Jump to content

Its Only Objective Except When Its Not Right?


Recommended Posts

So I have been trying to learn more about this whole subjective/objective morality hoopla after watching and reading people debate the topic I have a question.

 

When you bring up old testament atrocities they then say that was the old covenant/that was the Old testament we are in the new testament/ God had a set of rules set up for the jewish culture/ that was because the jews wanted a king so they got these rules/we don't have to follow the sacrificial laws because jesus is the ultimate sacrifice.

 

Is that not just an admission that their "Vengeful war God of Peace and love" is subjective to those specific circumstances and therefore cannot be objective if he indeed changes the rules based upon Time circumstance culture and sacrifice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

God is unchanging, except for when he changes. You must have faith, as these things are beyond our understanding. Now, THAT'S an understatement!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I have been trying to learn more about this whole subjective/objective morality hoopla after watching and reading people debate the topic I have a question.

 

When you bring up old testament atrocities they then say that was the old covenant/that was the Old testament we are in the new testament/ God had a set of rules set up for the jewish culture/ that was because the jews wanted a king so they got these rules/we don't have to follow the sacrificial laws because jesus is the ultimate sacrifice.

 

Is that not just an admission that their "Vengeful war God of Peace and love" is subjective to those specific circumstances and therefore cannot be objective if he indeed changes the rules based upon Time circumstance culture and sacrifice?

 

They play mental gymnastics and make up shit when it suits their purpose.

They ignore scripture when it contradicts their point of view (wearing polyester is ok but being gay is WRONG!).

They claim you "took it out of context" when it contradicts their point of view.

They say "you dont have an ear to hear", (opposite of Ask, Seek, Knock Mt 7:7)  thus simple sentences somehow become complex mysteries...when they dont want to hear you use scripture against them.

They claim "allegory" so they can ignore literal meaning of scriptures that damages their point of view.

 

 

If the old testament is to be ignored then there is no original sin and therefore no need for Jesus Christ.

If the old testament is to be ignored why do Xians carry it around with them all the time and quote from it?

 

And then there's Matthew 5:17-19..... One of the standard escape clauses listed above can be used to ignore that too I suppose. :-)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was a Christian I used to be in Reformd/Reformed Baptist circles.  One thing I'll give these people is that they are consistent.  Rather than make excuses for Old Testament genocides, these guys would flat out say that they are morally right.  They would further say that the only reason no genocides are performed now is because God's current constitution of his people is the church rather than the nation of Israel, and therefore he does not use his people to execute justice in this fashion.  Mind you, these are also the people who give tacit approval on those rare occasions when abortion doctors are murdered.

 

Really, I think this is the natural extention of the Christian worldview, and is probably more intellectually honest than evangelical attempts to be politically correct.  And really, if Jesus is already going to send you to hell for all eternity, how is a little genocide any worse?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

good point Bhim, I am sure they always find some way to get around it and rationalize it. Although to the reformed Baptists they probably don't recognize that even with the honesty they are trying to maintain their god is still subjective and not objective. I think if they want to claim complete intellectual honesty they have to go with there are still genocides today and it is morally right including the holocaust. Otherwise this gods focus is on the church and not Israel BS is still admitting subjectivity to their deity in that his moral priorities change with time making their objective god subjective to time. Its like a drop of dye in a glass of water no matter how small that drop is that glass of water is not 100% water. If their god is objective the glass has to be 100% water or none at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was precisely this dishonesty that sealed my conviction that the Bible was fiction and that its god

did not exist. It's ironic that the very strategy used by Xtians to sell their lies is what convinced me that they (the apologists) were lying. What kind of god needs its believers to propagate its message

through lies? bill

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was a Christian I used to be in Reformd/Reformed Baptist circles.  One thing I'll give these people is that they are consistent.  Rather than make excuses for Old Testament genocides, these guys would flat out say that they are morally right.  They would further say that the only reason no genocides are performed now is because God's current constitution of his people is the church rather than the nation of Israel, and therefore he does not use his people to execute justice in this fashion.  Mind you, these are also the people who give tacit approval on those rare occasions when abortion doctors are murdered.

 

Really, I think this is the natural extention of the Christian worldview, and is probably more intellectually honest than evangelical attempts to be politically correct.  And really, if Jesus is already going to send you to hell for all eternity, how is a little genocide any worse?

 

Yes, these were my exact beliefs, too. I honestly thought they were every Christian's for quite some time, lol. I was also taught that in the OT God was actually merciful to those that were slaughtered. Supposedly, they followed the Israelites around for some time and murdered their elderly, weak, and sick and were warned many times that God would kill them if they didn't leave them alone. It never specifically says this in the Bible that I'm aware of (and I have read it multiple times but only as a Christian. Not since de-conversion). But that was always the apologists' take on it, it seemed.

 

But, yes, I was taught the genocides were actually morally right and even understandable. That God was supposedly even merciful to those that hadn't come to the age of consciousness yet (because, hey, they get saved while their parents suffer in Hell!). This is all part of God's plan and who are we to question God's judgement.  I was also taught there aren't genocides like in the OT because the church now is God's chosen people and not so much the people of Israel anymore. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was taught that it is wrong to commit genocide on good villages but not evil villages. That was my church's rationalization.

 

But the difficult part to rationalize is what makes evil villages evil and this still doesn't explain the murdering of children or infants.

 

If the people in a village do these things:

  • Serve the wrong god
  • Have too much fun
  • Have too much sex with the wrong people
  • Sacrifice babies to the wrong god
  • Or work on Saturdays

then they are automatically evil and need to be killed. Though it kind of makes sense to view people as evil for sacrificing babies, what really does not make sense is why the Israelites were ordered to kill not only those adults who are doing evil things, but also, kill the children and infants that are still alive for the actions of adults.

 

I would love to see a devout Christian try to justify the murder of children and infants that their god, or the leaders he put in place, commanded and why it is only okay for their god to kill babies when he wants to or why it's okay for people to kill babies when he instructs them to but not okay for an ungodly person to do it. I know they don't want to say "Might makes right" so I would expect them to say "Well" and "um" a lot. However, I did receive a straight-forward response once (I still have yet to know if the guy was a faker playing with my head or not), but he said it was okay for the deaths of children because they wouldn't be logical and turn to the right god after seeing their parents slaughtered, but failed to say anything about infants.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crazyguy I know why god wanted the Israelites to murder the babies and children. Its not that sacrificing is wrong in fact god loves a good human sacrifice every once in a while it was that they were sacrificing babies to the wrong god. So god had the Israelites correct this problem and they went in and killed them all off to sacrifice to the right god woohoo.gif  because jesus loves =D

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's the old children who are killed go to heaven argument and that the children who were killed would have grown up to be evil themselves. Killing evil adults and sparing the children was considered less merciful by my church because the children would have died by not having anyone to take care of them. The Israelites did not have enough people to adopt every child. That was my church's explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's wrong to steal, except when God tells you to. It's wrong to lie, except when God tells you to. You have to be a moral relativist to be a Christian.

Also it is wrong to kill your son, except when God wants you to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's the old children who are killed go to heaven argument and that the children who were killed would have grown up to be evil themselves. Killing evil adults and sparing the children was considered less merciful by my church because the children would have died by not having anyone to take care of them. The Israelites did not have enough people to adopt every child. That was my church's explanation.

But abortion is wrong under all circumstances?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christians might think this, but there's also the old testament tradition of the woman drinking bitter water if she is accused of adultery. This may or may not have been Old Testament style abortion.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But abortion is wrong under all circumstances?

 

I find it rather suspicious that evangelicals care so much for newly formed zygotes, when they have such little regard for other humans who came out of the uterus long ago. 

 

Yes, these were my exact beliefs, too. I honestly thought they were every Christian's for quite some time, lol. I was also taught that in the OT God was actually merciful to those that were slaughtered. Supposedly, they followed the Israelites around for some time and murdered their elderly, weak, and sick and were warned many times that God would kill them if they didn't leave them alone. It never specifically says this in the Bible that I'm aware of (and I have read it multiple times but only as a Christian. Not since de-conversion). But that was always the apologists' take on it, it seemed.

 

But, yes, I was taught the genocides were actually morally right and even understandable. That God was supposedly even merciful to those that hadn't come to the age of consciousness yet (because, hey, they get saved while their parents suffer in Hell!). This is all part of God's plan and who are we to question God's judgement.  I was also taught there aren't genocides like in the OT because the church now is God's chosen people and not so much the people of Israel anymore.

 

Yes, I've heard similar apologetic explanations.  It's rather strange what happens when otherwise intelligent people try to make sense of literature that wasn't written to stand up to such intellectual scrutiny.

 

Regarding this business of Israel's enemies being warned to leave Israel alone, it strikes me as odd (to say the least) that the God of the universe is so utterly tribal.  He instructs Israel to go into another land, dispossess them, and institute a holy kingdom.  OK, I suppose that can make sense in the context of the literature.  But God has set up a system in which people who don't believe in his son (or "the coming Messiah" in these times) will go to eternal hell.  And for 1,400 years, he does not even instruct Israel to preach the message of salvation to others.  At least the medieval Catholic Church colonized non-European countries to supposedly save peoples' souls.  Here we have a God who doesn't even tell his people to carry Torah to other nations and save them from hell!

 

In a Jewish context this makes perfect sense.  There's no hell, and God only requires Gentiles to believe in him and follow some basic laws (i.e. do no murder, etc.) to be "saved."  And salvation only implies a place in the world to come, whatever that means.  It is Christians who impose the concept of eternal hell on the Old Testament, causing the entire context of the kingdom of Israel to really make no sense.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christians might think this, but there's also the old testament tradition of the woman drinking bitter water if she is accused of adultery. This may or may not have been Old Testament style abortion.  

It seems likely the bitter water ritual was an instance of nocebo - negative placebo. Those who believed it to be efficacious would get some symptoms from it - on the other hand, the innocent could possibly get the same effect if they were worried enough. Compare how 'pointing the bone' actually has had strong enough effects on some aborigines that they've died from it; nocebo effects can probably hit harder than placebo even.

 

Whoever came up with it probably did not believe it was a nocebo effect, but rather believed it actually was magic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's the old children who are killed go to heaven argument and that the children who were killed would have grown up to be evil themselves. Killing evil adults and sparing the children was considered less merciful by my church because the children would have died by not having anyone to take care of them. The Israelites did not have enough people to adopt every child. That was my church's explanation.

 

My counter to that apologetics right there is this, "If children go to Heaven, then is it okay for me to buy a gun and kill a bunch of kids? If they go to Heaven, it should not be a sin, right? If it's perfectly okay for your god, it should be okay for me too, but if it is a sin for me, it should be a sin for your god, unless of course he is automatically above the laws and gets to do whatever the hell he wants. If your god is above the laws of morality and is able to break or ignore any of the ones he wants to, then he is a hypocrite and is only right because he has the most might."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still, what about the argument that the children would have grown up to be evil or that the Israelites could not adopt them?

 

Lol, that sounds like an incredibly insane excuse to kill kids. A merciful god that actually cared about kids would have cared for them on his own, if the Isrealites could not adopt them or were afraid they would grow up evil. At least this way, as long as they grew up according to the way the Israelite god wanted them to, they wouldn't need to be massacred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There's the old children who are killed go to heaven argument and that the children who were killed would have grown up to be evil themselves. Killing evil adults and sparing the children was considered less merciful by my church because the children would have died by not having anyone to take care of them. The Israelites did not have enough people to adopt every child. That was my church's explanation.

 

My counter to that apologetics right there is this, "If children go to Heaven, then is it okay for me to buy a gun and kill a bunch of kids? If they go to Heaven, it should not be a sin, right? If it's perfectly okay for your god, it should be okay for me too, but if it is a sin for me, it should be a sin for your god, unless of course he is automatically above the laws and gets to do whatever the hell he wants. If your god is above the laws of morality and is able to break or ignore any of the ones he wants to, then he is a hypocrite and is only right because he has the most might."

 

 

No no, god doesn't follow some rules of morality that are bigger than and outside of him; god is the very definiton of "absolute" morality! God is justice, not just just; god is love, not just loving, in fact any positive adjective is what god is. Oh, and personal with a personality. Three of them, really. But totally just one god. God doesn't follow the law; god is the law! Totally different than "might makes right" because god.

 

I used to believe that nonsense because it was so confusing I thought it was deep and meaningful.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's also the omniscence theory. Since God knew things about the kids who he ordered killed, he could have had a justified reason for ordering their deaths. Since Jesus healed people and taught love, we know that God is good and his killings of children were a "I did what I had to do" That's what I've heard from one apologist. Any thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's also the omniscence theory. Since God knew things about the kids who he ordered killed, he could have had a justified reason for ordering their deaths. Since Jesus healed people and taught love, we know that God is good and his killings of children were a "I did what I had to do" That's what I've heard from one apologist. Any thoughts?

 

Regardless of his reason for ordering their deaths being justified (in "God's" mind, anyway), that does not justify killing them in brutally and painful ways. If he had a good reason to end their lives, he would have raptured them up into the sky, instead of ordering them to be killed by sword.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right. If god is omnipotent, he can help people without bloodshed. He could have teleported the Israelites away instead of send the ten plauges and sent the Israelites on a grueling journey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's also the omniscence theory. Since God knew things about the kids who he ordered killed, he could have had a justified reason for ordering their deaths. Since Jesus healed people and taught love, we know that God is good and his killings of children were a "I did what I had to do" That's what I've heard from one apologist. Any thoughts?

 

There is one more thing that I thought of that I did not think of before. If he already knows everything about the children he kills, like for instance, maybe if he didn't kill them, he knew they would grow up to become serial killers, believers in a different god, or rebellious sinners who would give him their middle fingers, but how would he know that? Did he plan on them one day becoming something terrible if he didn't kill them first? If he is omniscient and knows the future, then he knows everything that everything he creates will become. That would mean that he created those children, with the intention of killing them while they were still children.

 

In the end, it still makes the god of the Bible immoral and the act of killing those kids immoral. Basically, he creates humans, knowing they would become enemies, before hand, just so he could destroy them. That's kind of like a child building an action figure of an evil dragon and smashing it with a hammer for looking like an evil dragon, before it is even finished. It's childish behavior, that is what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.