Are You More Moral Than Yahweh?

[Raf]

I'll put it this way: Since Nelson's Bible Dictionary is unbiased, its entry on the Holy Spirit is unbiased. Please read the Nelson Bible Dictionary entry on the Holy Spirit and tell me again it is unbiased (that is, that the writers are willing to give consideration to the notion that the Holy Spirit is NOT the third person of the Trinity because there is no Trinity). I'll wait.

[Raf]

You edited after I quoted, which is fine. I've been known to do the same.

From a biblical perspective there is the God of this world, Satan, and God the father of Jesus Christ. Sorry, but God is not now preventing every evil that Satan promotes. Satan would need to get figuratively chained up for that. The bible says God will do this in the future, but not now. In the mean time I hope you can at least see that Jesus Christ did not promote slavery in his earthly life. Or as this biblical study points outs regarding the gospel of Jesus Christ.

"But the implications of the gospel, especially the ethic of love, stand in opposition to slavery."

To the first point in bold, when we look at the Old Testament law as regards slavery, we are not discussing God preventing something that Satan promotes. We are actually talking about God promoting something that you and I agree (I hope) is immoral. Exodus 21 does not record SATAN's laws regulating slavery. It records GOD's laws. I don't see how God "not now preventing every evil Satan promotes" is relevant to that particular issue. Please feel free to expound.

To the second point in bold, I can indeed see that Jesus Christ did not promote slavery directly. I hope you can at least see that he never condemned it as an institution. I will grant that his failure to condemn it is not a moral failure in and of itself. It would have been nice. But his failure to condemn slavery as an institution doesn't add to my point. However, his non-promotion of slavery does not subtract from the fact that His Father promoted slavery (by conferring legitimacy on the institution and regulating it instead of abolishing it outright, which any person with today's moral standards would do).

Can you find one place in the Bible where Jesus, Paul or anyone else says it is inherently sinful and against God's will for one human being to own another? Can you find a single verse that condemns the practice of keeping a man from his wife and son because his wife and son are your property, and the man can only stay with them by agreeing to be your slave for life? I can find a verse where God SUPPORTS that. I'm just looking for one where he condemns it.

To the final sentence, the writer is begging the question. There is nothing in the gospel ethic of "love" that stands in opposition to slavery except by our standards today. Paul had a golden opportunity to declare slavery antithetical to the gospel. He didn't. That was no accident. If it were antithetical to the gospel, Paul would have said so. He didn't. Because it wasn't.

Except by today's standards. However, the topic is whether you are more moral than Yahweh, not whether you are more moral than Paul.

How can we say the gospel implies a rejection of slavery when slavery persisted, even among Christians, for nearly 2,000 years afterward? Only by retro-interpreting the gospel in light of today's morality can we reach that conclusion. Paul returned a slave to his master, appealing to the master to release the slave not because slavery is inherently immoral (he never even hints at such an argument) but because the slave in question was now a Christian AND valuable to Paul!

We cannot criticize me for holding the Old Testament culture to the standard of today's morality while at the same time imposing today's contempt for slavery onto a first century Christian culture that never challenged the wretched institution!

Edited February 20, 2015 by Raf

[Mark Sanguinetti]

I'll put it this way: Since Nelson's Bible Dictionary is unbiased, its entry on the Holy Spirit is unbiased. Please read the Nelson Bible Dictionary entry on the Holy Spirit and tell me again it is unbiased (that is, that the writers are willing to give consideration to the notion that the Holy Spirit is NOT the third person of the Trinity because there is no Trinity). I'll wait.

Raf, you are getting off the subject which you started here. Namely this subject is the morality of Yahweh. Now, if you want us to sometimes get off the main subject, but not other times then this is also bias. I have used the Nelson Bible Dictionary for a number of years and in reading many biblical articles have rarely seen bias. Now, we might both see bias with this one study on Holy Spirit, which does mention Trinity, which I just now noticed. This is clearly written by a different writer than the Nelson bible study of Jesus Christ, which NEVER mentions trinity and is clearly more biblically written than this one that you have mentioned. So can you see this is also bias to mention something that is not written with complete biblical terminology, while not mentioning something that is written with biblical terminology? If you have a copy of this look up Jesus Christ in the Nelson Bible Dictionary and see this for yourself. No mention of trinity and from a biblical perspective is written with accuracy.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Mark Sanguinetti

[Raf]

Excellent. So the article on Jesus does not mention his pre-existence in John 1? I don't have a copy. I'll take your word for it.

Nah.

Now, we might both see bias with this one study on Holy Spirit, which does mention Trinity, which I just now noticed. This is clearly written by a different writer than the Nelson bible study of Jesus Christ, which NEVER mentions trinity and is clearly more biblically written than this one that you have mentioned. ... If you have a copy of this look up Jesus Christ in the Nelson Bible Dictionary and see this for yourself. No mention of trinity and from a biblical perspective is written with accuracy.

I just bought a copy. First line in the Jesus Christ article: "The human-divine Son of God..." When Trinitarians use the term human-divine, they mean he is both man and God. That's just how they use the term.

There is an entire section on "The Person of Christ," one aspect of which is "God."

The Bible thus presents Christ as altogether God and altogether man -- the perfect mediator between God and mankind because He partakes fully of the nature of both.

So, um, yeah, it's biased. Your rhetorical question to me, ["So can you see this is also bias to mention something that is not written with complete biblical terminology, while not mentioning something that is written with biblical terminology?"] is therefore moot. The article on Jesus Christ is also biased in favor of the Trinitarian position. WHICH IS FINE. I would expect nothing less.

For the record: the issue of bias/lack in Nelson's Bible Dictionary is INDEED on topic in context. You used NBD to support an on-topic argument. You claimed, in using NBD, that it was an unbiased source. It is on-topic to challenge that assertion. But it is certainly a digression that could very easily go off topic. Feel free to respond to what I've posted here. After that, let's agree to drop it and get back to the topic of whether you are more moral than Yahweh (spoiler alert, you are).

[This is edited. I take responsibility for any post that quotes from an earlier version of what I've posted here].

Edited February 20, 2015 by Raf

[Raf]

Returning to topic:

Since slave practices were part of the culture in biblical times, the Bible contains no direct call to abolish slavery. But the implications of the gospel, especially the ethic of love, stand in opposition to slavery.

I've already dealt with the second sentence in that quote from Nelson's Absotively Unbiased (Except In Articles That Disagree With Me) Bible Dictionary . I'd now like to look again, briefly, at the first.

It's hard to tell what the writer of this article is actually trying to say here. Whatever it is, it is morally unacceptable.

Is he saying the God couldn't be bothered to abolish slavery because everyone was doing it? I mean, was it God's practice to allow moral abominations so long as enough people practiced them? Isn't it the point of the law to stop people from doing immoral things that they would do if it wasn't forbidden? There's a law against boiling a goat in its mothers milk. Not only is that a law, it's one of the Ten Commandments! (Only one set of commandments is actually referred to in the Bible as THE TEN Commandments, and the law against boiling a baby goat in its mother's milk is actually one of them. Check it out. Exodus 34. It's a hoot).

Must have been easy to make a law forbidding the boiling of a goat in its mother's milk. I guess Israel's heart wasn't as committed to the practice of boiling a goat in its mother's milk as it was to the practice of owning people and holding their wives and children hostage.

"Since slave practices were part of the culture in biblical times, the Bible contains no direct call to abolish slavery." Shouldn't that read, "Since slave practices were part of the culture in biblical times, the Bible contains repeated direct calls to abolish slavery"? Isn't that what you would expect from the author of absolute, objective morality?

"Since slave practices were part of the culture in biblical times, the Bible contains no direct call to abolish slavery." Isn't God's existence the basis for objective, absolute morality, as opposed to cultural relativism? Why appeal to cultural relativism to explain one of His apparent moral failures?

Etc.

[Mark Sanguinetti]

Excellent. So the article on Jesus does not mention his pre-existence in John 1? I don't have a copy. I'll take your word for it.

Nah.

I just bought a copy. First line in the Jesus Christ article: "The human-divine Son of God..." When Trinitarians use the term human-divine, they mean he is both man and God. That's just how they use the term.

There is an entire section on "The Person of Christ," one aspect of which is "God."

So, um, yeah, it's biased. Your rhetorical question to me, ["So can you see this is also bias to mention something that is not written with complete biblical terminology, while not mentioning something that is written with biblical terminology?"] is therefore moot. The article on Jesus Christ is also biased in favor of the Trinitarian position. WHICH IS FINE. I would expect nothing less.

For the record: the issue of bias/lack in Nelson's Bible Dictionary is INDEED on topic in context. You used NBD to support an on-topic argument. You claimed, in using NBD, that it was an unbiased source. It is on-topic to challenge that assertion. But it is certainly a digression that could very easily go off topic. Feel free to respond to what I've posted here. After that, let's agree to drop it and get back to the topic of whether you are more moral than Yahweh (spoiler alert, you are).

[This is edited. I take responsibility for any post that quotes from an earlier version of what I've posted here].

Raf, why do you constantly read things out of context? Here is the actual quote from this article. I hope you understand this.

The Bible thus presents Christ as altogether God and altogether man-the perfect mediator between God and mankind because He partakes fully of the nature of both.

This is referring to Jesus' nature and not him being literally God. This article refers to Jesus being the Son of man and Son of God, but no mention of that from Raf.

Yes, perhaps I should be one of their writers for the Nelson Bible Dictionary. If I had the time. Here is something that I wrote pertaining to 1 Corinthians chapter 15. This is what we will all receive in the future, which is the equivalent also of the nature of God in all of mankind.

1 Corinthians 15:20-28

20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

NIV

God has delegated all things pertaining to the church for the salvation of mankind under Jesus Christ his Son. We see in the above verses in Adam all die and in Christ all will be made alive. Since we have death for all of humanity, even Jesus Christ, we have in or through Christ all in the future made alive. This order of life after death is Christ first being raised from the dead. Then when He comes those who belong to him or the followers of Jesus Christ being raised from the dead. For an explanation of this see 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. Next we see all dominion, authority and power destroyed with Jesus Christ reigning as King or ruler until He has put all, and this includes even his enemies, under his feet or rulership. Then the last enemy to be destroyed is death. In the original Greek the word for destroyed (katargeoo) means "to render idle, unemployed, inoperative, to cause to cease, put an end to, do away with, annul, abolish". Death cannot be destroyed by there only being no further death. Death can only be destroyed and put to an end with the addition of a general resurrection. When death is finally destroyed this means no more death for humanity with all being made alive. When Jesus Christ finally reaches his goal of all or everything under His lordship or rulership, then Jesus Christ will turn back this authority to God his Father, so that God will or "may be all in all". This means all of humanity under God's commandments and with God's character, the foundation of which according to Jesus Christ as seen in Matthew 22:36-40 is to love God with all your heart and soul and love your neighbor as yourself.

Trinitarians would have difficulty with their doctrinal bias with this. If Jesus is literally God now, this would mean we would all be literally God in the future. But no, after Jesus Christ meets his goal of all being under His Lordship then Jesus will turn back this Lordship to God his Father. Or as verse 28 points out, "When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all."

Raf, I know you write well and quickly, but when you read at least try to read things in context.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Mark Sanguinetti

[Raf]

Seriously? You think the writer of that article does not believe Jesus is God? Or that he meant something else by "The Bible thus presents Christ as altogether God..."? REALLY? You're wrong.

And I personally think it's hilarious that you accuse me of reading the item out of context, promise to provide the "accurate quote", and then quote the exact same thing I quoted. CHUTZPAH!

Then for you to impose YOUR anti-trinitarian bias onto the work of an obviously Trinitarian Nelson writer is extraordinary. You can't even admit that the writer of that entry believes Jesus is God? You can't admit that he means to say exactly that?

The section on the Person of Christ contains numerous subheadings: The Son of Man (because the writer believes the Bible teaches Jesus is the Son of Man); The Messiah (because the writer believes the Bible teaches Jesus is the Messiah); The Son of God (because the writer believes the Bible teaches Jesus is the Son of God); Word and Wisdom (because the writer believes the Bible teaches Jesus is the word and wisdom of God); The Holy One of God (because the writer believes the Bible teaches Jesus is the Holy One of God); The Lord (because the writer believes the Bible teaches Jesus is The Lord); and God (because the writer believes the Bible teaches Jesus is God).

But the classic text is John 1:1. John declared that the Word existed not only "in the beginning," where he was "with God," but also actually "was God." This is the Word that became incarnate as real man in Jesus Christ, without ceasing to be what He had been from eternity.

Oh, but he's not saying Jesus is God. Are you kidding me?

Why can't you admit that the writer of that article is a Trinitarian who is biased in favor of the Trinitarian viewpoint? Indeed, it would be shocking if that were not the case. Just like it would be shocking (returning to topic) if an article on slavery in the Nelson Bible Dictionary would actually take God to task for His failure to condemn the immoral practice.

Why is this difficult?

Edited February 20, 2015 by Raf

[Mark Sanguinetti]

Raf, when it comes to the bible is ONLY here to try to divide and conquer. Nothing more! Sorry this won't work with me. This is a very good example of this. He takes a subject that he starts and then ignores his subject when he finds some doctrines taught that are not taught the same way that other people teach.

This is a waste of time and my schedule is too busy for wasted time. Back to some screen printing. In the future I will write another biblical article, but certainly Raf would not be an editor of this because of his bias against the bible and its messages.

Edited February 21, 2015 by Mark Sanguinetti

[Raf]

That is a personal attack and not a refutation of anything I've written. If you do not wish to argue FOR your position or AGAINST mine, no one is forcing you. But slandering me and making false accusations about my motives will be immediately reported. If you can't refute me, then agree with me or sit there and stew.

For the record, when it comes to the Bible, I am only here to do exactly what you're doing: Share what I've come to learn and believe in the hopes that you will at least understand me and at best come to agree with me. This forum is a place of discussion, and up until that last post, you were on topic. I even learned from our previous exchange and tried to be a bit more flexible when it comes to determining whether a tangential discussion has strayed too far to still be on topic.

He takes a subject that he starts and then ignores his subject when he finds some doctrines taught that are not taught the same way that other people teach.

This is gibberish. The subject I started was Are You More Moral Than Yahweh. You cited an article in NBD that supports your on-topic position. You called that the NBD unbiased. I challenged you on that, citing an example. You challenged THAT and cited another one. Instead of declaring YOU off topic, I engaged, not crossing a single line in terms of the GSC rules. How that translates to me "finding some doctrines that are not taught the same way that other people teach..." Dude, you're babbling. That doesn't even mean anything.

I think anyone reading this can see that I've directly refuted points you've made, and you've responded with a cute little temper tantrum, which is no substitute for a reasoned argument.

Edited February 21, 2015 by Raf

[WordWolf]

(snip)

In the future I will write another biblical article, but certainly Raf would not be an editor of this because of his bias against the bible and its messages.

Although I would agree with this statement,

you're doing a disservice concerning the rest.

You quoted a biased source, labelled it unbiased, and got called (successfully) on it.

That's worth some chagrin, but really, suck it up and move on.

If you don't do that, and instead make it personal,

how can you hit upon any of the perfectly legitimate points left unaddressed here?

I mean, Raf accidentally POSTED one in the past day,

and you missed it completely because you were busy being emotional on a subject

that should be approached coldly.

You can do a LOT better than that, and usually do.

If you respond to points with nothing more than emotion, Raf will come

away thinking you've proved he was right because you had nothing to respond

with other than volume.

[Mark Sanguinetti]

Some good posts by Trust and Obey in him addressing this subject of slavery and morality. I guess other people don't want to look at my posts as they also pertain to slavery and morality. Yes, Trust and Obey is very polite. Sorry though I am not impressed with changing the subject and then trying to divide ones view points against another persons viewpoints. This is clearly what Raf is doing now. A very good example here of merely trying to divide. Raf brings up the point of some people thinking Jesus is God and believing in the trinity, and tries to place them in opposition to other people that see the 50 verses that says Jesus is the Son of God and the even more verses that list him as the Son of Man along with a number of other verses some of which I recently posted here. If anything with Jesus giving his life with death for mankind's salvation. Any association with God the Father shows that God is loving and morale and cares enough about mankind to give them salvation also.

So now you want me to criticize the Nelson Bible Dictionary? No, I will not do that.

Edited February 21, 2015 by Mark Sanguinetti

[Raf]

This is getting tired.

Mark, you can agree with TnO's posts all you want, but so far, by his own admission, he's not done making his point. He's saying God is love. That's wonderful. But how do you reconcile a loving God with some flat out evil laws? Because telling a man "Bye, thanks for all your hard work. Your wife and kid are staying with me because they're mine, but you can have them back if you'll be my slave for life" is pretty evil, wouldn't you agree? I mean, if this were the Koran, would we be having this discussion? TnO has not made a single point that directly addresses the verses I raised. He will, I'm sure. After a word from our sponsor, these short messages, and who knows what else.

You have accused me twice now of changing the subject. I have not changed the subject. I have allowed the subject to go on a tangent based on a claim that YOU made that I refuted. Your assertion that I've changed the subject is FALSE. You need to stop repeating false assertions.

I'm sure you think I'm trying to divide people, but you can't demonstrate it because it's not true. I am not trying to get you to reject the NBD based on their support of the Trinity. I am trying to get you to admit you were wrong to call NBD unbiased, and that's it. I'm not trying to get you to say they were wrong. I'm not trying to get you to say they're a bunch of idolaters. I'm not trying to get you to say they are poopyheads. I'm not trying to get you to say you've forgotten more about the Bible than they'll ever know. All I'm trying to get you to SEE is that when you called the NBD unbiased, You. Were. Mistaken. That's it. And on MORE than one occasion, I tried to bring the subject of their bias BACK to the discussion at hand, which is that they are also biased when it comes to the morality of the Old Testament God when it comes to slavery. They're no more "unbiased" than you or I.

Where, in their article on slavery, is the discussion about wives and sons being held back by the owner who lets a male slave go free. That's Bible, which I quoted, not commentary, which you quoted (isn't that supposed to be the other way around? Why am I the only one quoting scripture on slavery?)

Your last two sentences are non-sequiturs. You cannot say God's support for slavery was okay because Jesus saved us. Of course, you can feel free to disagree with me on that.

But you'd be wrong.

Please stop arguing ABOUT me. It's much more profitable to your position when you argue WITH me. Arguing ABOUT me makes you look insecure.

Edited February 21, 2015 by Raf

[Raf]

Why on earth would you issue a blanket refusal to criticize the NBD? Did someone declare it God-breathed while I wasn't looking?

I don't think it is criticizing that publication to say that it is biased in favor of trinitarianism. I think that is an openly acknowledged fact. I suspect they would be offended if you tried to portray them as being open to the idea that the Trinity is incorrect.

Edited February 21, 2015 by Raf

[Raf]

If you respond to points with nothing more than emotion, Raf will come

away thinking you've proved he was right because you had nothing to respond

with other than volume.

For the record, no I won't. The only thing I'll come away thinking is, at most, that I won or lost a debate, which is nowhere near the same thing as being proved right or wrong.

Edited February 21, 2015 by Raf

[TrustAndObey]

What you've done is known as begging the question. It reaches a conclusion by assuming it to be true in the first place. God is love. Therefore, everything he does will be loving and moral. If he has rules for keeping, buying, trading, beating banging and selling slaves, they must be loving and moral rules for keeping buying trading beating banging and selling slaves. Because he's love!

Since you posited this strawman as my position earlier, I think it best to take a couple steps back and ask a few questions so I can understand your thought process here.

You talk about God being love. Which I believe I did say that when mentioning the 3 things God is said to be. However, it really was a minor point. The main point of when I was mentioning love however had to do with the torah and mitzvot themselves. That is,they are specifically and directly stated in the torah.

You do agree that the torah specifically states to love God (Deut 6:5)? Correct?

And you do agree that the torah specifically states to love your neighbor as yourself (Lev 19:18)? Correct?

I only ask since you said:

Ok, so as long as they're owning, buying, selling, holding wives and children hostage in LOVE, it's okay. Never mind that these folks were a thousand and a half years away from Jesus and Paul.

Yes, they were over a millenium away, but my mentioning Paul or Jesus wasn't because the torah forgot to mention it. I mentioned them as corroboration only. The Jews, Jesus,and Paul all considered love as the foundation and context for the torah and mitzvot. That was my point, and of course the reason why we are discussing, since certainly these sayings concerning servants seems to say something opposite.

But that doesn't negate the fact that loving God and loving your neighbor are part of the torah itself, the same torah that contains the sayings about servants. You do agree with that correct?

So the real question and point is how can it include both. If God is moral and just (and loving - I threw that in for you) on one hand say to love your neighbor as yourself, yet also give what seems like conflicting points about dealing with servants. If the word "love" in hebrew means to strongly give. And the torah states one should be doing that. Yet it also seems to say something opposite about servants. What gives?

If you agree with the premise I just set, then it's time to dig into the servant/ebed matter. If you don't agree, then let's discuss what isn't clear, makes sense, or inaccurate.

[Raf]

Do I agree that the Bible says what it actually says? Um. Let me retire to consider that question. I'll get back to you.

For pete's sake will you just get to the point already instead of asking patronizing questions?

[Raf]

Here's my question: do you agree that it is morally impossible to free a man without also freeing that man's wife and son, and to permit that man to reunite with his wife and son only if that man agrees to be your slave for life, all while simultaneously being loving? Because if you don't, congratulations. Look right into the camera and say "I am NOT more moral than Yahweh (or AS moral as any decent person in the 21st Century)."

It's easy to concede the Bible SAYS to love God in the law, and to love your neighbor. The challenge is in recognizing that the laws regulating ebeddery instead of abolishing it are presented as consistent with loving God and loving your neighbor. If you're consistent, you HAVE to say it's possible to lovingly buy own beat barter bang and sell your ebed.

But it's not. Your moral standards are higher than the standards presented in the Law of Yahweh. That's why you have to come up with a week and a half of preamble before announcing that you're finally going to directly address the subject (and I'll bet dollars to donuts we're still not going to see a direct discussion for at least another week).

But please. Prove me wrong.

Edited February 21, 2015 by Raf

[WordWolf]

T&O,

I think everyone-Raf included- would freely admit we all have lives and posting here can

easily take a back burner to actually living them.

It's perfectly fine to say you'll get back to this soon with a better answer-

then hold off until you can post it. We can take it in good faith that you're

waiting until you can articulate your points in a manner they deserve, and don't

want to rattle off something off-the-cuff.

(You haven't seen my response to all this partly for that reason.)

There's no need to take up time by posting and saying you WILL post the response.

This isn't network television and there's no competition for viewing the thread.

Use that time productively and begin a draft of your main points, or just use it

now to live so you can sit down later and make all the points in one sitting

without life interrupting every keystroke.

Raf,

if he did that,

would you promise to give him the benefit of the doubt and let him have

some time without teasing him, goading him, or anything else he might be

concerned about?

[Raf]

Sure.

[waysider]

I think once you accept that the Bible is not all God inspired, doesn't fit like a hand in a glove and doesn't necessarily depict historical events in an accurate manner, it all becomes easier to understand.

[Raf]

Does it? How? (I assume your reason for saying this is on-topic. Just trying to draw it out).

[waysider]

It frees you to consider Yahweh as a metaphorical concept rather than a divine entity. It's much less taboo to question a concept than to question the divine. Therefore, we can question whether a concept that was once accepted as moral is still moral by today's standards. It's not questioning God, it's questioning the conceptual morality of societal standards. You can't do that if everything has to "fit and have a purpose", etc.

Edited February 23, 2015 by waysider

[Raf]

But what you describe isn't questioning God because it denies him outright. Not a comforting or satisfying approach for the average Christian, no? Or have I misinterpreted you?

I don't think I'm smarter or more moral than God, by virtue of the fact that I don't believe He exists. But if you were to take the premise that He exists for granted, as well as the premise that the Bible accurately reflects his character, then I believe you have to conclude that his moral standards are lower than yours. He's capricious. His application of justice is arbitrary. He's vindictive as hell. Wierwille had to retcon the entire Old Testament just to absolve Him of the moral atrocities attributed to Him. But it doesn't fit.

If you kept Yahweh's attributes intact and changed his name to Allah, we would not be debating these things. The defensive walls go up for the God we worship, and him alone.

[Raf]

I found that if I followed through on what the Bible says about God, the concrete things, not just the feel-good-isms, follow them through to their logical conclusions, and you end up with moral questions whose answers range from unsatisfying to genuinely frightening. Scarcely a comforting answer in the bunch, when you carry it through to its logical conclusion. Most of us never ask the questions. We're taught that merely entertaining the questions makes you evil and immoral.

But how much more immoral can you be than someone who will kill you to death for picking up sticks on a Friday night and thinks the victim of a rape is the woman's father or husband?

Edited February 24, 2015 by Raf

[Raf]

It frees you to consider Yahweh as a metaphorical concept rather than a divine entity. It's much less taboo to question a concept than to question the divine. Therefore, we can question whether a concept that was once accepted as moral is still moral by today's standards. It's not questioning God, it's questioning the conceptual morality of societal standards. You can't do that if everything has to "fit and have a purpose", etc.

Getting back to your point, I think it is possible to reject a "God-breathed Bible" without rejecting a "God-breathed Word," and without dismissing God as a "metaphorical concept." Plenty of people believe in a personal God as a divine entity without thinking that every preposition in the Bible was placed there by God Himself, or that the integrity of His message would "fall apart" if any other preposition were used.

My belief is that morality does not come from our religion, but that some of our religion comes from our morality. A morally advanced culture would have posited a God who was far more moral than what we see in Yahweh. Yahweh's attributes were assigned to him by a people who were not where we are, morally. They did not ban slavery. They viewed women as the property of their fathers and husbands. That's why when a woman is raped in the Bible, the rapist has to pay the father and marry the woman as punishment. Why is that? Because the father's property loses value! It was a law that may have seemed compassionate at the time, but you can only reach that conclusion by looking at the law through a culturally relativistic lens. But you can't argue cultural relativism while at the same time upholding Yahweh as the author of an absolute, objective morality. If God is the author of absolute, objective morality, then His law should be absolutely and objectively moral.

This thread takes the existence of God for granted, takes the Law for granted as His Word, and questions whether that premise holds up. That's why I bristle at the argument that He made everything better later. "Well, Jesus didn't approve of slavery." Well, so what if he didn't? He didn't argue against it as an institution either. He took it for granted. And even if he DID call for its abolition, it would not change the fact that he would be undoing what an absolute, objectively moral God authorized for centuries beforehand.

That's why T&O's approach to this is crucial. He appears to understand that to "win" this "argument," he has to make the case that Yahweh's law passes moral muster today. My position is, it does not. My position is, believers know it does not, but have never forced themselves to look long and hard at the issue.

Etc.

Edited February 25, 2015 by Raf