Bible God's morality changes over time (Jacob, quote, marriage, Abraham)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Texan didn't say "commanded". He said "sanctioned".
Do you realize those are two different things?
Clearly, the difference eludes our friend, Viz. Now he's probably going to tell us that God merely "tolerated" Abraham's and Jacob's practice of polygamy, but was nevertheless displeased with both of them for it. The thing is, God never "tolerates" something that goes against His will, and never once did he condemn either of these men for their polygamy. It's not like God to just turn a blind eye to something He is opposed to.
As an atheist, it is clear to me that Bible God's morality is like human's morality. It changes over time and it is situation-specific. Any Christians want to dispute this?? We can start off with polygamy sanctioned by God at one time.
I don't see it quite that way. With respect to the practice of polygamy, for instance, I don't think that God ever said, "Okay, until I say otherwise, you guys can go ahead and be immoral. But you have to stop and be moral again when I say so." God has never approved of sexual promiscuity. But polygamy does not necessarily qualify as sexual promiscuity. God may have reasons for occasionally permitting a "moral" man to have more than one wife.
As an atheist, it is clear to me that Bible God's morality is like human's morality. It changes over time and it is situation-specific. Any Christians want to dispute this?? We can start off with polygamy sanctioned by God at one time.
While, this dovetails nicely with the claim by many Christians that, absent religion, we cannot possibly have any notions of what constitutes 'good' and 'bad'. Thus, 'good' is only whatever Zeus (of whatever superman-in-the-sky is one's favorite) says it is. And if one day Zeus (or, again, whatever) says X, Y and Z are 'good', and then another day Zeus's kid (who is really kinda sort Zeus himself but also not) comes along and says that X, Y and Z are now 'bad' well then, they're 'bad'. Until Zeus and/or his kid changes its mind again.
Of course, the implications of this nonsense are horrifying, but then most of religion is when you have a good close look at it.
Nicely categorized. What he condoned then he supposedly regards with horror, now. What he denounced then (Gays, for instance) he condones now. Bible authority is a guide to nothing. Why even the all important Sabbath was dismissed by Jesus as less important than doing good or even taking a stroll in the county. And apart from a few efforts to enforce a Sabbath (on a different day) on us since then, that is the view now. God's requirements and approval has changed to keep pace with human preference.
I think that is one of the best arguments for Humanism. God clearly wants humans to decide how best to live, and just send him a memo and he'll update his views, opinions and requirements accordingly.
I would think that must be the case. I would think, though, that if God is love [or "love is god", for the atheist] then the goal would be to conform our decisions to what nate said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift
Of course this assumes that the whole Bible is communications FROM God rather than contradictory perceptions OF God by humans,
Hint: there is no such thing as a "Biblegod." God was revealed by Jesus to be spirit and love (which means a concern for the overall well-being of the ones loved, including their spiritual development). I think God is more interested in process than in results and WHAT happens to us is far less important than how we deal with it.
So, whether you are an atheist, deist or theist, that principle is a foundation for common ground and common purpose.
As an atheist, it is clear to me that Bible God's morality is like human's morality. It changes over time and it is situation-specific. Any Christians want to dispute this?? We can start off with polygamy sanctioned by God at one time.
On the other hand, Jesus has already pointed out that some of Mosaic Law are so because the Jews' hearts are hardened. Paul also pointed out that the New Covenant is so because humans failed to abide by the older covenants.
I would think that must be the case. I would think, though, that if God is love [or "love is god", for the atheist] then the goal would be to conform our decisions to what nate said:
So, whether you are an atheist, deist or theist, that principle is a foundation for common ground and common purpose.
I agree. What I would argue, as an atheist, rationalist and humanist is that we decide together what is (good...of course..or so I hope) common ground and common purpose or humanity as a whole, and what is god may be found in all sorts of books, and not just the Bible. Holy books are no authority, and religions are no sound guided to how we should live, though they may have been fin in teir time and even today have some good ideas. But, as said before, we use secular morality to judge what is good in the Bible (and therefore God -approved) and what is bad (and what he perforce tolerated) and what is good in the Bible is good, because it is good, not because it is in the Bible.
I agree. What I would argue, as an atheist, rationalist and humanist is that we decide together what is (good...of course..or so I hope) common ground and common purpose or humanity as a whole, and what is god may be found in all sorts of books, and not just the Bible. Holy books are no authority, and religions are no sound guided to how we should live, though they may have been fin in teir time and even today have some good ideas. But, as said before, we use secular morality to judge what is good in the Bible (and therefore God -approved) and what is bad (and what he perforce tolerated) and what is good in the Bible is good, because it is good, not because it is in the Bible.
The argument then goes on and on about where your secular morality is coming from.
On the other hand, Jesus has already pointed out that some of Mosaic Law are so because the Jews' hearts are hardened. Paul also pointed out that the New Covenant is so because humans failed to abide by the older covenants.
So what's new here?
What's new here is that the change was not because God thought it was time for a new covenant completely inverting the old one for Jews that were no more ready for it than they were in 600 BC , but because the new covenant has been mixed up with Paul's taking Jewish messianism to the Greeks and modifying the practices to suit them. Thus Observing the rituals, circumcision, Sabbath observance, Temple worship, clean food - all went ou the window, not because God had a new covenant (you will note that, at first (Romans), Paul says the law is still binding on Jews) but because the Greeks would never joing up if they had to do all that.
This scrapping of the old Laws is then back engineered and placed in Jesus' mouth when the Gospels came to be written by Paulinist Greek Christians.
Effectively, God was redesigned to suit Gentile Christianity.
What's new here is that the change was not because God thought it was time for a new covenant completely inverting the old one for Jews that were no more ready for it than they were in 600 BC , but because the new covenant has been mixed up with Paul's taking Jewish messianism to the Greeks and modifying the practices to suit them. Thus Observing the rituals, circumcision, Sabbath observance, Temple worship, clean food - all went ou the window, not because God had a new covenant (you will note that, at first (Romans), Paul says the law is still binding on Jews) but because the Greeks would never joing up if they had to do all that.
This scrapping of the old Laws is then back engineered and placed in Jesus' mouth when the Gospels came to be written by Paulinist Greek Christians.
Effectively, God was redesigned to suit Gentile Christianity.
Your understanding of Law and Covenant is rather shallow and superficial.
======
We have our first covenant received by Noah. Since then humans under this covenant will be judged (on Judgment Day) by a set of Law embedded inside us. We usually refer to this set of Law as our moral code and conscience. God doesn't need to make anything more explicit as long as this set of Law continues to work.
However, humans keep falling away. God has to develop a new way to judge humans by yet another covenant. It all started with the Jews. It's more like planting a seed via the Jews then grow it into a tree for the salvation of all today's humans.
As our hearts getting more and more hardened that our moral code and conscience keep shifting and to the worse trend. God thus set aside another set of Law (i.e., the Mosaic Law) for the Jews to obey in a more explicit way. Such that even when the Jews are lost morally or conscientiously, they still have something concretely written down as an explicit standard for them to follow to get to their salvation. It's more like an upgrade of the covenant for humans to follow a new set of rules while they might have failed in following the previous.*
Such an upgrade is possible at all because in the end there will be Jesus' self-sacrifice. Alternatively speaking, more Grace will be granted to each successively upgraded covenants. Through the Jews the first step was made to make it possible to make a covenant upradable, such that a new set of Law can be specified for humans to obey in the case that the previous set of Law no longer works out 100%.
Now God has to make things explicitly as a result of a change of standard in terms of the final Judgment. The Jews are taught to practice to bring forward God's message in 2 ways, that is, to learn to maintain God's message strictly in both written form and verbal form. The Jews are thus trained to preserve both the written set of Law and the verbal set of Law up to a standard. This is to serve the purpose of keeping later/today's humans informed of God's standard applied to them on the Judgment Day. The Law, that is, the first 5 books of the OT Bible are thus conveyed among the Jews along with the verbal set of Law embedded into their customs and ritual practices.
Other books of the OT Bible are about historically how the standard was developed among the Jews. About teachings to the Jews. About how God should be understood by humans. About prophecies to facilitate the coming of Jesus Christ. About a history of the Jews and so forth. At the same time when these books are added along with how history goes, God begins the canonization of the OT Bible. This is to serve the purpose that at some point when what are intended to be included being done, no more books can thus be added. It is said that around 17 out of the 22 books are canonized at the time when Hezekiah was the King. After the Babylon Exile, what had been destroyed needed to be rebuilt. Along with the rebuilding of the Temple, legitimate copies of the canonized books are also produced by Ezra. Several more books were added at around Jesus time to make the OT Canon final. The process is strictly supervised by the Sanhedrin. Only books produced by formal scribes designated by the Sanhedrin will be considered as legitimate.
Finally, through the Jewish ritual practices the process of Jesus' self-sacrifice is defined. Jesus didn't randomly jump off a cliff to die then claim to be sacrificed. He followed a process predefined through the Jews to legitimately complete His sacrifice. Through His sacrifice He brought us the final covenant granted to humans. We don't arbitrarily call it "final". It is final in terms of Law and Covenant. The New Covenant is final because the Grace is maximized with the Law minimized. It is thus the last upgrade, as Grace cannot be further granted. As a final covenant with the maximum Grace, those humans under it will be judged by their faith alone. Law won't apply to them on the Judgment Day.
It is because the covenant is final that the change of standard now is final. No more change will be made to the standard (or standards) of Judgment. Nothing else needs to be made more explicit to humans. Thus the NT Bible is final.
I agree. What I would argue, as an atheist, rationalist and humanist is that we decide together what is (good...of course..or so I hope) common ground and common purpose or humanity as a whole, and what is god may be found in all sorts of books, and not just the Bible. Holy books are no authority, and religions are no sound guided to how we should live, though they may have been fin in teir time and even today have some good ideas. But, as said before, we use secular morality to judge what is good in the Bible (and therefore God -approved) and what is bad (and what he perforce tolerated) and what is good in the Bible is good, because it is good, not because it is in the Bible.
I'm not a "holy book" believer . And, therefore, I don't really think of there being secular vs religious views of morality. Whoever wrote down their ideas in what anyone now considers to be "holy" books was basically expressing the secular/religious thought of their time and culture, or their own understanding of such. Whether you call it secular or religious thought, they both come from the same place: within the individuals. Just like now, some of those people believed their ideas about morality came from God, some likely didn't. It really doesn't matter, either way. Some of the things those people wrote transcends time and culture ... some does not. I think the common denominator of what transcends is that they always are based on the principle of keeping the best interest of everyone in mind -- of love.
I just really hate labels that divide us, in other words. That's the short version.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. And, therefore, I don't really think of there being secular vs religious views of morality. Whoever wrote down their ideas in what anyone now considers to be "holy" books was basically expressing the secular/religious thought of their time and culture, or their own understanding of such. Whether you call it secular or religious thought, they both come from the same place: within the individuals. Just like now, some of those people believed their ideas about morality came from God, some likely didn't. It really doesn't matter, either way. Some of the things those people wrote transcends time and culture ... some does not. I think the common denominator of what transcends is that they always are based on the principle of keeping the best interest of everyone in mind -- of love.
