If god doesn't follow his own rules, why should we?

Ethics, Morality, and Sin

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Princess Luna On The Moon
Apprentice
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 9:32 pm
Location: New Canterlot, Canterlot, Equestrian Empire

If god doesn't follow his own rules, why should we?

Post #1

Post by Princess Luna On The Moon »

*Let's assume the Christian god is real*

This is mostly about the Old Testament where many rules (the 10 Commandments for instance) are listed. If god so rarely follows his own rules and often switches character traits, why should we follow anything he says? Wouldn't his lack of consistency make him rather pathetic as a supreme leader?

Also, why should we follow something even if we find it immoral? Why is harming other humans in the name of god justified? Or, why is god allowed to get away with killing, harming, or ignoring us, yet whenever something good happens, he gets all the credit?
Image

User avatar
ttruscott
Site Supporter
Posts: 11064
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
Location: West Coast of Canada
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #111

Post by ttruscott »

twobitsworth wrote: The story is from Judges 11. I have copies the relevant bit, check out the rest of the chapter if you like.

29 Then the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah, and he passed over Gilead, and Manasseh, and passed over Mizpeh of Gilead, and from Mizpeh of Gilead he passed over unto the children of Ammon.

30 And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,

31 Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.

32 So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the Lord delivered them into his hands.

33 And he smote them from Aroer, even till thou come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and unto the plain of the vineyards, with a very great slaughter. Thus the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.

Why did you quote this bit of the bible which I have often read and sometimes studied instead of answering the question?? I see no support for your strawman argument here at all.
PCE Theology as I see it...

We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.

This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9129
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Post #112

Post by bluethread »

twobitsworth wrote: twobitsworth wrote:

God did not accept the efforts of Uzza to protect the Ark. and struck him dead for breaking a rule.

That is because it should never have been on a cart in the first place. If I burn my hand catching a hot pan I placed on the edge of a counter top, am I being punished for breaking a rule?


Not a relevant example, unless you are speaking form the view that all things that happen to a person are a result of past behavior. That is, all the events in your life are God rewarding or punishing for your choices.

I don't believe that. Your example is one of natural consequences, such as running down the stairs can get your neck broken. What we have with Uzza, is GOD striking him dead....because he broke a rule. If it was God's principle that punishment is death and is meted out immediately, there would be no misunderstanding. But when we consider the example of Jepthath, we see a far more serious breaking of a rule, with the consent and assistance of God. THIS is what makes the matter difficult to reconcile, and is what I am asking.
Then you are presuming the conclusion. When someone touches a hot pan you call it "natural consequences". However, when someone touches the Ark, which no one else ever touched, you call it "breaking a rule". Can't something be both, "breaking a rule" and "natural consequences"? In fact, aren't many "rules" put in place to encourage people to avoid "natural consequences". It appears that you are straining at gnats and swallowing camels here.

Regarding Jephthah, you are doing the same thing. Allowing him to win the battle is not proof that Adonai accepted the vow. Adonai had already told him to engage in the battle. The only reason for the vow would be that Jephthah doubted whether he would win or not. That being the case, why would he then make a vow asking for protection from the one who told him to do it. The only conclusion I can come to is that Jephthah was being a very foolish man and that is in line with the over all theme of the book of Judges. Humans, even those who Adoani favors, can be very foolish creatures.

twobitsworth
Student
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:25 am

Post #113

Post by twobitsworth »

to ttruscott
Why did you quote this bit of the bible which I have often read and sometimes studied instead of answering the question?? I see no support for your strawman argument here at all
.

The passage is not very difficult, but I'll bullet the points for you.
-the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jepthatht
-Jepthath vowed his vow to God in exchange for God delivering him victory
-the vow was to kill and offer a burnt offering of whoever greeted him after the victory
-the Lord delivered the victory
-Jepthath's daughter came to the door to welcome him home
-jepthath did as he vowed

We have in Judges 11, a clear example of human sacrifice. I hope you can see that. And it seems reasonable, bearing in mind the Uzza story, that if God had any objection---if god considered the killing a sin, he would have punished jepthath horribly. But instead we read he agreed and gave Jep the victory. Then, later rewards him by placing him in the Hall of Faith.

It may be a bit like touching a pot on the stove. The rule is, touch the pot you will get burned. What is God's rule with regard to human sacrifice, and how do we see it in action in this story?

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Post #114

Post by Bust Nak »

bluethread wrote: When someone touches a hot pan you call it "natural consequences". However, when someone touches the Ark, which no one else ever touched, you call it "breaking a rule". Can't something be both, "breaking a rule" and "natural consequences"?
It's depicted as a punishment for breaking a rule in the Bible though - there is a huge difference between getting burn by touching a hot pan and being punished with a lit cigarette for touching a forbidden pan.
Regarding Jephthah, you are doing the same thing. Allowing him to win the battle is not proof that Adonai accepted the vow. Adonai had already told him to engage in the battle. The only reason for the vow would be that Jephthah doubted whether he would win or not. That being the case, why would he then make a vow asking for protection from the one who told him to do it. The only conclusion I can come to is that Jephthah was being a very foolish man and that is in line with the over all theme of the book of Judges. Humans, even those who Adoani favors, can be very foolish creatures.
If the sacrifice was unapproved, why didn't God sent a goat like he did with Abraham and Isaac?

User avatar
ttruscott
Site Supporter
Posts: 11064
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
Location: West Coast of Canada
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #115

Post by ttruscott »

twobitsworth wrote: to ttruscott
Why did you quote this bit of the bible which I have often read and sometimes studied instead of answering the question?? I see no support for your strawman argument here at all
.

The passage is not very difficult, but I'll bullet the points for you.
-the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jepthatht
-Jepthath vowed his vow to God in exchange for God delivering him victory
-the vow was to kill and offer a burnt offering of whoever greeted him after the victory
-the Lord delivered the victory
-Jepthath's daughter came to the door to welcome him home
-jepthath did as he vowed
Your premise that the victory was given in response to the vow fails in light of the fact that GOD obviously chose Jephthah to win before HE came to him. The victory was NOT in response to the vow and YHWH was not a participant in Jephthah's sin.
We have in Judges 11, a clear example of human sacrifice. ... Then, later rewards him by placing him in the Hall of Faith.
Yes, it was a clear example of human sacrifice but not ordered by GOD nor accepted by GOD. GOD's acceptance of a person is NOT because of his righteousness, both Moses and David were murderers, David was an adulterer, Noah a drunk, Abraham lied to Abimelech in faithless to GOD etc etc. Their acceptance by GOD was in no way a reward of faith for their sin...an idea that betrays a deep lack of understanding of Christian doctrine.

Your judgment that GOD is implicit because HE did not immediately and horrendously smite Jephthah suggests possible self righteousness while refusing to accept that people can be redeemed and freed from the addiction of sin and the legal consequences is an idea that denies the very base of Christianity so it will not get any traction from Christians at all.
PCE Theology as I see it...

We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.

This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.

User avatar
ttruscott
Site Supporter
Posts: 11064
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
Location: West Coast of Canada
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #116

Post by ttruscott »

Bust Nak wrote: If the sacrifice was unapproved, why didn't God sent a goat like he did with Abraham and Isaac?
Hardly parallel stories: GOD told Abraham to take Isaac to the mountain - HE was not involved in Jephthah's vow at all.
PCE Theology as I see it...

We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.

This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Post #117

Post by Bust Nak »

ttruscott wrote: Hardly parallel stories: GOD told Abraham to take Isaac to the mountain - HE was not involved in Jephthah's vow at all.
Granted, but does that really sound like consistent behavior to you? It's a stupid idea to sacrifice the daughter and God should have either told him to stop, or sent a goat.

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9129
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Post #118

Post by bluethread »

Bust Nak wrote:
bluethread wrote: When someone touches a hot pan you call it "natural consequences". However, when someone touches the Ark, which no one else ever touched, you call it "breaking a rule". Can't something be both, "breaking a rule" and "natural consequences"?
It's depicted as a punishment for breaking a rule in the Bible though - there is a huge difference between getting burn by touching a hot pan and being punished with a lit cigarette for touching a forbidden pan.
You are changing my point. Is there a huge difference between getting burned by touchng a hot pan and being punished with a burnt hand for touching a forbidden pan, which may very well have been hot? You are creating a false dichotomy. If one does not believe that Adonai intervenes in the affairs of men, then why not just make the argument that Adonai had nothing to do with it. However, if one does believe that Adonai intervenes in the affairs of men, why can't this be both an intervention and a natural occurrence. It appears that you are attempting to make a distinction for the sake of your point. That as I said, is a case of assuming the conclusion.
If the sacrifice was unapproved, why didn't God sent a goat like he did with Abraham and Isaac?
Because it was presumptuous. Avraham was commanded to do what he did, Jephthah was not.

twobitsworth
Student
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:25 am

Post #119

Post by twobitsworth »

Abraham is another example of human sacrifice. I am well aware that God backed down at the last moment, and the story is horrific, but the key thing to notice is that Abe was not shocked. he was not surprised that a human sacrifice was requested by God.

Consider your own situation. If God told you to kill and sacrifice your child, would you be shocked? outraged? Or would you say, Oh, OK, let me get the stuff to do it. A normal loving parent would outright refuse something so detestable, would turn his back on such a "God" and never look back, spending the rest of his life caring for the child and loving the child.

That, however, is not what Abe did. Murder of children for God had to be quite commonplace for him to acquiesce to such a request and to torment his own son to such an extent. I have trouble even contemplating doing this to a child I have to say.

When we consider God's working with Jepthath and his deal with God, and the intent to sacrifice a child at God\s command....how can an argument be made that God opposes human sacrifice???

twobitsworth
Student
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:25 am

Post #120

Post by twobitsworth »

You are changing my point. Is there a huge difference between getting burned by touchng a hot pan and being punished with a burnt hand for touching a forbidden pan, which may very well have been hot?
Yes. They are not really comparable. We have no reason to believe that God is punishing the person for touching the pan--it a natural law of physics and applies to every person equally.

Post Reply