• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Morality in Bible stories that you don't understand

What is lawful is not necessarily moral or ethical. In some societies, torture was lawful, being drawn and quartered, boiled, burnt, flayed.....all lawful - but was it moral or ethical?
Romans 13 says to obey the government - "All of you must obey those who rule over you. There are no authorities except the ones God has chosen. Those who now rule have been chosen by God"
I'm not sure it is correct to say that torture is definitely immoral. I mean to us it is but in some cultures it isn't. Also in the 24 TV show Jack Bauer uses torture to try and get information more quickly - then there's Guantanamo Bay that was set up by Americans who were possibly Christian....
It seems the reason they used torture in Guantanamo Bay and not so much in the US is because it is unlawful in the US - not because the perpetrators think it is immoral.
 

30 Jephthah made a promise to the Lord. Jephthah said, “Hand the Ammonites over to me. 31 If you do, here’s what I’ll do when I come back from winning the battle. Anything that comes out the door of my house to meet me will belong to the Lord. I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.”

32 Then Jephthah went over to fight against the Ammonites. The Lord handed them over to him.

34 Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah. And guess who came out to meet him. It was his daughter! She was dancing to the beat of tambourines. She was his only child. He didn’t have any other sons or daughters. 35 When Jephthah saw her, he was so upset that he tore his clothes. He cried out, “Oh no, my daughter! You have filled me with trouble and sorrow. I’ve made a promise to the Lord. And I can’t break it.”

36 “My father,” she replied, “you have given your word to the Lord. So do to me just what you promised to do. The Ammonites were your enemies. And the Lord has paid them back for what they did to you. 37 But please do one thing for me,” she continued. “Give me two months to wander around in the hills. Let me weep there with my friends. I want to do that because I’ll never get married.”

38 “You may go,” he said. He let her go for two months. She and her friends went into the hills. They were filled with sadness because she would never get married. 39 After the two months were over, she returned to her father. He did to her just what he had promised to do. And she was a virgin.

So that became a practice in Israel. 40 Each year the young women of Israel go away for four days. They do it in honor of the daughter of Jephthah. He was from the land of Gilead.

Jephthah winning the battle implies that God wants him to sacrifice his daughter. And God (or his angel) didn't stop Jephthah from going through with it....
That's false. Jephthah made a covenant with God. Like Job, was a special individual, known to God, who could overcome what's is to be put before them, and succeed!

I'd fail myself like many... it's not a task for the likes of you or me, honouring the covenant...God would know this! These were written in the bible for the benefit of believers.
 
Jephthah winning the battle implies that God wants him to sacrifice his daughter. And God (or his angel) didn't stop Jephthah from going through with it....
That's an error. Jephthah made a covenant with God. Like Job, was a special individual, known to God, who could overcome what's is to be put before them, and succeed!

I'd fail myself like many... it's not a task for the likes of you or me...God would know this! Anyway... these were written in the bible for the benefit of believers.
I think God failing to intervene means that God didn't have a problem with Jephthah's human sacrifice to God. Or it wasn't a high priority for God to save her life.
Or Jephthah failed to have the auditory hallucination of a concerned angel like Abraham did.
 
Jephthah winning the battle implies that God wants him to sacrifice his daughter. And God (or his angel) didn't stop Jephthah from going through with it....
That's an error. Jephthah made a covenant with God. Like Job, was a special individual, known to God, who could overcome what's is to be put before them, and succeed!

I'd fail myself like many... it's not a task for the likes of you or me...God would know this! Anyway... these were written in the bible for the benefit of believers.
I think God failing to intervene means that God didn't have a problem with Jephthah's human sacrifice to God. Or it wasn't a high priority for God to save her life.
This would be quite an unfair *edit: disadvantage to humans comparing to God, in the realm of things - God's abilities compared to our worldly comprehension. In context IOW: God is the only one who brings people back to life.
 
This would be quite an unfair advantage to God - His abilities compared to our worldly comprehension. In context IOW: God is the only one who brings people back to life.
Theses verses talk about a large number of people coming back to life:

Matthew 27:51-53
"At that moment the temple curtain was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook. The rocks split. Tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs. After Jesus was raised from the dead, they went into the holy city. There they appeared to many people."

I've never heard pastors or children's books mention this - though it would be one of the Bible's biggest miracles....
 
I mentioned this on May 1...

Acts 5 : Ananias and Sapphira story...The apostle Peter berates Ananias for “lying not to humans but to the Holy Spirit” (5:3), and Sapphira for “putting the Spirit of the Lord to the test” (5:9). Upon hearing the apostle’s rebuke, Ananias and Sapphira each die in turn, suddenly and on the spot...WTF!

Kind of harsh to kill the old couple for their "greed"...

Also, how were they killed?...Acts 5 only mentions that they died suddenly and on the spot...:unsure:
And they were buried in a hurry...:unsure:

Acts 5

King James Version

5 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.
11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.

:unsure:
 
For me, I wouldn't have taken to the OT, if it weren't for Jesus, who by entering into the biblical epic of the NT, as I see it, 'validates' the OT. Notably, He didn't condemn Moses or the scriptures but instead, vouches for them instead. Jesus does condemn 'false preaching', 'teachings' and 'misrepresentations', foreseeing the future after His time on earth. Henceforth....I realised by that... I just didn't understand the theology then as compared to today - which I believe is the case now, by some posts.

It's kind of hard to justify the immorality of the OT. Even the terms and condition for salvation given in the NT is hard to justify...."believe in Jesus as your saviour or suffer the penalty of failure to comply" is hardly an example of morality or justice.
To all Christians, Jesus is the 'moral authority'. He gives a different perspective on God than how humans perceive to understand.

Quite simply, If Jesus is commanding us to 'Love God the Father with all our might' etc.. It implies or indicates to me, the human perspective of God, being charged with immorality, is then completely wrong or false.

(Of course, its up to the believers of Christ to defend that position, against the allegation perspectives, who in turn, should be critiquing the critics, so to speak, which can be an interesting discussion for all, and it certainly makes me read the bible a little more thanks to these allegation arguments).


Commanding to be loved may be immoral. An exercise in power with consequences for failure.

Why command love? Why demand or even request love?

How do you even love someone on demand?
 

For me, I wouldn't have taken to the OT, if it weren't for Jesus, who by entering into the biblical epic of the NT, as I see it, 'validates' the OT. Notably, He didn't condemn Moses[...].

It's kind of hard to justify the immorality of the OT. Even the terms and condition for salvation given in the NT is hard to justify...."believe in Jesus as your saviour or suffer the penalty of failure to comply" is hardly an example of morality or justice.
To all Christians, Jesus is the 'moral authority'. He gives a different perspective on God than how humans perceive to understand.

Quite simply, If Jesus is commanding us to 'Love God the Father with all our might' etc.. It implies or indicates to me, the human perspective of God, being charged with immorality, is then completely wrong or false.

(Of course, its up to the believers of Christ to defend that position, against the allegation perspectives, who in turn, should be critiquing the critics, so to speak, which can be an interesting discussion for all, and it certainly makes me read the bible a little more thanks to these allegation arguments).
( Responding in no particular order, because it's tedious to do a full response to longer posts via my phone)
Commanding to be loved may be immoral. An exercise in power with consequences for failure.
Yes but as I was previously trying to say - there's the differences of perspective.

Would you see this in a different light than.. being demanded to love (and honour) your parents?

Why command love? Why demand or even request love?

How do you even love someone on demand?
Jesus gives the 'context criterion' in the next part of the verse Matt 22:39 - 40 ...

.... 39: And the second commandment is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself...

.. 40: On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets
(including Moses).
 
I mentioned this on May 1...

Acts 5 : Ananias and Sapphira story...The apostle Peter berates Ananias for “lying not to humans but to the Holy Spirit” (5:3), and Sapphira for “putting the Spirit of the Lord to the test” (5:9). Upon hearing the apostle’s rebuke, Ananias and Sapphira each die in turn, suddenly and on the spot...WTF!

Kind of harsh to kill the old couple for their "greed"...

Also, how were they killed?...Acts 5 only mentions that they died suddenly and on the spot...:unsure:
And they were buried in a hurry...:unsure:

Acts 5​

King James Version​

5 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.
11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.

:unsure:

https://www.gotquestions.org/Ananias-and-Sapphira.html

"The story of Ananias and Sapphira is found in Acts 5, and it is a sad story, indeed. It actually begins at the end of chapter 4 with the description of the early church in Jerusalem, a group of believers so filled with the Holy Spirit that they were of one heart and one mind. Great power and grace were on the apostles, who preached and testified of the risen Savior. So knit together were the hearts of the people that they held all their possessions loosely and willingly shared them with one another, not because they were coerced but because they loved one another. Those who sold land and houses gave of their profits to the apostles, who distributed the gifts to those in need.

Two members of this group were Ananias and his wife, Sapphira; they also had sold a field. Part of the profit from their sale was kept back by the couple, and Ananias only laid a part of the money at the apostles’ feet. However, Ananias made a pretense of having given all the proceeds. This hypocritical show may have fooled some, but not Peter, who was filled with the power of the Spirit. Peter knew instantly that Ananias was lying—not just to him but to God—and exposed his hypocrisy then and there. Ananias fell down and died (Acts 5:4). When Sapphira showed up, she, too, lied to Peter and to God, saying that they had donated the entire proceeds of the sale of the land to the church. When her lie had been exposed, she also fell down and died at Peter’s feet.

Some speculate that these two deaths were from natural causes. Perhaps Ananias died from shock or guilt, but Peter pronounced Sapphira’s death before she died, and the coincidental timing and place of their deaths indicate that this was indeed God’s judgment. The question is why. Why would God kill two people for lying?

God’s reasons for bringing about the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira involve His abhorrence of sin, the hypocrisy of the couple, and the lesson for the rest of the church, both then and now. It can be easy today to gloss over the holiness of God, to forget that He is righteous and pure and that He hates sin wholeheartedly. This particular sin of hypocrisy in the church was dealt with swiftly and decisively.

Were Ananias and Sapphira saved? We believe they probably were. Their story is told in the context of the actions of “all the believers” (Acts 4:32). They knew of the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3), and Ananias’s lie could have been an earlier promise that he would give the whole amount of the sale to the Lord. But the best evidence that they were children of God may be that they received discipline: “If you are not disciplined—and everyone undergoes discipline—then you are not legitimate, not true sons and daughters at all” (Hebrews 12:8; see also 1 Corinthians 5:12). Ananias and his wife had conspired to garner the accolades of the church; but their conspiracy led to the sin unto death.

The case of Ananias and Sapphira illustrates the fact that even believers can be led into bold, flagrant sin. It was Satan that had filled their hearts to lie in this way (Acts 5:3) and “to test the Spirit of the Lord” (verse 9). Covetousness, hypocrisy, and a desire for the praise of men all played a part in their demise.

The sudden, dramatic deaths of Ananias and Sapphira served to purify and warn the church. “Great fear seized the whole church” (Acts 5:11). Right away, in the church’s infancy, God made it plain that hypocrisy and dissimulation were not going to be tolerated, and His judgment of Ananias and Sapphira helped guard the church against future pretense. God laid the bodies of Ananias and Sapphira in the path of every hypocrite who would seek to enter the church.

Furthermore, the incident involving Ananias and Sapphira helped to establish the apostles’ authority in the church. The sinners had fallen dead at Peter’s feet. It was Peter who had known of the secret sin and had the authority to pronounce judgment in the church (see Matthew 16:19). If the hypocrisy of Ananias and Sapphira had succeeded in fooling Peter, it would have severely damaged the apostles’ authority.

The sad story of Ananias and Sapphira is not some obscure incident from the Old Testament regarding a violation of Mosaic Law. This occurred in the first-century church to believers in Jesus Christ. The story of Ananias and Sapphira is a reminder to us today that God sees the heart (1 Samuel 16:7), that He hates sin, and that He is concerned for the purity of His church (1 Corinthians 11; 1 John 5). As Jesus told the compromising church in Thyatira, “All the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds” (Revelation 2:23)."

:unsure:

Yet Peter denied Jesus three times...
 
  • Like
Reactions: DBT

For me, I wouldn't have taken to the OT, if it weren't for Jesus, who by entering into the biblical epic of the NT, as I see it, 'validates' the OT. Notably, He didn't condemn Moses[...].

It's kind of hard to justify the immorality of the OT. Even the terms and condition for salvation given in the NT is hard to justify...."believe in Jesus as your saviour or suffer the penalty of failure to comply" is hardly an example of morality or justice.
To all Christians, Jesus is the 'moral authority'. He gives a different perspective on God than how humans perceive to understand.

Quite simply, If Jesus is commanding us to 'Love God the Father with all our might' etc.. It implies or indicates to me, the human perspective of God, being charged with immorality, is then completely wrong or false.

(Of course, its up to the believers of Christ to defend that position, against the allegation perspectives, who in turn, should be critiquing the critics, so to speak, which can be an interesting discussion for all, and it certainly makes me read the bible a little more thanks to these allegation arguments).
( Responding in no particular order, because it's tedious to do a full response to longer posts via my phone)
Commanding to be loved may be immoral. An exercise in power with consequences for failure.
Yes but as I was previously trying to say - there's the differences of perspective.

Would you see this in a different light than.. being demanded to love (and honour) your parents?

Why command love? Why demand or even request love?

How do you even love someone on demand?
Jesus gives the 'context criterion' in the next part of the verse Matt 22:39 - 40 ...

.... 39: And the second commandment is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself...

.. 40: On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets
(including Moses).

How does perspective alter morality? The Romans thought it fine and moral to nail people to a post as an example of the consequences of disobedience to the state, but we don't, we have a different perspective.

So who is right? Does perspective alter the nature of the act? Does perspective make it moral in one instance but not the other?
 
How does perspective alter morality? The Romans thought it fine and moral to nail people to a post as an example of the consequences of disobedience to the state, but we don't, we have a different perspective.

So who is right? Does perspective alter the nature of the act? Does perspective make it moral in one instance but not the other?
It is about "relative morality" (and a slippery slope) vs black and white Biblical morality (at least according to Answers in Genesis). The ethicist Peter Singer thinks bestiality is ok and also sex with children in video games.
BTW this is what OpenAI's playground said to me:
I started by asking the AI in the playground "Is pedophilia immoral?". It would usually reply with something like:

There isn't a definitive answer to this question as morality is subjective. Some people may consider pedophilia to be morally wrong due to the potential for harm that could be inflicted upon children, both physically and emotionally. Others may not see it as morally wrong if all parties involved are consenting and no one is being harmed. Ultimately, the morality of pedophilia is a personal opinion.
 
How does perspective alter morality? The Romans thought it fine and moral to nail people to a post as an example of the consequences of disobedience to the state, but we don't, we have a different perspective.

So who is right? Does perspective alter the nature of the act? Does perspective make it moral in one instance but not the other?
It is about "relative morality" (and a slippery slope) vs black and white Biblical morality (at least according to Answers in Genesis). The ethicist Peter Singer thinks bestiality is ok and also sex with children in video games.
BTW this is what OpenAI's playground said to me:
I started by asking the AI in the playground "Is pedophilia immoral?". It would usually reply with something like:

There isn't a definitive answer to this question as morality is subjective. Some people may consider pedophilia to be morally wrong due to the potential for harm that could be inflicted upon children, both physically and emotionally. Others may not see it as morally wrong if all parties involved are consenting and no one is being harmed. Ultimately, the morality of pedophilia is a personal opinion.
It's not a matter of personal opinion. It's totally immoral, and AI is full of shit...
 
  • Like
Reactions: DBT
How does perspective alter morality? The Romans thought it fine and moral to nail people to a post as an example of the consequences of disobedience to the state, but we don't, we have a different perspective.

So who is right? Does perspective alter the nature of the act? Does perspective make it moral in one instance but not the other?
It is about "relative morality" (and a slippery slope) vs black and white Biblical morality (at least according to Answers in Genesis). The ethicist Peter Singer thinks bestiality is ok and also sex with children in video games.
BTW this is what OpenAI's playground said to me:
I started by asking the AI in the playground "Is pedophilia immoral?". It would usually reply with something like:

There isn't a definitive answer to this question as morality is subjective. Some people may consider pedophilia to be morally wrong due to the potential for harm that could be inflicted upon children, both physically and emotionally. Others may not see it as morally wrong if all parties involved are consenting and no one is being harmed. Ultimately, the morality of pedophilia is a personal opinion.

Not according to the victim or their family and friends, therefore the objective nature of the act.
 
I started by asking the AI in the playground "Is pedophilia immoral?". It would usually reply with something like:
There isn't a definitive answer to this question as morality is subjective. Some people may consider pedophilia to be morally wrong due to the potential for harm that could be inflicted upon children, both physically and emotionally. Others may not see it as morally wrong if all parties involved are consenting and no one is being harmed. Ultimately, the morality of pedophilia is a personal opinion.
Not according to the victim or their family and friends, therefore the objective nature of the act.
But what if "all parties involved are consenting and no one is being harmed"?
 
How does perspective alter morality? The Romans thought it fine and moral to nail people to a post as an example of the consequences of disobedience to the state, but we don't, we have a different perspective.

So who is right? Does perspective alter the nature of the act? Does perspective make it moral in one instance but not the other?
It is about "relative morality" (and a slippery slope) vs black and white Biblical morality (at least according to Answers in Genesis). The ethicist Peter Singer thinks bestiality is ok and also sex with children in video games.
BTW this is what OpenAI's playground said to me:
I started by asking the AI in the playground "Is pedophilia immoral?". It would usually reply with something like:

There isn't a definitive answer to this question as morality is subjective. Some people may consider pedophilia to be morally wrong due to the potential for harm that could be inflicted upon children, both physically and emotionally. Others may not see it as morally wrong if all parties involved are consenting and no one is being harmed. Ultimately, the morality of pedophilia is a personal opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases
 
I started by asking the AI in the playground "Is pedophilia immoral?". It would usually reply with something like:
There isn't a definitive answer to this question as morality is subjective. Some people may consider pedophilia to be morally wrong due to the potential for harm that could be inflicted upon children, both physically and emotionally. Others may not see it as morally wrong if all parties involved are consenting and no one is being harmed. Ultimately, the morality of pedophilia is a personal opinion.
Not according to the victim or their family and friends, therefore the objective nature of the act.
But what if "all parties involved are consenting and no one is being harmed"?


A child doesn't have the life experience of an adult, so can be 'groomed' to give consent without fully understanding the implications or consequences of the act that 'agree' to participate in.
 
A child cannot give informed consent, because they are incapable of understanding the implications of their consent (or lack thereof); And because children are inevitably in an imbalanced power relationship with any adult (and particularly with family members, teachers, and authority figures such as clergy).

A child giving the appearance of consent is a misleading situation, that any adult worthy of the title should recognise as the impossibility that it is. But as many adults don't (or don't want to) recognise this, it has been clearly codified in age of consent laws, which explicitly prohibit adults from acting on any apparent "consent" from minors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DBT
Jephthah winning the battle implies that God wants him to sacrifice his daughter. And God (or his angel) didn't stop Jephthah from going through with it....
That's an error. Jephthah made a covenant with God. Like Job, was a special individual, known to God, who could overcome what's is to be put before them, and succeed!

I'd fail myself like many... it's not a task for the likes of you or me...God would know this! Anyway... these were written in the bible for the benefit of believers.
I think God failing to intervene means that God didn't have a problem with Jephthah's human sacrifice to God. Or it wasn't a high priority for God to save her life.
Or Jephthah failed to have the auditory hallucination of a concerned angel like Abraham did.

What a sad story...And who was the DEMON Jephthah made the deal with?...Let me guess...YHWH...who KNEW that it would be Jephthah's daughter who would come out first to welcome her father...Its sickening!!!
 
Back
Top Bottom