My Video On Evolving Morality And Creationism

[aspirin99]

Re: http://talkingtimeline.com/videos.htm

 

This is posted in the blog, but Antlerman suggested I post this here as well for a current discussion. As mentioned in the site's blog, this video is the result of an assignment in my graduate program's Rhetorical Theory class. The assignment was to apply a principle we studied to something I had already created. I chose to create a documentary-style video using Rogerian argument to examine the debate over creationism.

 

Rogerian argument is used to defuse tension in debates that get very emotional - like politics and religion. The idea is start by telling the person what you like about his or her views. Then you find a common ground and move out from there.

 

The video was created by transforming a debate I was having with someone who believed that Adam and Eve were literally the first people on earth because they believe the book of Genesis to be revealed wisdom from God.

 

My main argument is show that the morality exhibited by Moses (or the authors of the Pentateuch) was so primitive that none of the writings should be viewed as coming from a supreme being. Page after page, the phrase occurs "the LORD spoke to Moses" - Well, if He did, you would expect the morality to be advanced - instead we get genocide, slavery, stonings and ill treatment of women.

 

Antlerman did many of the voiceovers (for the voice of God). It's amazing what God sounds like when plied with tequila.

 

Oh, and FYI - there's artistic nudity in the video.

 

http://talkingtimeline.com/videos.htm

[Antlerman]

Antlerman did many of the voiceovers (for the voice of God). It's amazing what God sounds like when plied with tequila.

Come on... I still had less than 6 shots of tequila in me when I hit the one about the law that tells what you must do to a woman who touches the privates of a man beating up on her husband. There was a moment of concern if I could finish the rest after that one, but the gods seemed to have helped get me through.

 

BTW, it's a fine work. Kudos on the result in so a short period of time. Solid arguments, great presentation. Nice shot of your dog running through the background. (kidding) And the guy reading the Bible texts... what can I say? A stellar orator that one is!

 

Of course discussion/debate is welcomed. There is some fine material presented in this and worth everyone to spend some time going over.

 

 

Edit: I should add that Asprin99 and I were classmates who graduated Bible College together. He and I are 2 members of the debate Trinity of our graduating year. The 3rd member never pursued knowledge beyond school and is still a minister to this day, last I heard. Oh well... 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

[aspirin99]

Thanks, Antlerman. One thing about the video- I believe it creates an indefensible position for the fundamentalists. If they argue any of the main points, they defend acts of immorality, becoming immoral vicariously. The Rogerian approach disarms the opponent, drawing him or her near enough to listen long enough for the points to sink in. I have personally seen this argument change several people. Also, it makes it nearly impossible for the fundamentalist to claim moral high ground. The video repeated placed our morality on an equal plane. The listener knows that if he or she argues the points, not only have they conceded moral equality, but they have conceded moral superiority to the secular opponent.

[Guest end3]

The listener knows that if he or she argues the points, not only have they conceded moral equality, but they have conceded moral superiority to the secular opponent.

 

Granted I only watched half because my computer was turning this hour vid into two, but I am having issues with how morals are conceded, when they appear relative to many things.

[chefranden]

Very well done indeed.

 

Antlerman will now have more authority when I read him after hearing that voice.

 

Where did those drums come from?

 

One thought that I had was wondering when morality will advance to the point when killing men will be considered as heinous as killing women and children. The many "and they even killed women and children" seem to reflect an still extant idea that men are after all fair game when it comes to rubbing people out.

 

Edit: I disagree that these stories were never meant to be taken literally. I agree that the moral argument shows that they should not be taken literally. However, they were and are meant to be taken literally by some even if the authors didn't have such an intention. I doubt that this argument will have much impact on fundamentalists taking the text literally, because if Genesis is not literal then there is no need for a savior. Nevertheless it is a good argument and I will this argument arrow in my quiver.

[aspirin99]

I guess I would agree with that. What I meant was that they never happened historically, but they had were used for political purposes as if they did happen. So, you're right- the authors did hope it would be taken literally.

[Antlerman]

I guess I would agree with that. What I meant was that they never happened historically, but they had were used for political purposes as if they did happen. So, you're right- the authors did hope it would be taken literally.

I don't think the words literal or metaphorical had any part in the minds of the original authors, nor really in anyone else who lived back then. I'm thinking they didn't approach history and the telling of tales as matters of accurate historical accountings, so much as conveying messages of identity and various underlying 'truths' in the stories. Tales of oral traditions were always mixed with the teller's personal views and blending of contemporary events to make the 'messge' relevant. Those who had heard the tales in one village, would not be surprised to hear them told with different details in another village. To stand up and say, "Hey! That bit about the angels there was not what I just heard last month over in Gaza!" would probably be met with curious stares.

 

The issues with the writing of the evolved stories and traditions into the Pentateuch while they were in Babylon, was 'political' in that it was likely an attempt at preserving the stories and traditions of a people to hold them together from being forever dispersed into another culture. As I'm seeming to recall literalism/fundamentalism first came into play was in the 2nd Century BC when Ben Sira in response to the Hellenization of the Jews claimed that these were not just mere stories of the Jews, but were the literal words of God himself and should be believed literally! In the truest sense of the word, it was the same thing that happened here with the birth of American fundamentalism in response to Modernity. Literalism is by definition, reactive.

 

But the point still stands, that if taken as genuinely literal words from a god, you have the whole conflict to try to reconcile that you presented. Just as a matter of technicality though, I think I would agree with the perspective that they never were intended to be taken as "literal", insomuch as that way of thinking was outside it's scope, and is only a response of interpretation of some later time. They were 'truths' without necessarily being historical facts.

[Antlerman]

I just found this a few minutes ago written by Dr. Hyers, a professor of comparative mythology and the history of religions at Gustavux Adolphus College, St. Peter, Minnesota. It seems to relate to the points I just brought up this morning about how literalism was not really a factor until later times, and therefore the writers of it were not shooting for any 'literal' understanding in the modern sense of the term. In other words it would be inappropriate to judge their motives in the light of modern thought.

 

A brief excerpt:

When one looks at the myths of surrounding cultures, in fact, one senses that the current debate over creationism

would have seemed very strange, if not unintelligible, to the writers and readers of Genesis. Scientific and historical issues in their modern form were not issues at all. Science and natural history as we know them simply did not exist

, even though they owe a debt to the positive value given to space, time, matter and history by the biblical affirmation of creation.

 

What did exist -- what very much existed -- and what pressed on Jewish faith from all sides, and even from within, were the religious problems of idolatry and syncretism.

The critical question in the creation account of Genesis 1 was polytheism versus monotheism. That was the burning issue of the day, not some issue which certain Americans 2,500 years later in the midst of a scientific age might imagine that it was.

And one of the reasons for its being such a burning issue was that Jewish monotheism was such a unique and hard-won faith. The temptations of idolatry and syncretism were everywhere. Every nation surrounding Israel, both great and small, was polytheistic; and many Jews themselves held -- as they always had -- similar inclinations. Hence the frequent prophetic diatribes against altars in high places, the Canaanite cult of Baal, and “whoring after other gods.”

 

Read through the eyes of the people who wrote it, Genesis 1 would seem very different from the way most people today would tend to read it -- including both evolutionists who may dismiss it as a prescientific account of origins, and creationists who may try to defend it as the true science and literal history of origins.

For most peoples in the ancient world the various regions of nature were divine. Sun, moon and stars were gods. There were sky gods and earth gods and water gods. There were gods of light and darkness, rivers and vegetation, animals and fertility. Though for us nature has been “demythologized” and “naturalized” -- in large part because of this very passage of Scripture -- for ancient Jewish faith a divinized nature posed a fundamental religious problem.

 

In addition, pharaohs, kings and heroes were often seen as sons of gods, or at least as special mediators between the divine and human spheres. The greatness and vaunted power and glory of the successive waves of empires that impinged on or conquered Israel (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia) posed an analogous problem of idolatry in the human sphere.

 

In the light of this historical context it becomes clearer what Genesis 1 is undertaking and accomplishing: a radical and sweeping affirmation of monotheism vis-à-vis polytheism, syncretism and idolatry. Each day of creation takes on two principal categories of divinity in the pantheons of the day, and declares that these are not gods at all, but creatures -- creations of the one true God who is the only one, without a second or third. Each day dismisses an additional cluster of deities, arranged in a cosmological and symmetrical order.

 

On the first day the gods of light and darkness are dismissed. On the second day, the gods of sky and sea. On the third day, earth gods and gods of vegetation. On the fourth day, sun, moon and star gods. The fifth and sixth days take away any associations with divinity from the animal kingdom. And finally human existence, too, is emptied of any intrinsic divinity -- while at the same time all human beings, from the greatest to the least, and not just pharaohs, kings and heroes, are granted a divine likeness and mediation.

 

On each day of creation another set of idols is smashed. These, O Israel, are no gods at all -- even the great gods and rulers of conquering superpowers. They are the creations of that transcendent One who is not to be confused with any piece of the furniture of the universe of creaturely habitation. The creation is good, it is very good, but it is not divine.

 

<snip>

 

The fundamental question at stake, then,

could not have been the scientific question of how things achieved their present form and by what processes, nor even the historical question about time periods and chronological order. The issue was idolatry, not science; syncretism, not natural history; theology, not chronology; affirmation of faith in one transcendent God, not creationist or evolutionist theories of origin.

Attempting to be loyal to the Bible by turning the creation accounts into a kind of science or history is like trying to be loyal to the teachings of Jesus by arguing that the parables are actual historical events, and only reliable and trustworthy when taken literally as such.

The whole thing is symbolic, not literalistic. People just didn't think in those terms about these things back then.

 

But again, to point out the fallacies of what happens when you do try to read these things literally (either literally true or literally false), is a good debate strategy. It forces a conflict that can't be resolved rationally if taken literally. The option than leaves it be a complete fabricated lie (assuming it to be a literal lie thrust upon the world), or something that removes it from that debate altogether: symbolism.

[chefranden]

...The temptations of idolatry and syncretism were everywhere. Every nation surrounding Israel, both great and small, was polytheistic; and many Jews themselves held -- as they always had -- similar inclinations. Hence the frequent prophetic diatribes against altars in high places, the Canaanite cult of Baal, and “whoring after other gods...”

 

I've read somewhere, maybe in Pagel's work, that the fight against the high places was a fight for authority in temple kingdoms. That is the rural people were encouraged via intimidation to bring their religious concerns to the seat of the city state to the city temple. This was in part to capture the loyalty of those living outside the city, and in part to secure more revenue for the City temple and its priests. Thus the Israelites were ordered to bring their fist fruits to Jerusalem rather than to the high places as was their custom. This would be part of the political context of these stories.

 

The whole thing is symbolic, not literalistic. People just didn't think in those terms about these things back then.

 

I would agree that these stories were not literalistic in the sense that people insisted on these exact words when the creation story was told. Nevertheless, I doubt the majority of people looked on these myths as we might Kipling's Just So Stories i.e. just a cute way of explaining something difficult to understand to children. I think they probably thought that creation happened pretty much they way the creation stories said. They wouldn't have had to be fundamentalist about it since there was little or no science to challenge those stories.

 

However, the prophets were pretty fundamentally inclined when it came to other Gods. They were pretty explicit about Yahweh's way being the only way. They maybe didn't use the words of modern fundamentalism, but I bet the feelings were the same.

[aspirin99]

If we're really going to examine the issue of intent, we would have to discuss the Documentary Hypothesis, and break the discussion down to what each author's intention was, and then discuss the intention of the redactors of the the version most closely resembling what we have today. If the redactor was Ezra, as is popularly believed, one would think that he wanted a document that represented the collective oral histories of his people. He would delivery this after he led the pilgrimage from Babylon back to Jerusalem. For me, this event in the 5th century BCE is a line in the sand in which some of the history actually happened.

 

If it was Ezra, he was very interested in creating and protecting national identity. You may recall his intolerance for foreign brides. If his intent was to compile the documents that he felt gave the people a national identity, he would hope that they believed the contents to true to the extent a rational person would believe ancient oral stories to be true. I think he understood the natural limitations the stories possessed, and he did not demand the reader strain credulity further. It was enough they had a history.

[Antlerman]

I would agree that these stories were not literalistic in the sense that people insisted on these exact words when the creation story was told. Nevertheless, I doubt the majority of people looked on these myths as we might Kipling's Just So Stories i.e. just a cute way of explaining something difficult to understand to children. I think they probably thought that creation happened pretty much they way the creation stories said. They wouldn't have had to be fundamentalist about it since there was little or no science to challenge those stories.

This is interesting. I do feel this relates to the OP in how the original readers might have understood these things, versus the inappropriateness of modern evangelicals/fundamentalist/Creationist interpretation, so I will go a little further with this with asprin99's permission.

 

I think if we're looking at how people thought back then, it would not necessarily seem a fair assumption that they either would look at them as a cute child's tale, or the opposite being an close detailed account of events. In my mind, I don't think they thought in those terms at all. I think there was an incorporation of symbolic language infused into their sense of reality that has no direct correlation to today's way of thinking. Our modern society conditions how we approach "truth" in terms of the factual/non-factual. In reality, there plenty of those who see a disconnect today in culture from that world of "imagination" that has defined human thought for a very long time, within and outside of evolved Western thought.

 

You would need to look at other texts of the day in how they used language. I'm going to quote another part of that professor's article that talks about how other myths of that day communicated:

A case in point is the supposition that the numbering of days in Genesis is to be understood in an arithmetical sense. The use of numbers in ancient religious texts was usually numerological rather than numerical; that is, their symbolic value was more important than their secular value as counters. To deal with numbers in a religious context as an actual numbering of days, or eons, is an instance of the way in which a literal reading loses the symbolic richness of the text.

 

While the conversion of numerology to arithmetic was essential for the rise of modern science, historiography and mathematics, in which numbers had to be neutralized and emptied of any symbolic suggestion in order to be utilized,

the result is that numerological symbols are reduced to signs.

The principal surviving exception is the number 13, which still holds a strange power over Fridays, and over the listing of floors in hotels and high rises.

 

Biblical literalism, in its treatment of the days of creation, substitutes a modern arithmetical reading for the original symbolic one.

Not only does the completion of creation in six days correlate with and support the religious calendar and Sabbath observance (if the Hebrews had had a five-day work week, the account would have read differently), but also the seventh day of rest employs to the full the symbolic meaning of the number seven as wholeness, plenitude, completion.

 

The religious meaning of the number seven is derived in part from the numerological combination of the three zones of the cosmos (heaven, earth, underworld) seen vertically, and the four directions, or zones, of the cosmos seen horizontally. Thus seven (adding three and four) and twelve (multiplying them) are recurrent biblical symbols of totality and perfection. The liturgically repeated phrase “And God saw that it was good,” and the final capping phrase “And behold it was very good,” are paralleled and underlined by being placed in a structure climaxed by a seventh day.

 

A parallelism of two sets of three days is also being employed, with the second set of days populating the first: light and darkness (day one) are populated by the greater and lesser lights (four); firmament and waters (two) by birds and fish (five); earth and vegetation (three) by land animals and humans (six). Two sets of three days, each with two types of created phenomena, equaling 12, thus permitted the additional association with the corresponding numerological symbol of wholeness and fulfillment. The totality of nature is created by God, and is to be affirmed in a hymn of celebration and praise for its “very goodness.”

 

While it is true that the biblical view of creation sanctifies time and nature as created by God -- and therefore good --

it does not follow that the creation accounts as such are to be understood chronologically or as natural history. And while it is true that history is seen as the context and vehicle of divine activity, it does not follow that the creation accounts are to be interpreted as history, or even prehistory.

One of the symbolic functions of the creation accounts themselves is to give positive value to time and to provide the staging for history. They are no more historical than the set and scenery of a play are part of the narrative of the drama, or than the order in which an artist fills in the pigment and detail of a painting is part of the significance of the painting.

 

The symbolic function of creation in valuing time and history becomes clearer when the Genesis accounts are compared with myths whose purpose is to legitimate cyclical time (as in the Babylonian myth of the primeval conquest of Tiamat by Marduk, alluded to in Genesis 1:2), or to those in which time itself is a negative aspect of a fallen order (as in Plato’s myth of the fall of the soul, or similar myths favored by Hindu and Buddhist mysticism).

 

When one looks at the myths of surrounding cultures, in fact, one senses that the current debate over creationism would have seemed very strange, if not unintelligible, to the writers and readers of Genesis. Scientific and historical issues in their modern form were not issues at all. Science and natural history as we know them simply did not exist

, even though they owe a debt to the positive value given to space, time, matter and history by the biblical affirmation of creation.

 

 

However, the prophets were pretty fundamentally inclined when it came to other Gods. They were pretty explicit about Yahweh's way being the only way. They maybe didn't use the words of modern fundamentalism, but I bet the feelings were the same.

Well, perhaps in more the 'nationalistic' sense of maintaining unique identity. The end I suppose would be 'this is our truth, and why we shouldn't accept or become a part of another culture'. But I still wouldn't call that literalism. The stories would still remain symbolic stories of a culture's sense of self.

 

In light of that... to argue the stories are literally false, is to argue against something that has no real connection to the intent or the original response. It wasn't based on "factuality", and is sort of an argument of comparing "oranges and orangutans".

 

(now just hear all this spoken in that authoritative voice... )

[Antlerman]

If we're really going to examine the issue of intent, we would have to discuss the Documentary Hypothesis, and break the discussion down to what each author's intention was, and then discuss the intention of the redactors of the the version most closely resembling what we have today. If the redactor was Ezra, as is popularly believed, one would think that he wanted a document that represented the collective oral histories of his people. He would delivery this after he led the pilgrimage from Babylon back to Jerusalem. For me, this event in the 5th century BCE is a line in the sand in which some of the history actually happened.

 

If it was Ezra, he was very interested in creating and protecting national identity. You may recall his intolerance for foreign brides. If his intent was to compile the documents that he felt gave the people a national identity,

I was going to mention Ezra, but skipped ahead to Ben Sira in how it was the first real shift in approach to literalism, them being not just the stories of the people, but the very words of God himself. I can accept that Ezra was a redactor without issue. At the same time, we have to do a comparative look at contemporary literature to see how ideas were communicated back then.

 

he would hope that they believed the contents to true to the extent a rational person would believe ancient oral stories to be true. I think he understood the natural limitations the stories possessed, and he did not demand the reader strain credulity further. It was enough they had a history.

I think you're projecting a bit of modern thinking and understanding backwards into history. You would have to find some contemporary context of the time against which to support that. In other words, it sounds a bit of a projection. Personally, I don't think he "understood the natural limitations of the stories", but rather questions of 'accuracy' were non-thoughts and non-relevant. "Truth", would likely have been more in symbolism, than fact. Did it speak a value? They were myth, though that reality would be indistinguishable in his mind from what we would call *real* reality.

 

 

(my how we've grown... your turn ).

[Antlerman]

Granted I only watched half because my computer was turning this hour vid into two, but I am having issues with how morals are conceded, when they appear relative to many things.

Hi end. As good as I am at translating.... you've got me here. "Conceded"?

[aspirin99]

Yes, I'm speculating. I think that's all we can do, right? I'm speculating that the redactor believed he had in his possession a collection of writings about early history that included oral traditions, old religious writings by priests, perhaps even some creative reworking of Sumerian literature, maybe the religious writings for polytheistic El gods, probably a mish mesh of judicial records - and someone or a committee may have sat down to combine them into a historical record. Again, I'm just speculating. I also can only speculate about how much of it the redactors believed had really happened and how much they filled in. What did they do when they had multiple versions of the same story with variations? It looks like the merged them in some places and duplicated them in others. Who knows what they were thinking? Perhaps it was just an exorcise in governmental creativity with no thought for truth. Maybe it was a room of religious zealots high on mushrooms? Whatever it was, I think the breadth of possibilities allow me to speculate fairly widely. Wouldn't you agree?

[Guest end3]

Thanks AM,

I made it through about 85% this time.... and Aspirin, looks like a lot of work went into this....thanks for sharing.

 

Long story short....from a Christian perspective, I was having some of the same thoughts that were mentioned in the list, one through five, prior to watching that portion of the video.

 

I guess the point I am trying to make would be, if, in the OT, God was trying to create a situation such that, "I am your God, and you are my people", let's say a return to the garden, then I don't see an inconsistency in the OT and NT.

 

In the OT, God in effect says, do "this"(law) that I may dwell with you, as you are my chosen people. In the NT, it seems to me that God says essentially the same thing....choose "this", that you may dwell with me. In both groups, God is selective about his people, and from our current moral perspective, unjust.

 

So if there is really no inconsistency, I am not seeing a point of debate. I don't know that our current moral standard is relevant to this, other than some have moved towards a standard set forth in the Bible/Christ. It is what it is, myth or chosen belief. We are not omniscient with respect to secular or spiritual knowledge, so who can claim anything other than a possible understanding for both.

 

A personal belief statement here.....I agree, I don't understand the "segregation of humanity" other than some reconcilliation of all humanity to himself... like I used to tell my daughters when they were small....when I wanted them to do something, I would tell them we can do it the easy way or the cowboy way......they always chose to do it the cowboy way, because we would wrestle and have fun. They, as we, don't understand the bigger picture and the necessity of the chore, until we get older. Until then, we wrestle and have fun.

 

Thanks guys...

[Antlerman]

In the OT, God in effect says, do "this"(law) that I may dwell with you, as you are my chosen people. In the NT, it seems to me that God says essentially the same thing....choose "this", that you may dwell with me. In both groups, God is selective about his people, and from our current moral perspective, unjust.

 

So if there is really no inconsistency, I am not seeing a point of debate. I don't know that our current moral standard is relevant to this, other than some have moved towards a standard set forth in the Bible/Christ. It is what it is, myth or chosen belief. We are not omniscient with respect to secular or spiritual knowledge, so who can claim anything other than a possible understanding for both.

I'll let asprin99 respond himself, but my take is that the inconsistency is in communicating codes of conduct that are in stark contrast to today's standards. If God is the author of those things attributed to his name in the Old Testament, i.e. ordering genocide, and if our sense of morality today says it's pretty universally accepted as morally abhorrent, then we have two choices:

 

1. Accept that it was not written by God and is reflective of man's privative morality in a morally evolving world. (If it came from God it would not change). In which case then why look to it for moral guidance?

 

2. Accept that it came from God and abandon our repulsion of the slaughter of men, women, children and cattle (except for young girls you're allowed by god to imprison and rape). To disagree with and oppose this practice of genocide would make us the immoral ones, worthy of the punishment of this god of war.

 

Personally I consider this a very good point of debate. Don't you?

[Guest end3]

With due respect, I think you are limiting possible answers....

 

The conclusion I draw from even science, is there is a greater understanding that eludes us. I don't think it is a stretch to consider us lacking in Spiritual understanding as well.

 

Again, it is a choice by faith....I can't even begin to enumerate the lessons I didn't and don't yet understand.

 

I do think it is an good question

[Guest end3]

Just thinking......we still execute people on a regular basis....

[Antlerman]

Just thinking......we still execute people on a regular basis....

Do we cut the hand off of women touching the privates of man who is attacking her husband??? That's in the Bible you know?

 

Hey asprin99, you should post that blown take on that verse...

 

But yes, we are still primitive like that in some ways (except for sanctioned genocide). Amazing for such an advanced society as we are. But we're not talking about what we don't yet understand about the spiritual nature of man here. We're talking about barbarous, primatatve practices being attributed to God. Which when you consider that in light of today's sensitivities, either makes God a monster like Hitler, or us in error for not following the law of bloodshed.

[Guest end3]

Trust me AM, I recognize your point. But it is, just as it is. The fact that the Bible doesn't agree with our "less primitive" morals doesn't change the book. And I am not trying to pull a "God did it" here, but the whole point, in many places, deals with the sovereignty of God. Y'all told me when I first arrived here.....if God is God, then why doesn't he just do "X", since he is God. In the Bible, he does just that..."X". It doesn't mean we agree or will ever understand. But in faith, I will give him credit for possibly being able to explain to me the reasons for the killings and such. He gets credit for just being God; he get credit for the proof we see in nature.

 

Back to my own tiny understanding.....I did not understand, as a child, all the things my father was trying to teach me.... but as I am older now, I relish the time we share and his understanding.

 

How can we be in error if we don't have all the data? How can we be certain of our position on morality if it is relative? Hasn't there been even what would be considered a large change in morality over the last 100 years?

 

I purchase analytical standards on a near daily basis.....where do we derive our moral standards from. What is the known?

 

We "genocide" all the time as humans......to produce better crops, to kill weeds, to kill ants, dogs for being gun shy, less than superstars in sports, illiterates in education, the wrong race, we kill disease...some have good fruit, some not.....we don't know immediately at the time. The Bible says you won't know until later, but have faith the fruit will be good.

 

Even the guys that were walking with Jesus rarely got the gist of his message until later.

 

I assume we judge Hitler because of his finite experience. How can we use the same equation on God when the experience is not finite?

[aspirin99]

As humans, we do a lot of evil things. At times, our evolved humanity rises above our base instinct and, through our intellect, we realize the mistakes of our people, and we try to make corrections. We make progress and we backslide in a saw-tooth pattern through history. For example, I was recently watching a video of Indian babies being hurled off of a tower into a crowd of men who held sheets to catch the babies (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8ed_1209300037). It was thought to bring good luck. The crowd beat drums and heartily approved the tossing of the babies from the tower. Then, the interviewer changed locations and interviewed an Indian man who wanted the government to pass a law outlawing the tossing of babies off of towers. It seems, the ignorant crowd often follows the superstitious drum beaters and the minority seek rational actions.

 

If we recognize that we have advanced in our morality by condemning genocide, condemning slavery, and emancipating women, we recognize that these views are primitive. While I oppose the death penalty, those in favor (on a law-making level), at least recognize that reasons for the death penalty should never be for retribution. It should only be to create a deterrence, and they value the idea that it should be without cruel and unusual punishment (unlike the stoning and burning of the OT that encouraged an eye-for-an-eye payback).

 

Our moral Zeitgeist has evolved. I find it difficult to comprehend any religious person who would want to believe that their God ordered genocide, slavery and created laws that amounted to forcing sexual relationships on uncooperative females. I can understand bronze-age men writing about such things. That was par for the course. It would be expected from a bronze-age mind- not from an omniscient, holy supreme being. It's Occam's Razor - What's the simplest explanation for a man who claims a god wants people to commit genocide, enslave people, beat slaves, enslave women, rape women, stone disobedient children? If you ever hear of a man saying that God wants people to do this, you know you wouldn't believe it. You know you would think the person was mad. Why do you want to believe that because an ancient document with no established author, time of writing, or even original documentation heard from a God who commanded things like genocide?

 

This is only the approach from Morality. Then there's the historical approach. Modern archeology says there's no way someone ever led 3 million people out of Egypt into Canaan. The people described as being mighty nations in Cannan were only small tribes. The Amarna Letters, which are some 300 Cunneiform tablets found in 1887, show that Canaan, in the Late-Bronze age was ruled by Egypt, all of the cities were vassal states of Egypt. A common theme was to request help from Egypt if a city was threatened. There was never a mention of of an evading nation of millions (let alone archaeological evidence for it). In fact, Egypt often sent help, but never needed to send more than a small number of troops- because, in the Bronze-age, there were no large invading armies in Canaan. The whole story was written and / or compiled much later than the timeline written about. As I mentioned earlier, probably to establish a political constitution for an emerging nation of Jews coming out of Babylon in the 5th century. Morally, it is incomprehensible that a holy God commanded these things. Historically, it simply didn't happen.

[Antlerman]

Trust me AM, I recognize your point. But it is, just as it is. The fact that the Bible doesn't agree with our "less primitive" morals doesn't change the book. And I am not trying to pull a "God did it" here, but the whole point, in many places, deals with the sovereignty of God. Y'all told me when I first arrived here.....if God is God, then why doesn't he just do "X", since he is God. In the Bible, he does just that..."X". It doesn't mean we agree or will ever understand. But in faith, I will give him credit for possibly being able to explain to me the reasons for the killings and such. He gets credit for just being God; he get credit for the proof we see in nature.

So you're saying that even though we find those actions abhorrent (which you've not denied they are, BTW), you're dealing with it by saying God is sovereign and by faith you're sure he must have had a good reason, that you as a limited human don't have the capacity to understand at this time? Tell me how much that sounds like a child in denial of his father's 'good reasons' for doing criminal acts to others? "I love my dad, I trust my dad. I'm sure he was justified somehow in raping my sister".

 

Now that may sound extreme, but it's not. The fact is it is abhorrent to you. You just don't know how to reconcile it and struggle with finding some justification for it. Because you seem unwilling to go with Occam's Razor and choose the simpler explanation that it's not the word of God, but the word of man, you put yourself in the position of having to find excuses or "faith" away the horror of it that God would command a woman's hand to be cut off for touching the testicles of man while she tried to defend her husband, or the sanctioning of child rape of their enemies, or the low class position of women; or the full scale slaughter of men, women, children, and babies, dogs, cats, sheep, oxen, everything.

 

Back to my own tiny understanding.....I did not understand, as a child, all the things my father was trying to teach me.... but as I am older now, I relish the time we share and his understanding.

And if he had committed acts of genocide, like a Nazi war criminal, how would you have come to process your understanding of his acts to feel good about him?

 

This is not just acts of 'discipline' a child learns to appreciate about their parents as they themselves become mature and begin to see the wisdom of it. This is genocide and rape. There are NO moral justifications for this.

 

What concerns me End3 is that you leave room for there to be some. Would you be one of those who could be persuaded by others it was justifiable in their call to act on it?

 

What does your heart tell you is true, versus what you think you should believe about God and the Bible?

 

How can we be in error if we don't have all the data?

Now, now. We don't have all the data on anything anywhere in the universe, but we certainly have sufficient enough information to make judgment calls. This is one of those issues that's frankly not very morally ambiguous. And that what Asprin99 was pointing out. There's very few people who accept there is any moral justification for genocide.

 

Again, either man wrote this and it's not authoritative, or a god did, and that god's morality is largely abhorrent to civilized human beings.

 

How can we be certain of our position on morality if it is relative? Hasn't there been even what would be considered a large change in morality over the last 100 years?

I'm largely a relativist in my thinking, but in no way does that translate into we can't know anything at all, so we can't make any judgment calls of right and wrong behavior. What it means to me is that everything is on a sliding scale of certainty from less certain, to more certain. Nothing is ever 100% locked in place, but it certainly doesn't mean something of higher certitude is easily unseated because of this open-ended approach.

 

To find a moral justification for genocide would take something on the scale of finding out that theory of gravity has been wrong. It would be like God coming along and saying,

"Nothing that you've seen in the world can be used to judge anything as true. But still nonetheless, I'll hold you responsible for not knowing what you could not possibly have known. And by the way, you were wrong, genocide is a godly act when done in my name. Go ye therefore and kill all the Irish, every last one of them from the old man, to the infant. Dash their bodies on the sharp stones."

Occam's razor: All things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the right one. The simplest explanation is the man created this image of God, not what you're doing. Just look at the complexity of rationalizations that have to happen to make it fit a preconceived faith that "God said it".

 

I purchase analytical standards on a near daily basis.....where do we derive our moral standards from. What is the known?

We derive our moral standards from society. This is why you see God in the old testament reflecting that society's morals. Pretty simple, one you abandon the idea of Direct Revelation.

 

We "genocide" all the time as humans......to produce better crops, to kill weeds, to kill ants, dogs for being gun shy, less than superstars in sports, illiterates in education, the wrong race, we kill disease...some have good fruit, some not.....we don't know immediately at the time. The Bible says you won't know until later, but have faith the fruit will be good.

No we don't! That's not genocide. We may abuse our habitat, and that's a separate moral issue. But genocide has to do with human life being exterminated by the direct actions human against other humans.

 

You have faith the fruit of genocide will justify it? Come on... no you don't!

 

Think about this, why couldn't a God of infinite Wisdom persuade humans with that wisdom? People don't love war and death. Most people prefer peace, wisdom, happiness, and community. What sort of mentality would not understand that about those he claims to love so much? Do you persuade your children with stoning and dismemberment?

 

God must be pretty impotent emotionally to have to resort to violence, wouldn't you say?

 

Occam's Razor.

 

Even the guys that were walking with Jesus rarely got the gist of his message until later.

 

I assume we judge Hitler because of his finite experience. How can we use the same equation on God when the experience is not finite?

We judge Hitler because of his actions towards human life. Period.

 

It's not because we didn't fully appreciate his "bigger picture" plan. The end does not justify the means.

 

So which is the easier explanation: God had his reasons of Wisdom in this, that one day we'll understand; or man created this image of God as an expression of their views at that time?

 

Be honest.

[Guest end3]

I have written two reponses that have been zapped by my connection.....starting to irritate me.....my point would be, and I am going to respond in length later, but my point would be, that the lack of varied perspectives limits us in making further conclusions about God. Making further conclusions, other that saying our purported morals are different than those in history, would be, IMHO, lacking in analytical judgement. I assume we are congruent with respect to moral perspective, but I am unclear if y'all wish to conclude more than just than the aforementioned statement. If so, I would suggest that we not limit ourselves to one highly complex parameter and methodology to analyze this unknown.

 

 

I spit this out quicly hoping to miss being zapped again, I haven't even read the total response AM...I am anticipating answering in length later this evening. Edited for poor sentence structure...

 

Thanks

[Antlerman]

I have written two reponses that have been zapped by my connection.....starting to irritate me.....my point would be, and I am going to respond in length later, but my point would be, that the lack of varied perspectives limits us in making further conclusions about God. Making further conclusions, other that saying our purported morals are different than those in history, would be, IMHO, lacking in analytical judgement. I assume we are congruent with respect to moral perspective, but I am unclear if y'all wish to conclude more than just than the aforementioned statement. If so, I would suggest that we not limit ourselves to one highly complex parameter and methodology to analyze this unknown.

 

 

I spit this out quicly hoping to miss being zapped again, I haven't even read the total response AM...I am anticipating answering in length later this evening. Edited for poor sentence structure...

 

Thanks

One thing you may wish to do as a generally good practice before you hit the submit button for a post, is to do a ctrl+A, ctrl+c to select all and copy to your buffer - just in case the board does a weird hiccup. That way you just try again (or open notepad), and do a ctrl+v to paste the buffer back. That way, it's all there!

 

Just a brief observation before you continue your response, if we don't have enough perspective to make conclusions about God, then why go so far as to give the benefit of the doubt at all? Do you have enough perspective to have faith even?

[Guest end3]

just wait till I have time