Some immoral quotes from the bible i'd like to ask about...

Overblood

For most poeple around these parts, the word religion is synonymous with morality. Of course there are some nice stories where positive morality can be seen, but there is also some seriously hideous stuff in there too. Are these passages from the same Bible modern Christians follow? What are your opinions on these? Pamela111 may agree with these, but surely most of you don't, right?

Exodus 35:2

For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.

Why must somebody die for working of a Sunday?

Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT

Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told.

What forehead mark are they talking about there^? And why did the Lord want to kill all those who didn't have the mark?

Exodus 12:29-30 NLT

And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died.

Seems a bit excessive doesn't it? Or did God do the right thing in this case?...

Ezekiel 35:7-9 NLT


I will fill your mountains with the dead. Your hills, your valleys, and your streams will be filled with people slaughtered by the sword. I will make you desolate forever. Your cities will never be rebuilt. Then you will know that I am the LORD.

Now this I really don't get. Fair enough the last crowd didn't have the special mark on their foreheads and obviously deserved to die, but why did the Lord kill all these people?

Húrin

Are these supposed to be immoral by our standards, or are they immoral by yours? Where does your standard come from?

stevejazzx

Húrin wrote: »

Are these supposed to be immoral by our standards, or are they immoral by yours? Where does your standard come from?

I don't want to speak for 'Oveblood' but I imagine he means, you know, general ones? Death and all that - it's an easy standard to remember.
Also perhaps you should see commandment no. 6 written by....oh what's his name again....?

Overblood

Húrin wrote: »

Are these supposed to be immoral by our standards, or are they immoral by yours?

Well of course they're immoral for me, but what, is there a difference between our standards? Do you not find them immoral or something? I'm afraid I don't really get your question!

Húrin wrote: »

Where does your standard come from?

Mars.

PDN

Overblood wrote: »

Why must somebody die for working of a Sunday?

Saturday actually.

The Hebrews were a hated people surrounded by hostile tribes that would love to kill them or drive them into the sea (nothing new there). They had a strict code of rules and ethics that kept them distinct from their enemies. It seems horrible to us in our cosy society today - but would probably make more sense to someone in the Warsaw ghetto or somewhere similar.

What forehead mark are they talking about there^? And why did the Lord want to kill all those who didn't have the mark?

The Israelites had enjoyed God's favour and protection, but they became arrogant and started exploiting the poor etc.. So God lifted His hand of protection from them. In effect He said to their enemies, "OK, go and do what you want to them. I won't interfere anymore." However, the few people who had tried to keep living God's way were still given a measure of protection (symbolised by the marks).

Seems a bit excessive doesn't it? Or did God do the right thing in this case?...

The Egyptians had kept the Israelites in grinding poverty and slavery for 400 years. God told them to let His people go. They refused. So God sent a series of plagues - each one more severe than the last. Sadly they waited until things got really bad before they let the slaves go - a bit like Japan and the atom bomb.

Now this I really don't get. Fair enough the last crowd didn't have the special mark on their foreheads and obviously deserved to die, but why did the Lord kill all these people?

This was addressed to the Edomites who had fought against and oppressed the Israelites for generations. God was warning them that judgment was coming against them and they would suffer the same things they had perpetrated against others. What goes around comes around.

philologos

You've already assumed them immoral. For Christians God's judgement defines morality. Clear difference.

ScumLord

How did God pas on his message? If he passed it on through the Egyptian slaves you could forgive them for not believing it. If he appeared in the sky in a great booming voice I don't think there's a person in the world you wouldn't piss themselves, unless it was a daily occurrence back then.

Tar.Aldarion

PDN wrote: »

Saturday actually.

The Hebrews were a hated people surrounded by hostile tribes that would love to kill them or drive them into the sea (nothing new there). They had a strict code of rules and ethics that kept them distinct from their enemies. It seems horrible to us in our cosy society today - but would probably make more sense to someone in the Warsaw ghetto or somewhere similar.


The Israelites had enjoyed God's favour and protection, but they became arrogant and started exploiting the poor etc.. So God lifted His hand of protection from them. In effect He said to their enemies, "OK, go and do what you want to them. I won't interfere anymore." However, the few people who had tried to keep living God's way were still given a measure of protection (symbolised by the marks).


The Egyptians had kept the Israelites in grinding poverty and slavery for 400 years. God told them to let His people go. They refused. So God sent a series of plagues - each one more severe than the last. Sadly they waited until things got really bad before they let the slaves go - a bit like Japan and the atom bomb.


This was addressed to the Edomites who had fought against and oppressed the Israelites for generations. God was warning them that judgment was coming against them and they would suffer the same things they had perpetrated against others. What goes around comes around.

Are there people hat believe in god and don't follow him? As a matter of interest. If I believed in him then I would not follow him.

Overblood

Cheers for answering pdn, now it seems even more cracked tbh. With stoires like these I really don't see how the bible can stand up as a source of good morals. I know somebody could quote endless peaceful passages, but they are utterly negated by these acts of genocide.

Do you think the purpose of this was to frighten people from earlier times to follow the Lord?

And would you really want to spend time in heaven with this guy?

You've already assumed them immoral.

Of course. Killing somebody is immoral, is it not?

seanybiker

Overblood wrote: »

Cheers for answering pdn, now it seems even more cracked tbh. With stoires like these I really don't see how the bible can stand up as a source of good morals. I know somebody could quote endless peaceful passages, but they are utterly negated by these acts of genocide.

Seems fairly like an eye for an eye. I thought this god was supposed to forgive people for their sins or something along those lines. Not kill em all

PDN

Overblood wrote: »

Do you think the purpose of this was to frighten people from earlier times to follow the Lord?

In 2 cases yes, in 2 cases no. Two of the Scriptures you mentioned (the record of the Exodus and the prophecy against Edom) were assuring the people of Israel that God would preserve them and not allow their enemies to wipe them out completely. The other two (the man gathering sticks on the Sabbath and the judgment against Israel in Ezekiel 9) would indeed have been intended to persuade them to obey God's commands.

Cheers for answering pdn, now it seems even more cracked tbh. With stoires like these I really don't see how the bible can stand up as a source of good morals. I know somebody could quote endless peaceful passages, but they are utterly negated by these acts of genocide

I think you're quite wrong there. The Bible does not serve as a guide to morals by telling us that we should do everything that God does. We are not God.

A human can write a manual for how dogs should behave (no sitting on the furniture, pee in the garden last thing at night etc.). That manual is not negated if we discover that the person who wrote it actually sits on their furniture and pees in a toilet rather than in the garden. Why? Because a dog is not a human being. And the difference between God and humans is infinitely greater than that separating humans from dogs.

I'm enjoying spending time on earth with Him - so I expect to enjoy heaven as well. (Personally I believe I'll spend much more time with him on earth than on heaven - but probably better if we don't get dragged off topic into discussing that).

Scumlord wrote:

How did God pas on his message? If he passed it on through the Egyptian slaves you could forgive them for not believing it. If he appeared in the sky in a great booming voice I don't think there's a person in the world you wouldn't piss themselves, unless it was a daily occurrence back then.

Let's see, how did God pass on his message? By authenticating his servant's words by the following signs:
a) The King of Egypt demanded a miracle to prove that Moses really was speaking on God's behalf. Moses threw his staff on the ground and it turned into a snake.
b) God turned all the water in the River Nile into blood. Even water in bottles and sealed containers were turned to blood. Moses predicted this would happen, before the event, to the King of Egypt.
c) God sent a plague of frogs upon Egypt. Again, Moses told the King of Egypt before the event that this would happen.
d) The King of Egypt begged Moses to remove the plague of frogs. Moses actually asked the King to set the time for the plague to stop. Next day, at the time specified by the King, the frogs all died.
e) Next the Lord sent a plague of annoying gnats upon the Egyptians. The King's advisors begged him to listen to Moses since God was obviously with the guy, but the King refused.
f) Next the Lord sent a plague of flies. Interestingly these only infested the places where the Egyptians lived, but the ghetto where the Israelites lived had no flies on them at all! Again, Moses told the King, before the event, that this would happen.
g) The King agreed to let the Israelites go. Moses told him that the flies would fly away the next day - which they duly did, just as Moses had predicted. However the King welshed on their agreement.
h) Next the Egyptians' livestock died in some kind of agricultural epidemic. But the livestock belonging to the Israelites was unaffected (something the King checked out and verified). Again, Moses told the King, before the event, that this would happen.
i) Moses stood in the presence of the King and dramatically threw a handful of soot into the air. Immediately festering boils began to break out on all the Egyptian people and animals.
j) Next a terrible hail storm came upon the land. The only place which was spared was the ghetto where the Israelites lived. Both men and animals were killed the storm (the first human fatalities of this entire sequence of events). Again Moses told the King, before the event, that this would happen.
k) The King begged Moses to stop the storm. So Moses went and prayed and the storm stopped. Once again the King welshed on their agreement and refused to let the Israelites go.
l) Then the Lord sent a plague of locusts on Egypt. Again Moses told the King, before the event, that this would happen.
m) When the King begged Moses to put a stop to it, Moses prayed, and an abrupt change of wing blew all the locusts into the sea. Again the King welshed on their agreement.
n) Next God sent total darkness upon Egypt for 3 full days. Yet, amazingly, there was no such darkness over the ghetto where the Israelites lived.
o) Moses removed the darkness at the King's request, but the King still refused to honour his promise to let the Israelites go.
p) Then, and then only, did the incident happen where God took the life of the firstborn in each Egyptian household.

So, Scumlord, do you think the King of Egypt was a bit confused because the slaves did nothing to show that they were really speaking on God's behalf?

PDN

seanybiker wrote: »

Seems fairly like an eye for an eye. I thought this god was supposed to forgive people for their sins or something along those lines. Not kill em all

God is under no obligation to forgive anyone. The soul that sins deserves to die.

In His mercy God does extend the offer of forgiveness to us in this present age - but that is conditional upon our acceptance of the offer.

Overblood

I really really don't get this christianity thing. How can you worship such an evil God?

The Character "God" or "Lord" is, according to Dawkins:

"arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

After reading the passages in the opening post you'd be nuts to disagree. He may have left out the nice bits, sure, but do you think God has the above characteristics?

prinz

Overblood wrote: »

"arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

Sounds more like Comrade Stalin to me.

MrPudding

prinz wrote: »

Sounds more like Comrade Stalin to me.

But when was the last time someone tried to persuade you Stalin was infinitely good, holy and merciful and worthy of worship?

MrP

PDN

overblood wrote:

I really really don't get this christianity thing. How can you worship such an evil God?

The Character "God" or "Lord" is, according to Dawkins ... Yadadadadadadadadadad

Like I'm going to lose any sleep over a quote from Dawkins 3:16. :rolleyes:

MrPudding wrote: »

But when was the last time someone tried to persuade you Stalin was infinitely good, holy and merciful and worthy of worship?

It used to be a common atheist tactic back in the days before internet discussion fora.

Overblood

PDN wrote: »

Like I'm going to lose any sleep over a quote from Dawkins 3:16. :rolleyes:

I didn't post Dawkins' quote to give you insomnia, I asked if you thought god had the characteristics Dawkins listed out.

PDN

Overblood wrote: »

I didn't post Dawkins' quote to give you insomnia, I asked if you thought god had the characteristics Dawkins listed out.

No, I don't think God has those characteristics at all. Dawkins is just being a pratt to try to rile up Christians and to get his fellow-atheists all excited. I hope it worked better with you than it did with me.

Overblood

PDN wrote: »

Dawkins is just being a pratt

You dare to insult my God?!!

Just kidding.:pac:

So what do you mean

I don't think God has those characteristics at all.

????

What about the part where God kills everybody.

philologos

Overblood wrote: »

What about the part where God kills everybody.

If these people were entirely innocent, that might well be shocking, however if this was divine judgement I have yet to see the issue with the creator of all revoking the life that He created. God creates all, and He has the right to take it away.

Rowley Birkin QC

Overblood wrote: »

What about the part where God kills everybody.

Yeah, what about that bit?

All too easy to just brush it off by saying "Dawkins is a sh!t stirrer".

prinz

MrPudding wrote: »

But when was the last time someone tried to persuade you Stalin was infinitely good, holy and merciful and worthy of worship?

MrP

I was having a light-hearted moment.:D

On the other hand, I have seen posters for politcal rallies/demos etc featuring the good Comrade himelf. For some reason that is tolerable. I wonder how long it would last if someone else were to use Hitler as a poster boy for a march on the Dáil for example. Double standards abound, as Stalin is still looked up to by many many people, today mainstream.

As regards the other, people attributed various aspects to God in line with what they thought would keep the old desert tribe in line. I figure the ancients had an easier time keeping people together by telling them God would kick their asses if they didn't. Those were the Gods of the day.However let's not forget for every negative act portrayed in the Bible there are far far more positive traits. Dawkins cares not to mention that.

Kipperhell

PDN wrote: »

God is under no obligation to forgive anyone. The soul that sins deserves to die.

In His mercy God does extend the offer of forgiveness to us in this present age - but that is conditional upon our acceptance of the offer.

That sounds very like saying all that know of your Christ and disbelieve will be sent to hell and pretty much saying your god and faith are the only correct ones! Yet I am sure in your many musing here you have stated that is not the case.

Ever evasive on the point being made often muddying the waters with long winded quotes and rhetoric.

The general point is the early version of the Christian god conducted a form of genocide on behalf of his chosen people. Later on a new guy comes along and tells you to treat all fairly and all are welcome. The barrier to non-chosen people is lifted. In modern views this seems to be contradictory and also morally reprehensible.

So the question could break down like this
1) When did god stop directly communicating with people in the manner described in the OT?
2) No matter how many warnings were given to kill children for their fathers sins seems a vile thing to do. How do you morally sit with that?
3) If you saying moral were different then and it was OK then you could argue that morals are different now and the old techings aren't relevant.

It is clear that the god of the bible is a different character as the book moves on. Seems to be valid why this is. It also seems valid to assume the character of god changed as society changed which some take means he is a creation of society rather than the other way around.

AtomicHorror

Jakkass wrote: »

You've already assumed them immoral. For Christians God's judgement defines morality. Clear difference.

That's the core issue really, isn't it? For some of you guys, the morality of God supersedes your own morals and even your values in all circumstances. It is entirely unquestionable and entirely correct. So we have for example, people who are not at all homophobic condemning consensual, monogamous and safely-practised homosexuality even though on some level they feel bad about that condemnation. We have you guys now defending genocide-level events even though you would surely be appalled by any similar event under any other circumstances. And, presumably, if God verifiably told you it was okay to kill all Muslims you encounter tomorrow, you would accept that as moral regardless of how uncomfortable it made you feel personally.

On the other side, we have people who judge moral and immoral based on the consequences of actions and personal values.

This argument can't actually be resolved at all because the way the two sides view the origin of morality is entirely irreconcilable.

philologos

AtomicHorror wrote: »

That's the core issue really, isn't it? For some of you guys, the morality of God supersedes your own morals and even your values in all circumstances.

If one doesn't have a consistent moral basis, one must resort to relative morality, however if that is just your whim, who is to say that it is actually right or wrong. You have to appeal to an objective morality to get anywhere in discourse on morality.

There are no morals apart from what God decrees.

Powerhouse

Overblood wrote: »

I really really don't get this christianity thing. How can you worship such an evil God?

The Character "God" or "Lord" is, according to Dawkins:


After reading the passages in the opening post you'd be nuts to disagree. He may have left out the nice bits, sure, but do you think God has the above characteristics?

How do you know God is evil?

The stuff in the Bible was written, not by God, but by a few scribes centuries after Christ.

Why do you take it (a) so literally and (b) so representative of the being it describes? Because Dawkins tells to you? Or have you arrived at these heavily-researched evidentially powerful conclusions all on your lonesome?

AtomicHorror

Jakkass wrote: »

If one doesn't have a consistent moral basis, one must resort to relative morality, however if that is just your whim,

How is subjective morality based on a whim? Subjective morality is based on values and consequences. Consequences are not subject to whim, they probable or improbable. What about values? Can I rationally decide to value the life of my neighbour positively? Can I love on a whim? Hate because I fancy a bit of negative today? Nonsense Jakkass.

Jakkass wrote: »

who is to say that it is actually right or wrong.

The majority. As they already do. Humans are very social, and social norms have a significant influence on our morals. That's probably why the various moralities seem to share so many traits.

On the subjective level, we each have to judge right and wrong for ourselves. Morality is complex and ever changing based on circumstances and information. To subscribe to a rule book may seem much easier, but in my view even one that didn't advocate genocide would be inadequate and actually complicate the issue further.

Jakkass wrote: »

You have to appeal to an objective morality to get anywhere in discourse on morality.

To get anywhere in a discourse with a Believer, perhaps. I'm sure I'd have more luck with someone less in the habit of thinking in terms of abstract absolutes.

Jakkass wrote: »

There are no morals apart from what God decrees.

You said that bit already, and it was just as unconvincing the last time.

PDN

Kipperhell wrote: »

That sounds very like saying all that know of your Christ and disbelieve will be sent to hell and pretty much saying your god and faith are the only correct ones! Yet I am sure in your many musing here you have stated that is not the case. .

I do believe that God is the only correct God. I also believe that Christianity is the only correct faith. I do not believe that my variety of Christianity, my denomination, or my individual Church are the only correct ones.

I also believe that all who know the Gospel of Christ and reject it will go to hell.

Ever evasive on the point being made often muddying the waters with long winded quotes and rhetoric.

How about you try to address the points raised in posts instead of just getting personal?

I'm not aware of having evaded any questions at all. Sometimes I take time to give a lengthy answer to a question. this is for two reasons:
a) Some posters are extremely ignorant about the Bible and Christian beliefs so you have to be as precise as possible to avoid genuine misunderstandings.
b) Some other posters deliberately twist your words, so you have to be as precise as possible to avoid giving them ammunition.

I appreciate that this can be annoying to someone who asks a loaded question such as "Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Please answer yes or no." And I can see that detailed explanations, nuanced positions, and quotes from real books may be rather disconcerting to people who never read anything other than the Daily Star.

The general point is the early version of the Christian god conducted a form of genocide on behalf of his chosen people. Later on a new guy comes along and tells you to treat all fairly and all are welcome. The barrier to non-chosen people is lifted. In modern views this seems to be contradictory and also morally reprehensible.

That's your understanding of the Bible. I don't share it. so I'm afraid I can't be responsible for whatever conclusions you draw from it.

1) When did god stop directly communicating with people in the manner described in the OT?

You mean by prophecy etc? I don't think He has stopped communicating in that way.

2) No matter how many warnings were given to kill children for their fathers sins seems a vile thing to do. How do you morally sit with that?

I freely admit that I don't understand it. But I wouldn't call it vile of God. God can give life and He can take it away.

3) If you saying moral were different then and it was OK then you could argue that morals are different now and the old techings aren't relevant.

That's why you need to study Scripture properly and determine its meaning and context. Some teachings are not relevant today - at least not to any situation I'm ever likely to encounter. Some of them are solely of historical value.

It is clear that the god of the bible is a different character as the book moves on. Seems to be valid why this is. It also seems valid to assume the character of god changed as society changed which some take means he is a creation of society rather than the other way around.

Again, you begin with a position that I, and millions of others, would not agree with. Therefore it is hardly surprising that you end up with an erroneous conclusion.

Zillah

PDN wrote: »

The Egyptians had kept the Israelites in grinding poverty and slavery for 400 years. God told them to let His people go. They refused. So God sent a series of plagues - each one more severe than the last. Sadly they waited until things got really bad before they let the slaves go - a bit like Japan and the atom bomb.

Uh huh...and um, why did God not just kill them instead of their firstborn? Innocent children being murdered to spite their parents seems like an odd thing for a benevolent God to do.

Tar.Aldarion

Zillah wrote: »

Uh huh...and um, why did God not just kill them instead of their firstborn? Innocent children being murdered to spite their parents seems like an odd thing for a benevolent God to do.

I don't think you get it Zillah, whatever god does is benevolent. It is the right thing for god to do in this circumstance, because he did it.

Overblood

Powerhouse wrote: »

How do you know God is evil?

The stuff in the Bible was written, not by God, but by a few scribes centuries after Christ.

Why do you take it (a) so literally and (b) so representative of the being it describes? Because Dawkins tells to you? Or have you arrived at these heavily-researched evidentially powerful conclusions all on your lonesome?

Hold on a sec. Whose side are you on?! Let me get this straight, I'm an atheist. I'm not talking about an actual god, since I don't believe in a god. I don't take the bible literally either, I think it is an extremely dubious piece of work. I'm talking about the fictional character God/Lord in the collection of stories known as The Bible:) and I'm asking for Christian opinions on said gods acts of genocide and baby-murdering. Ok?

How do you know God is evil?

I know god is evil because after a mere browse of the bible, I found acts of unspeakable horror. If I read it cover to cover (which I plan to do if I can just get it to stop burning my hand every time I touch it....) I'm sure my opinion would be confirmed.