Are You More Moral Than Yahweh?

[Raf]

Apparently he'll only do that if you lie to the Man of God about how much money you have to put in the cornucopia or if your entire city is on fire and you succumb to the perfectly normal human impulse to look back. Picking up sticks on a Friday night does not rise to that level of evil. For that, we need a slower, more painful death inflicted by the people acting on Yahweh's direct order, which is ok, because He is the potter and we're just clay.

[Tzaia]

All created equal

Yes, and that was immediately taken away. Adam disobeyed god and was "punished" by being thrown out of the garden and given lordship over Eve whom was merely deceived. Perhaps that was the first of many bad ideas. But it's hard to see that when people are told that god can't have bad ideas. And if you think it's a bad idea, then you are wrong. How convenient is that?

why is there death to begin with

We are told that disease and death is something we brought on ourselves through our disobedience. Well maybe it's something that simply happens. I don't know if you've noticed, but it appears that a large segment of the population's behavior can be controlled by hanging the carrot of "eternal life" over them. The rest can simply be killed if they step out of line.

Back then all of this seems to have had the purpose of protecting the herd (tribe), but are they merely bad ideas?

There ARE a lot of good ideas in the bible. But unfortunately when one is required to accept it as a whole, given by a supreme being, then one can't take the good without being accused of cherry picking - if one is to be honest.

The REALITY is that benevolent slave owners who tithe, stone to death homosexuals, stone to death non-virgin women, and stone to death mouthy kids while avoiding pork, shellfish, and milk with their meat are the most virtuous people on the planet.

[Raf]

Hold on! You're forgetting about love!

The REALITY is that benevolent slave owners acting in love while holding wives and children hostage unless their recently freed slaves agree to have auls driven through their ears to signify they are "volunteering" to be slaves for life, and who demonstrate their adherence to the First and Great commandment of loving God by keeping His commandments by tithing, stoning to death homosexuals, stoning to death non-virgin women, and stoning to death mouthy kids while avoiding pork, shellfish, and milk with their meat are the most virtuous people on the planet.

Edited March 10, 2015 by Raf

[waysider]

Fact: There are more people living in slavery today than at any given point in the history of man. Rough estimates place the number at upwards of 35 million. I'm talking about REAL slavery, not just slavery as defined by individual perception. Many are right here in the good old U.S. of A. as a result of human trafficking. Now, the significance of that number is a bit skewed because there are also more people being born, more people dying, more people picking their nose, and so on.

O.K., so how does this relate to the thread? If we continue to redefine slavery and assign it to some long forgotten culture, we do ourselves a disservice by turning a blind eye to reality. Slavery is real, it's here today and doing a thriving business, even at this very moment. We need to think of it as a current reality and problem, rather than something that happened long, long ago.

[Tzaia]

The idea that only the evil and unscrupulous are in the slave business does a disservice to the truth. The TRUTH is there is biblical justification to slave owning. For BELIEVERS to say that owning slaves is wrong is simply that - WRONG - if the bible is the origin and benchmark of your faith and practice.

Now if you juxtapose that with what you as a HUMAN holds to be true - then you have to ask yourself if god is indeed moral.

[Tzaia]

I'm going to (perhaps) get a bit crass here, but I want to address this highly moral (cough, cough) act of stoning non-virgins.

I recently had a discussion with one of my sons who is in his first really, really, serious relationship (at over 30). NOW he is lamenting the fact that SHE isn't a virgin. Come to find out, it's been one of his dreams - to marry a virgin. He, who is an unbeliever since 2002. Come to find out, it is more about the fear of comparison. Could it be that this could be the real reason behind the commandment to stone a non-virgin?

Anyway, I appealed to his sense of REASON - as in it being unfair to her to expect behavior in her that he had not applied to himself. I told him that the big question should be is if both of them are committed to monogamy while in this relationship.

There is no biblical man equivalent to whore. It's strictly a female thing.

In this age, the way this is being handled is to invoke strict segregation of men and women in orthodox and ultra-orthodox judaism - foregoing stoning. Christians go for the purity ring, which just might be the most equitable solution. Muslims have one hour "marriages", multiple wives, concubines, FGM, and child marriage, plus the right to plow the wives anytime they're not on menstruating as a way to alleviate the problems that men have to endure.

None of this deals with the shame associated with female sexuality. God given, I might add. God says that a sexually active non-married woman is a whore. He associates sexually active non-married females with most of the evil in the world. WHY?

[Raf]

Well, there are whoremongers in the Bible.

Interesting in English: The word "whore" does nothing to judge the man, but the word "whoremonger" judges not only the man, but also the woman he beds.

I wonder if that's the same in Greek or Hebrew.

[waysider]

I think to really understand this, you need to accept some of the premises of evolution/survival of species. You also need to think of humans as merely one of the multitude of creatures that inhabit the planet.

Male cats, for example, mark out a defined territory in order to keep the females from mating with male intruders. The male has an uncanny sense of knowing if a kitten has been fathered by another male. If it has, he kills it. This insures that his gene pool dominates the next generation. None of this sits well with people who view humans as the elite species.

Edited March 10, 2015 by waysider

[Tzaia]

I definitely get the survival of the gene pool. Ancient Greek women were kept virtual captives in order to protect the gene pool of the husband. Knowing that doesn't make the Jewish law particularly enlightened in comparison. It still puts the burden on the woman, when an all-knowing god could find a better way than what was already being done amongst the pagans in the Greek Empire. Don't you think?

[Raf]

He could have just told us all about how DNA works, so there would never be any question of who the baby-daddy.

But that would require a level of scientific knowledge that was unavailable to [an omniscient] God at the time.

While He was at it, He could have told us about germ theory. Not only would it have been handy to know, saving countless lives, but it would have demonstrated unequivocally that He had a base of knowledge far above and beyond the limited culture of the time.

If you had life-saving information and the means to communicate it to people, would you do it? You would, if you valued those people's lives. Yahweh kept that information to himself.

Edited March 10, 2015 by Raf

[Tzaia]

1425958398[/url]' post='565119']

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..../halalstudy.htm

I get that they were eaten. To not eat the animals would be completely pointless if not downright impractical.

Th irony of using a Muslim site was not lost on me as they are the mother of all religious rationalizers. But here's the point: Competely draining the animal of its blood is the most important thing, not necessarily the animal's comfort. According to this site http://m.wikihow.com/Properly-Slaughter-a-Cow-Under-the-Kosher-Method-Shechitah, It's more efficient to let the animal bleed out, and it's just not kosher to stun the animal. And it says this:

Although some people say that the reason that non-kosher animals are forbidden to Jews is that many of them are either scavengers or have some other anatomical property that makes them more susceptible to carrying diseases and parasites, the simple fact is that the laws of Kashrut are a supra-rational set of commandments given to the Jewish people, and any rational or scientific justification is done after the fact.

But don't you know that even the pagans of that day as well as today do the same throat cutting? Nothing special beyond to WHOM the animal was sacrificed. Yahweh could have done something completely different, but nooooo.

[Raf]

http://www.hsa.org.uk/downloads/related-items/religious-slaughter.pdf

Whilst respecting differing religious beliefs, the HSA’s position

on the pre-slaughter stunning of animals has always been

unequivocal, all animals should be effectively stunned prior to

being bled. Recent advances in the electrical stunning of cattle

now make reversible stunning a practical option for all. This

overcomes one of the main obstacles preventing a full uptake of

pre-slaughter stunning.

http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/waitrose%E2%80%99s-response-bnp%E2%80%99s-halal-campaign-claims-%E2%80%9Chumane-slaughtering%E2%80%9D-exposed

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17972-animals-feel-the-pain-of-religious-slaughter.html

Brain signals have shown that calves do appear to feel pain when slaughtered according to Jewish and Muslim religious law, strengthening the case for adapting the practices to make them more humane.

"I think our work is the best evidence yet that it's painful," says Craig Johnson, who led the study at Massey University in Palmerston North, New Zealand.

Johnson summarised his results last week in London when receiving an award from the UK Humane Slaughter Association. His team also showed that if the animal is concussed through stunning, signals corresponding to pain disappear.

But the Muslims have a study saying slitting the throat is more humane.

Because, you know, people who defend their religious practices would never continue to do so if those practices were judged to be inhumane or immoral. Clearly they did the research before reaching their conclusion and not vice-versa.

Mind you, this digression is brought to you by the fact that the Muslim practice of Halal was raised as a defense against a claim that Biblical animal sacrifice is immoral. However, let's all keep an eye on the topic and not stray much farther from it. Our hold is getting tenuous. ;)

Edited March 10, 2015 by Raf

[Tzaia]

So getting back to the topic: What is the morality of using stand-in bleeders?

[Raf]

Upon further reflection, the method of execution of sacrifices is really off topic. Let's drop it.

But the fact that animal sacrifices were to please God... is in dispute?

[Tzaia]

Well, it certainly didn't differentiate him from the multitude of other "deities" other than his was a case of "doesn't play nice with others".

Edited March 11, 2015 by Tzaia

[Tzaia]

Apparently he loved the smell of animal fat [burning] over an open fire.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Tzaia

[Raf]

So, on slavery, we seem to be at a standstill. I think the Bible very clearly talks about a lack of freedom and one human being owning another, able to beat the other within limits, able to hold the other's children hostage unless they agree to become slaves for life (a promise that is utterly empty if it's not enforceable). I think the Bible makes provision for for slaves who escape INTO Israel from other countries, but somehow does not even consider the scenario of a slave IN Israel escaping from his master. I think there is a profound difference between being owned by someone and being employed by someone (even the Bible knows the difference between a slave and a hireling).

TnO appears to disagree with me on all of these issues save one: the notion of a master keeping a wife and son "hostage" (my word) unless the freed slave agrees to become bound to the master for life. It's not that TnO agrees with me there, however. Rather, he simply hasn't addressed it. At all. He is certainly free to do so.

TnO I appreciate you taking the time to share your views and insights. I do not find them compelling or in the slightest bit convincing. Tzaia used the word "sanitizing," and I agree with that assessment. I think you're sanitizing Biblical slavery, changing it so that it's palatable to you. I think you're sincere about that. I don't think you're correct.

If there's anything else about slavery you wish to address, have at it. If you'd like to move on to the death penalty (and have something to say other than we're the potter's clay to be broken as he pleases), I invite that discussion as well. Or any other topic you'd like to address.

[waysider]

HERE is an interesting article that looks at some issues of morality from a Buddhist influenced perspective .

[Raf]

About a week shy of a month since the last post. I suppose there's nothing more that will be said on slavery for the time being. I do appreciate the effort.

The slavery discussion, of course, does nothing to address the arbitrary and immoral imposition of the death penalty throughout the Old Testament. Nor does it address the horrible treatment of women (particularly in cases of rape).

In the Bible, if a woman is raped in the Old Testament, what happens to the rapist depends to a large degree on the marital status of the woman. if she's married, the rapist dies. Do we have the death penalty for rape today? Not anymore. Somewhere along the line, we decided as a culture that the punishment of death does not fit the crime of rape.

But wait! There's more! If the rape of a married woman takes place in "the city" (or, in context, in a populated area), the woman dies too! Why? Because she did not cry out for help. Thus, it is assumed that because she did not cry out for help, it wasn't a rape at all, but an act of adultery. And adultery was punishable by death. We don't have the death penalty for adultery today. In fact, we don't have criminal punishment for adultery at all. It's a civil matter, if it's a legal matter at all. Mind you, if a rapist puts a knife to a woman's throat and says "don't make a sound or I'll kill you," then he has threatened the woman into silence (and silence=consent, and therefore it's adultery, and therefore she dies). Is that moral?

Now, if the rapist strikes in an isolated area, then it's presumed in the Bible that the woman did indeed cry out for help (what was she doing out there by herself? Never mind). So in that case, only the rapist dies. Should rape be a capital offense?

However, what happens if the woman is NOT married (or betrothed). Well, in THAT case, the rapist is not killed. So I was wrong: rape is NOT a capital offense. It's only a capital offense if the victim is married. If she's NOT married, SHE IS NOW! The rapist pays a fine to the girl's father (he's the victim) and has to marry the girl! That's his punishment. Yes, the father can say no (Exodus 22). THE FATHER CAN SAY NO. The girl can't! She doesn't get a vote. Deuteronomy 22 -- "He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

Traditional marriage?

Now, here's what God COULD have said if he were moral: The rapist gets punished the same regardless of the marital status of the victim (who is the woman, not her husband, not her father). No harm, stigma or punishment shall befall the woman, for she is the victim. An unmarried woman who is raped shall be considered the same as any virgin. Period. End of story. That's how moral societies handle rape. That's how YOU would handle rape. The thought of a rapist MARRYING the woman he raped as part of HIS punishment is repugnant to you. You would not even entertain the notion. It certainly would not be the default, the ONLY legal remedy you bother to mention. You are more moral than that. But that's what Yahweh prescribed.

You are more moral than Yahweh.

Remarkable, by the way, that waysider and I chose to revive this thread at the same time. :)/>

Edited April 6, 2015 by Raf

[Tzaia]

Amazing apologetic on slavery...

slavery vs homosexuality

It appears that Dan reads this website for views on slavery and perhaps the morality of god.

Edited May 22, 2015 by Tzaia

[Raf]

I doubt it. He's too good for us.

And the slavery apologetic is rather common. It's telling that he ignores female slaves and foreign slaves from his discussion, as well as the notion of children born into slavery through no fault of their own, being kept by the slavemaster if the father goes free. There has been, there and here, no response to the obvious immorality of that law.

Dan also, astonishingly, seems to be making the case that Old Testament slavery is morally preferable to the ability to declare bankruptcy.

So. Ok. Gays are ok as long as they don't f***. Thanks, Dan.

[Tzaia]

In order to justify the barbarity (immorality) of god, one would have to choose slavery over what is arguably the higher grace notion of forgiving debt.

[Raf]

I guess no one can accuse me of artificially keeping this thread moving.

Questions I raised that were never answered:

How was it ever moral to have a verse like Exodus 21: 2-6?

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.

This is not an employer-employee relationship. This is a hostage situation. It's extortion. You can gain your freedom, but I OWN YOUR WIFE AND CHILDREN.

How is that moral?

How was it ever moral to penalize a rapist by making him marry the woman he raped? Deuteronomy 22:28-29

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

Why does the girl's father get 50 pieces of silver. Isn't the victim the one who gets compensated for a crime? Of course it is. And that is what is happening here: The victim is being compensated. The victim of a rape is the woman's father. The girl who was raped is damaged property, so her dad, the victim, gets compensated.

How is this moral? Wouldn't it have been more moral to say "If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father and become his servant for seven years. Then he must never touch or be alone with the young woman because he violated her. She is to be treated the same as any virgin. Her value as a daughter and a wife shall not be diminished."

I mean, let's quibble about the first part of that, but the second: How is it less moral to demand the rapist keep his filthy paws off the girl than it is to order her to marry him!

These are not Israel's laws. These are, as presented in the Bible, God's laws to Israel. That makes Him responsible for them. Romans 7:12 calls teh Old Testament Law "Holy, righteous and good." Is it? Can you honestly say these laws are holy, righteous and good?

[Raf]

Deuteronomy 21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: 19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; 20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. 21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Ok. Let's parse this. "Stubborn and rebellious." That could be very serious. Depending on what the kid is stubborn and rebellious about, I suppose you might have a case for the death penalty. So, let's see. Won't respond to discipline. Ok. Let's get some examples though. He's a... glutton and a drunkard?!?!?!

That's IT? That's what gets the death penalty? By STONING? Ever stop to think what a horrible form of execution this is? This... is... torture.

And Yahweh prescribed this penalty for stubborn and rebellious children. And what is an example of stubborn rebelliousness? Drunken gluttony. This is the only example cited in the context.

What do apologists say about this verse? To save our link-posters some time, I'll share a couple.

https://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/stone-rebellious-son

...we can conclude that this harsh requirement was a necessary legality to instill and designate the necessity of family order and respect and to ultimately provide another safeguard that would ensure the sacrifice of Christ.

Now, I don't know about you, but I do not threaten my children with execution if they don't obey me. And I don't need to. Neither do you, I'll bet. How, in anyone's name, is this savagery "necessary"? It's not.

http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?com=mhc&b=5&c=21

Disobedience to a parent's authority must be very evil, when such a punishment was ordered; nor is it less provoking to God now, though it escapes punishment in this world. But when young people early become slaves to sensual appetites, the heart soon grows hard, and the conscience callous; and we can expect nothing but rebellion and destruction.

So KILL THEM!

Right?

Now, you might argue (as the first link does) that there's no record of anyone actually being sentenced to die under this law. And we all know why. It's because there were no disobedient children throughout the history of Israel. What? You think there were? Well, then, why wasn't anyone ever put to death under this law? Because even THEY knew this was not a just punishment for the "crime"! But this was Yahweh's law!

Now, it is true that Yahweh commanded his people to honor their mothers and fathers. And it is true that this is, generally speaking, a good law. But disobedience to that law does not merit the death penalty, and you are not a moral person if you think it does. You are a threat to your children if you think this is the case.

Why would a moral god institute a law that, if enforced and carried out, makes the enforcers sociopaths?

Edited December 16, 2015 by Raf

[Bolshevik]

On 11/12/2014 at 0:47 PM, Raf said:

1. For how many crimes do you feel it is appropriate to kill the perpetrator by having everyone in town surround him and throw heavy rocks at him until he dies?

1.a. Did a child being disobedient to his parents make the list?

1.b. Did picking up sticks after sunset on a Friday make the list?

2. If you were to start a society from scratch, how many laws regulating slavery would you require?

2.a. Would any of those laws crack your Top Ten list?

2.a.i. Why the hell not?

3. What difference should the marital status of a raped woman make in determining the punishment meted out to the rapist?

3a. Who is the victim in a rape case, and how much restitution is he due?

To be continued...

 

Okay.  The monotony of the thread is killing me.  Didn't read it all.

Problem with the Thread Topic.

It's a suggestive question.  Why ask it?

We find problems in life, we come up with solutions.  We might ask tons of questions to find solutions.  Because we need to understand the problem.

What's the problem?  Why are we comparing apples and oranges?

Life was hard thousands of years ago.  People, or societies/cultures, came up with gods and Gods.  It worked.

Nietzsche declared God dead.

What's the problem?