Are You More Moral Than Yahweh?

[waysider]

I'm somewhat surprised that no one has brought up the "hedge of protection" angle yet. According to Way Theology, the devil, not God, was the one who caused bad things to happen when believers strayed outside the hedge of protection. In the case of Ananias and Sapphira, it was taught that it was the devil who caused these things to happen because they had walked outside the safety of the hedge and God could no longer protect them. This, of course, can't be applied to the premise of the thread because it wasn't the devil who introduced the laws, it was Yahweh.

[Tzaia]

We are told that we must be kind to one another, yet...

If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your

son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most

intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying, "Let us go and

serve other gods," unknown to you or your ancestors before you,

gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far

away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you

must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not

spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand

must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands

of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death,

since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God. . . .

(Deuteronomy 13:7-11)

[Raf]

But in love...

[Tzaia]

to whom...?

Edited March 8, 2015 by Tzaia

[Raf]

Well to Yahweh, of course. God first.

First and great commandment. If you love him, you will keep his commandments. Love your neighbor as yourself? Secondary.

[Raf]

I'd like to point out there was a supposed method to confirm women's virginity,

but not men's virginity.

It occurred to me later that this observation loses its punch when you recognize God as the One who set it up that way. God could very easily have devised a way for a man to prove he is a virgin on his wedding night, especially if virginity is SO important that it's worth executing a woman over.

[Tzaia]

I can see why a woman's virginity is important to a man (not really, but for argument's sake I'll attempt to see). What I can't see is why it's important to a god.

[Tzaia]

NAS Leviticus 20:15 'If there is a man who lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death; you shall also kill the animal.

NAS Leviticus 20:16 'If there is a woman who approaches any animal to mate with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

Because obviously the animal brought it on

Leviticus 20:27 'Now a man or a woman who is a medium or a spiritist shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.'" <== Witch hunt

Leviticus 21:9 'Also the daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by harlotry, she profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire. <== Honor killing

Leviticus 21:17 "Speak to Aaron, saying, 'No man of your offspring throughout their generations who has a defect shall approach to offer the bread of his God.

Leviticus 21:18 'For no one who has a defect shall approach: a blind man, or a lame man, or he who has a disfigured face, or any deformed limb,

Leviticus 21:19 or a man who has a broken foot or broken hand,

Leviticus 21:20 or a hunchback or a dwarf, or one who has a defect in his eye or eczema or scabs or crushed testicles.

Leviticus 21:21 'No man among the descendants of Aaron the priest, who has a defect, is to come near to offer the LORD's offerings by fire; since he has a defect, he shall not come near to offer the bread of his God.

Leviticus 21:22 'He may eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy and of the holy,

Leviticus 21:23 only he shall not go in to the veil or come near the altar because he has a defect, that he may not profane My sanctuaries. For I am the LORD who sanctifies them.'" <== Children of a lesser god?

Leviticus 22:11 'But if a priest buys a slave as his property with his money, that one may eat of it, and those who are born in his house may eat of his food.

[waysider]

Warning!

Men with crushed testicles may not approach the alter to offer sacrificial bread...Lev. 21:20

Wait! What??

Edited March 9, 2015 by waysider

[Raf]

I was saving the crushed testicles for later

[Tzaia]

God doesn't want defective people around him doing any kind of service in his temple on his behalf. I thought we were all defective.

Prick.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Tzaia

[Raf]

Darned curious to know what's God got against dwarfs.

[Raf]

But he's not, Tzaia. He's really not.

[Raf]

I can see why a woman's virginity is important to a man (not really, but for argument's sake I'll attempt to see). What I can't see is why it's important to a god.

If the God is invented by the man to validate his own practices, the answer becomes clear. Same reason the Anglican God allowed divorce. Because Henry VIII wanted to be able to divorce. That simple. We keep looking for complicated answers when the simplicity is staring us in the face. Why does God come off as such a scientifically ignorant morally unacceptable intolerant, jealous horrifyingly violent monster? Simple. The MEN who concocted him, though they didn't stand out in their time, would today be treated as sociopaths. Look at Victor Barnard. Would he stand out among the 12 tribes? Hardly. But today he stands out.

That's why "it was another time" loses this argument. It admits the culture created the God and not the other way around.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Raf

[Raf]

I'm somewhat surprised that no one has brought up the "hedge of protection" angle yet. According to Way Theology, the devil, not God, was the one who caused bad things to happen when believers strayed outside the hedge of protection. In the case of Ananias and Sapphira, it was taught that it was the devil who caused these things to happen because they had walked outside the safety of the hedge and God could no longer protect them. This, of course, can't be applied to the premise of the thread because it wasn't the devil who introduced the laws, it was Yahweh.

"Hedge of protection" works if we're talking about "don't be sexually promiscuous or I will give you an STD."

It's the promiscuity that brings the STD, not the person making the threat.

"Don't be sexually promiscuous or I will order the people to stone you with stones until you die" is NOT a "hedge of protection" issue.

[TrustAndObey]

This is pointless. Yahweh actually imposes a law saying stone a woman to death if she's not a virgin when she's married, and your defense is "it doesn't mean it," effectively. Well, carp, if we get to just dismiss inconvenient verses with a wave of the hand...

Once again, it was not a law. It was not black and white like you wish to represent it as. But neither did I say "It doesn't mean it". Why you setup strawmen is beyond me.

[TrustAndObey]

Funny how scholars who study the language, culture and scripture agree with my position and not yours. More false accusations about how I approach this and other debates. "If it can be taken in a positive light you ignore it." Bulls hit. You want to talk about a dishonest approach? Look at the lengths you go to in order to defend blatantly immoral laws. You would never do that if we were debating the Quran. Dishonest? How about failing to refute Yahweh's vicious prescribed punishments by citing platitudes like "God is love," and then having the GALL to accuse me of employing a straw man argument when I predicted that was precisely what you would do? THAT'S dishonest, if you must know.

You read instructions on selling your daughter into slavery, insist despite total lack of evidence that it's talking about the bride-price despite the absence of that term and the presence of the term for female slave, inject STDS into the discussion in a bid to create a false dilemma to distract from the fact that Yahweh is treating this woman with a level of disrespect no moral person would dare accept, and I'M the one reading into scripture? Because I actually did what you asked and looked into additional scholarship that shed light on the culture?

It's not an opinion. It's a fact: the verses about escaped slaves are not talking about Hebrew slaves. They're discussing foreigners. There is no provision for Hebrew slaves to escape. They are property, not some sanitized form of unionized employee. The Bible never speaks of hired workers as being owned property. Yahweh lets masters beat slaves as long as they don't maim or kill them. He holds wives and children hostage unless a freed slave agrees to return to slavery FOR LIFE. And I'm the one who's not handling our subject honestly? Bulls hit.

Honestly, Raf, just because "some",heck even if the majority of scholars agreed with you, doesn't make it a fact. It is still an opinion. Just because the majority of scholars think it says Yahweh is a 3 in 1 god, doesn't make it a fact. Any and all points concerning the Hebrew scriptures are going to be opnions. Mine included. To think otherwise is just acting like VPW.

If all this was really about Raf's description of Yahweh, you should have said so at the beginning. I don't think anyone would have disagreed. Sure, we're all more moral than YOUR description of Yahweh. Wait it's more, right, ok, so we're more moral than a lot of people's description of Yahweh.. No still not good enough. We're more moral than the majority ,which also think when you die you really don't die, and their description of Yahweh.. Had you started with that, there's no one here that would disagree.

I would have thought most having come from the cult, would have gotten passed the ego and pride of there being one perfect understanding that we have. From languages and cultures that have long been gone to ancient texts being burned, there are no 100% fact.. But, that's fine, if you wish to compare your morality to your own idea of Yahweh. No one will disagree. But there are other viewpoints just as valid.

And yes, I do consider it a bit disingenuous at best to say a verse that doesn't even say "foreign" nor does it's context, yet to say it is a fact that it is ONLY talking about foreign people, sorry, but adding words and using other's who agree still just doesn't make it fact.

Edited March 10, 2015 by TrustAndObey

[TrustAndObey]

Animal sacrifice was ridiculous and IMMORAL. Slicing an animal's throat and letting it bleed out to please God? If one were to do that today, that person would be charged with animal cruelty.

Just as a note, it wasn't to "please God" nor to receive his forgiveness as was mentioned earlier. You can ask any Jew today, and they will tell you the same since foriveness was already given. What it was is a reminder of who we are. And the animal was eaten not just "sacrificed".

As for cutting it's throat and letting it bleed, they still do that today. And they have done studies regarding that versus the "shock" treatment usually done everywhere else. And the results were that the throat was much more humane when done properly as required in the scriptures.

http://www.mustaqim.co.uk/halal.htm

and

http://www.mustaqim.co.uk/halalstudy.htm

[TrustAndObey]

I find the concept of the maximum penalty interesting. However, that doesn't address the morality of assigning those maximum penalties for the particular offenses we've been discussing.

I never really gave "Yahweh's" morality a thought until recently when I read the Qur'an. Then someone pointed out that the Bible was the most bloodthirsty book ever written. Is it? Well, yes it is. And it starts right at the beginning when he favors one sacrifice over another - for no readily apparent reason.

If Yahweh really needs people to die for transgressions against him, then why doesn't he do it like he did Sodom & Gomorrah? Why does he have people doing it to people?

If you take it one step further, why is there death to begin with. Of course, I do mean if there really is a God, if you don't believe in one, then you'll have to suspend that belief for moment. And why are some things allowed to die? What did the cow do to us that we must have it killed to eat our burger. Or what did the grass do to you that you stomp on it without regret. Sure is the basis of why many end up non-theists. And all valid questions. What makes any of it moral and where does morality end in preventing death?

The topic is Yahweh's morality of course, and thus far many verses that could be understood in a negative light have been presented. All very valid points. But I don't believe that is the only valid viewpoint either. We all have unique perspectives, billions of different ones, each unique. And even from an atheist viewpoint, we are all brothers/sisters from a common root, no one above another. Yet this isn't an evolved perspective, since the scriptures state the same "in the beginning". All created equal.

One would say we've evolved to become more enlightened and moral, less killings, but is death really that bad that nothing warrants it? Sure, death penalty. We've been discussing it right, death penalty in the Torah. And of course, from Yahweh' perspective, and I am speaking only according to my understanding of such, not as fact as if I'm all knowing, but does not the potter have the right to destroy his work if he desires? Or would you think if you were able to design a fully autonomous robot/being that you had not the right to do with it as you please? It is being debated now no less in foreign courts mostly because of how some "partially" autonomous bots have already caused some havoc and now who to assign responsibility and who has what rights in regards to it's ownership and destruction.

[waysider]

"If you take it one step further, why is there death to begin with."

It's part of a natural, biological process called the Hayflick Limit

Edited March 10, 2015 by waysider

[Raf]

Laws are not laws. Facts are opinions. Slaves are not slaves...

TnO, the first words of mine you quoted were "This is pointless." You went on to demonstrate it. Since neither of us will change the other's mind, I will not go on to address your points.

I apologize if it seems rude, but I can't argue with someone who reads a law and says it's not a law, who reads that you can beat your slave as long as you don't maim him because the slave is your property and concludes the slave is not your property and you can't beat him, etc. You keep accusing me of employing straw man fallacy, then you go on to validate my predictions. It's hilarious.

"If all this was really about Raf's description of Yahweh, you should have said so at the beginning. I don't think anyone would have disagreed. Sure, we're all more moral than YOUR description of Yahweh."

This is the guy accusing ME of strawman, ladies and gentlemen. Won't admit that I'm describing Yahweh straight out of the Bible. Has to make it about me. Transparent.

A verse that talks about allowing escaped slaves to live within your gates is addressed to a class of people, not to individuals. Scholar after scholar, THE VERY SAME SOURCES I'M BEING ASKED TO TRUST REGARDING THE CULTURE OF THE TIME, agree that the verse in question is discussing foreign slaves escaping into Israel and not Hebrew slaves who escape from Hebrew masters.

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/deuteronomy/23-15.htm

An inconvenient truth, to borrow a phrase.

To be blunt, I think you've proved my point better than I ever could. Why argue?

Feel free to continue posting.

Edited March 10, 2015 by Raf

[Raf]

Sure, death penalty. We've been discussing it right, death penalty in the Torah. And of course, from Yahweh' perspective, and I am speaking only according to my understanding of such, not as fact as if I'm all knowing, but does not the potter have the right to destroy his work if he desires? Or would you think if you were able to design a fully autonomous robot/being that you had not the right to do with it as you please?

I just can't.

There is SO MUCH morally wrong with this. Where to start?

Do you realize you just justified ISIS? I mean, can't you see that?

We are human beings, not some potter's clay!

I thought atheists were the ones who didn't value human life. Now to exonerate Allah... excuse me, to exonerate Yahweh, you HAVE TO DEVALUE HUMANS! We're pottery. We're robots. Is that what Yahweh thinks of you? And you worship that?

Yeah, that's morally repugnant.

Edited March 10, 2015 by Raf

[Raf]

To sit there and justify a capricious death penalty because God can kill whoever the pluck he wants because we're mere pottery, then accuse ME of retaining a cult mindset. Gall.

That said, while I PASSIONATELY disagree with TnO's arguments and conclusions, he is assuredly on topic. Unmistakably. It needs to be said because there is a continuing FALSE accusation that I declare posts off topic when they don't agree with me.

Edited March 10, 2015 by Raf

[Tzaia]

Might I interject that this is about the morality of buying people and considering them to be property. Is there a circumstance where this should take place, EVER? The idea that the "god of the universe" is good with people acquiring other humans regardless of the time in history is ghastly. If it were such a great idea, then why do or why would we push against it now?

We gloss over the FACT that this is something that took place up until the mid 1800s in the US. We gloss over the FACT that it is going on today because it is ordered by someone's god. And we especially gloss over the fact that this is a practice that is sanctioned by a supposed "god of love". Not WAS; IS. God has not changed.

The attempts to sanitize or justify buying people in any context is just simply astounding.

Picking verses apart trying to determine the hidden meaning when no one at the time thought there was any hidden meaning. People owning was a fact of life. People owning was a fact of life that could have been wiped out with a single declaration from the god of the universe. And it didn't happen. EVER. Not then. Not now. NEVER happened.

You either agree with god or you reject what god has to say on this issue. Which is it?

[Tzaia]

If Yahweh wants to invoke a death penalty, fine. Why doesn't he carry it out? Seriously.