Ancient morality

[Willum]

Transponder and the nice centurion felt it necessary to pollute the original topic,
So here it is, reposted, hopefully they will carry on on that one, and the rest of us can discuss the subject.

Please note, challenging assumptions is one thing, destroying a topic because of your own personal ignorance, is rude, and not at all nice.

The Ancient Greeks recognized the immorality of Zeus; who sent floods, plagues, enacted cruel transformations, etc., and the Greeks responded by labeling Zeus and the other gods immoral.
They further responded by creating a code of morality for people that did not involve deities.

The Greeks saw their gods without morals, and so created their own.

Whereas the Ancient Hebrew and modern day Judaists and Christians see identical or similar acts by their god, and rather then decry these acts as malevolent, defend them as being benevolent.

For debate: The Ancient Greeks were more mature and moral than modern Judaists and Christians.

[Tcg]

His act are depicted as entirely just and good and never is YHWH depicted as engaging in malevolent acts.

Yes, they are depicted as so based on the fact that the recorders of his acts were his favored people groups whether that was the Israelites in the older writings or the Christians from the later writings. Ask the Canaanites their opinion. Oh, right, at least according to the bible we can't because they were wiped out by God's favorite ethnic/religious group. Ethnic based genocide is indeed malevolent even though some pretend it isn't.


Tcg

[JehovahsWitness]

I disagree, there is nothing ammoral or immoral about the God of the bible. His act are depicted as entirely just and good and never is YHWH depicted as engaging in malevolent acts.

I understood the Bible was believed (by Christians) to be God’s word, and not just a collection of stories, laws and histories from one Bronze Age tribe. So it seems a rather weak argument to suggest that such a book would be an objective source for God’s character.

Why is this comment directed at me? Are you suggesting I made such an argument?

[TRANSPONDER]

I disagree, there is nothing ammoral or immoral about the God of the bible. His act are depicted as entirely just and good and never is YHWH depicted as engaging in malevolent acts.

I understood the Bible was believed (by Christians) to be God’s word, and not just a collection of stories, laws and histories from one Bronze Age tribe. So it seems a rather weak argument to suggest that such a book would be an objective source for God’s character.

Why is this comment directed at me? Are you suggesting I made such an argument?

It doesn't matter whether he did or didn't or you didn't or did. The discussion covers a lot of points and is never limited to two protagonists. I think the 'God's word' argument in more than a marker in the context of reporting God's doings in the Bible, as we know that Bible apologetics prefers to excuse God from having any duty to ensure that Hios Book is actually correct, but His is the authority for crediting it, nevertheless.

You point was rather claiming (as I recall) that God did nothing wrong. i HI have to point out here that apologetics debate is not about the Believer being able to maintain their Faith (or argument) by denialist assertions, but making a case that will persuade the other side, though it doesn't ever happen, but it generally seems clear who has the best case.

Claiming the God does nothing wrong when to anyone other than someone who lacks either rationality or ethics, what God does is evil and of course He even says so, but (of course ) "God may have said that but he really meant something else" (metaphor excuse).

And just as an irrelevant aside, it's odd that Genesis and Exodus...and some other stuff, has to work through natural mechanisms and can't just be done with a miracle. But I'm sure that appeal to Faith is much easier when an apologetic fails to stack up. Just something that occurred to me.