, build a ramp up to it, set up camps against it and put battering rams around it. 3 Then take an iron pan, place it as an iron wall between you and the city and turn your face toward it. It will be under siege, and you shall besiege it. This will be a sign to the people of Israel.

4 “Then lie on your left side and put the sin of the people of Israel upon yourself.[a] You are to bear their sin for the number of days you lie on your side. 5 I have assigned you the same number of days as the years of their sin. So for 390 days you will bear the sin of the people of Israel.

6 “After you have finished this, lie down again, this time on your right side, and bear the sin of the people of Judah. I have assigned you 40 days, a day for each year. 7 Turn your face toward the siege of Jerusalem and with bared arm prophesy against her. 8 I will tie you up with ropes so that you cannot turn from one side to the other until you have finished the days of your siege.

9 “Take wheat and barley, beans and lentils, millet and spelt; put them in a storage jar and use them to make bread for yourself. You are to eat it during the 390 days you lie on your side. 10 Weigh out twenty shekels[b] of food to eat each day and eat it at set times. 11 Also measure out a sixth of a hin[c] of water and drink it at set times. 12 Eat the food as you would a loaf of barley bread; bake it in the sight of the people, using human excrement for fuel.” 13 The Lord said, “In this way the people of Israel will eat defiled food among the nations where I will drive them.”

14 Then I said, “Not so, Sovereign Lord! I have never defiled myself. From my youth until now I have never eaten anything found dead or torn by wild animals. No impure meat has ever entered my mouth.”

15 “Very well,” he said, “I will let you bake your bread over cow dung instead of human excrement.”