Believers, why are you sure that god has the right moral values?

[mr.jp]

Let us say that god exists, and that the old testament is not just another bronze age text, but an accurate account of the existence of a very powerful being and his doings.

But why does the fact that he is powerful mean that I should agree with his moral values? In fact, I very much disagree with the moral values in the old testament.

Some examples:

“A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord: even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord”
(Deuteronomy 23:2)

In my eyes, its not the boys fault that he is born out of wedlock, but in gods eyes its enough to damn him, and his descendants.
“Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up” (Hosea 13:16)

Dashing infants to pieces?!

“And it came to pass, when king Hezekiah heard it, that he rent his clothes, and covered himself with sackcloth, and went into the house of the Lord. . . . And Isaiah said unto them, Thus shall ye say unto your master, Thus saith the Lord, Be not afraid of the words that thou hast heard, wherewith the servants of the king of Assyria have blasphemed me. . . . Then the angel of the Lord went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses”
(Isaiah 37:1-36)

Some servants from Assyria talks badly about god, and he kills 185.000 of the assyrians.
I could of course go on. Each bible passage is more morally reprehensible than the next, in my view.
If you lived in nazi germany, I believe that the most moral action would be to rebel against the evilness, and not obey orders, even if that might kill you. In the same way, is it not the most moral action to disobey this god, even if he might kill you for it?

[Monty]

I think you’re misinterpreting the term bastard there. IIRC (and I don’t remember from where) that term is applied, in Judaism, to someone born from an illicit union with a married partner.

The other points you raise, may I ask if you have any evidence that they actually happened as opposed to being points in a story?

[mr.jp]

I think you’re misinterpreting the term bastard there. IIRC (and I don’t remember from where) that term is applied, in Judaism, to someone born from an illicit union with a married partner.

Ok, sure. That doesn’t make gods judgement less unjust in my eyes.

The other points you raise, may I ask if you have any evidence that they actually happened as opposed to being points in a story?

I absolutely don’t. But people believe that these stories are true nonetheless. As I tried to explain in the first three sentences of my first post, I don’t want a discussion about evidence, I want a discussion about moral values.

[Derleth]

When God does it, that means it’s not immoral.

Seriously, that’s about as good of an answer as I can come up with. A religious person, which I am not, could claim that God had some ‘Master Plan’ that involved the deaths of those innocents. If that is the case, why wasn’t the plan changed? If God is omnipotent, He can do that.

To me, it boils down to two options:
[ul]
[li]Morality applies to God: If this is the case, then God is manifestly immoral to the point of being evil as He is depicted in His own Official, Authorized PR.[/li][li]Morality does not apply to God: If this is the case, God is a cosmic bully who represents nothing more than His own arbitrary power run amok.[/li][/ul]

[mr.jp]

Hmm, I didn’t intend to make the samples only about killing innocents. I disagree with gods morals in a lot of different areas.

Here is another sample. It’s from judges 19. A levite priest is visiting some guy.
22 While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.”

23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this disgraceful thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don’t do such a disgraceful thing.”

25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. 26 At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.

27 When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. 28 He said to her, “Get up; let’s go.” But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.

29 When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel. 30 Everyone who saw it said, “Such a thing has never been seen or done, not since the day the Israelites came up out of Egypt. Think about it! Consider it! Tell us what to do!”
This is so rough and unjust that it makes me physically sick. Seriously. As I am writing this my stomack is turning. The old man offers his own daughter to be raped. The holy Levite gives them his concubine, who they rape to death. The priest thinks “oh well”, and puts her on his donkey. I don’t even know whats going on in that last paragraph.

[cosmosdan]

@mr. jp

Let us say that god exists, and that the old testament is not just another bronze age text, but an accurate account of the existence of a very powerful being and his doings.

But why does the fact that he is powerful mean that I should agree with his moral values? In fact, I very much disagree with the moral values in the old testament.
<snip>
I could of course go on. Each bible passage is more morally reprehensible than the next, in my view.

If you lived in nazi germany, I believe that the most moral action would be to rebel against the evilness, and not obey orders, even if that might kill you. In the same way, is it not the most moral action to disobey this god, even if he might kill you for it?

I agree. It’s awfully hard to equate the OT God with the loving Father that Jesus spoke of.

Here’s a gem from Leviticus 12

1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. 3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. 4 Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. 5 If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.

If anyone can read that and think that God actually said it then they are in some serious denial and surrendering their ability to reason to religious tradition.

So, I agree with you. If you take the OT literally God seems pretty nasty. That’s why I don’t.

[cwthree]

@Monty

The other points you raise, may I ask if you have any evidence that they actually happened as opposed to being points in a story?

The OP explicitly states that for the sake of argument, we shall assume

god exists, and that the old testament is not just another bronze age text, but an accurate account of the existence of a very powerful being and his doings.

[Captain_Amazing]

@mr. jp

This is so rough and unjust that it makes me physically sick. Seriously. As I am writing this my stomack is turning. The old man offers his own daughter to be raped. The holy Levite gives them his concubine, who they rape to death. The priest thinks “oh well”, and puts her on his donkey. I don’t even know whats going on in that last paragraph.

In the last paragraph, he divides the body of his concubine into 12 pieces, and sends a piece to each of the tribes of Israel, along with a description of what the Benjamites did to her. The rest of the tribes of Israel think this is so horrible…like you it makes them physically sick, so they get together, demand that the tribe of Benjamin surrender the town of Gibeah to them, so that they can punish it. Benjamin refuses, and the rest of the tribes go to war against it.

In this case, at least, the book of Judges isn’t condoning any of these actions…it’s pointing out the destructive anarchy of the country. In fact, Judges ends by reminding people, “In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.”

[Captain_Amazing]

@cosmosdan

Here’s a gem from Leviticus 12
If anyone can read that and think that God actually said it then they are in some serious denial and surrendering their ability to reason to religious tradition.

Why is it objectionable that giving birth can render a woman ritually unclean? It’s clear from the text that bodily secretions in general, from blood to semen, can render someone unclean, so why not giving birth as well?

[George_Kaplin]

But why does the fact that he is powerful mean that I should agree with his moral values? In fact, I very much disagree with the moral values in the old testament.

It doesn’t. Morality is either contingent on God’s divine fiat, in which case the term itself is completely meaningless, or independent from God, in which case God’s morality can be gauged by measuring the extent to which he conforms to secular morality.

[mr.jp]

Captain amazing:

Are you saying that the levite priest is acting evil, in the bible’s point of view?

[Captain_Amazing]

@mr. jp

Captain amazing:

Are you saying that the levite priest is acting evil, in the bible’s point of view?

First of all, he’s just described as a Levite, not as a priest. And secondly, no moral judgement is being made in the text about his behavior. The only action that’s being judged at all, and judged as evil, is the action of the men of the town.

[mr.jp]

ok, fair enough.

I guess you can excuse Moses’ orders of rape in the same way, by saying that he is not necessarily just. And Lots’.
But what about this stuff from Deuteronomy:

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
Those are god’s laws, right? And “enjoying the spoils” must mean rape.

[Maastricht]

Well, I’m not a believer, so I really shouldn’t be responding in this tread.

There’s a Dutch writer, Maarten 't Hart, who was raised as a very strict protestant. He later left church and used his extensive knowledge of the Bible and religious practices to write two very good, very fun to read books (actually they’re collections of short columns written for national newspapers, discontinued when the paper got too many angry pleading letters from subsribers) featuring most of the Bibles inconsistencies. It’s a pity they haven’t been translated into English.

With regard to the OP; there’s one instance in the Old Testament where God actually is described as regretting his earlier decision to destroy a certain town. (And, no, his regret wasn’t inspired by mercy). So, in that particular story, even God doesn’t agree with his own moral values.

One of the books 't Hart quotes and recommends is: God: A Biography by Jack Miles. Author Jack Miles describes how God evolves as a literary character throughout the bible chapters, in much the same way as somone could describe the development of Hamlet. Miles describes how God evolves from a rather primitive character, obsessed with violence and everything connected with reproduction, into a more reasonable personality. So, if Miles is correct, even God’s focus and maybe even morals change throughout the Bible.

[cosmosdan]

@Captain Amazing

Why is it objectionable that giving birth can render a woman ritually unclean? It’s clear from the text that bodily secretions in general, from blood to semen, can render someone unclean, so why not giving birth as well?

You missed it. {or ignored it} A woman is unclean* twice* as long for giving birth
to a *girl *child as a boy child. I have no problem believing a sexist priest in an ancient civilization said that. The passage begins with “the Lord said to Moses” I have a hard time understanding anybody taking that literally and believing it.

[QuickSilver]

So the testaments (old and new) are rank with outmoded, cruel and often suspect passages directly or indirectly attributed to god.

Meh… Also, bears shit in woods. Pope is Catholic. News at 11:00…

Does this sort of argument against religion and faith ever get old?

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@mr. jp

Hmm, I didn’t intend to make the samples only about killing innocents. I disagree with gods morals in a lot of different areas.

Here is another sample. It’s from judges 19. A levite priest is visiting some guy.
22 While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.”

23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this disgraceful thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don’t do such a disgraceful thing.”

25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. 26 At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.

27 When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. 28 He said to her, “Get up; let’s go.” But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.

29 When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel. 30 Everyone who saw it said, “Such a thing has never been seen or done, not since the day the Israelites came up out of Egypt. Think about it! Consider it! Tell us what to do!”
This is so rough and unjust that it makes me physically sick. Seriously. As I am writing this my stomack is turning. The old man offers his own daughter to be raped. The holy Levite gives them his concubine, who they rape to death. The priest thinks “oh well”, and puts her on his donkey. I don’t even know whats going on in that last paragraph.

I share your antipathy with the morality of the God of the Old Testament. That said, I don’t think the example you give here is a good one (or evfen the story that follows, which involves the other 11 tribes massacreing most of the Benjamites then kidnapping virgins to be forced into marriage (read raped) by the few survivors.) Nothing in this narrative suggests that God approves or mandates the atrocities in question.

If you want to question YHVW’s morality, try the annihiliation of the Amalekites in Samuel.

[mr.jp]

Fabolous creature:
That said, I don’t think the example you give here is a good one

Yeah, I agree. I am not all that familiar with the bible. Captain Amazing has corrected me already. Still, there should be enough examples alltogether of god’s evilness for someone to answer my intended question:

If the old testament is true, why are you not rebelling against your god?

[Larry_Borgia]

In ancient times lots of gods had the wrong values. You didn’t worship god(s) because they were good, you worshipped them because they would aid you if you performed the proper rituals and punish you if you didn’t. Read the Illiad if you want to see ancient gods acting like total pricks. And not just to modern readers, Plato also thought the Illiad’s gods were nasty, and worried about the effect these depictions would have on public morality. Yahweh is no different save for his quirk of demanding the Hebrews worship him alone, and not give recognition to the neighbors gods. He’s not a nice god. No ancient tribe would have expected their God to be nice.

As

[Captain_Amazing]

@mr. jp

But what about this stuff from Deuteronomy:

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
Those are god’s laws, right? And “enjoying the spoils” must mean rape.

“Enjoying the spoils” just means that they could take and keep their property.

And what about the passage? What are your suggestions as to how to attack and conquer a city?