PinSeeker wrote:
Mithrae wrote:On the other hand if we assume that being a 'good' god is something more along the lines of being a good parent, providing lessons and guidance appropriate to the culture's or individual's current stage of development...
This is a little closer to the case, but still quite a good distance off.
Intentionally so (I'm glad someone noticed that), because the orthodox Christian perspective on the bible, the Pentateuch and "God's plan" is too full of absurdities and contradictions for me to try to play devil's advocate with. Interesting though that both you and Rikuo below snipped the end of that sentence; perhaps neither happy with the idea that we're scarcely in a position to judge the merits or evils of the scenario one way or the other.
#####
rikuoamero wrote: If we assume that being a 'good' god involves creating a paradise on earth without any effort, thought or consequence on humanity's part, then I think we can all agree that the story was not in any way written or inspired by that kind of deity.
That is the world described in the first few chapters of the book called Genesis. A paradise on Earth without any effort, thought or consequence on humanity's part.
That's how fundamentalists view it, sure (aside from the 'no consequences' part). Alternatively,
a good case might be made that the early Genesis stories originated as an allegory for the loss of natural innocence and keen awareness of mortality which accompanied human intelligence and the transition from nomadic gather to sedentary agricultural societies.
rikuoamero wrote:
On the other hand if we assume that being a 'good' god is something more along the lines of being a good parent, providing lessons and guidance appropriate to the culture's or individual's current stage of development, then without a good answer to the question above the story really doesn't tell us anything one way or the other about divine inspiration.
The analogy falls apart though because parents generally speaking don't kill their kids for violating petty commands. Indeed it is the killing that would
prevent the learning.
It is the stupidity of rule-through-fear and petty authoritarianism that indicates to me the childish level of thought involved in this legal situation. I wouldn't believe Trump was displaying grand intelligence and wisdom if he said that US citizens had to obey even the most petty and mundane of his orders or they'll be put in front of a firing squad.
Trump lives in the 21st century, not the bronze age. It's easy to adopt an attitude of self-righteous condescension towards the less advanced folk of earlier generations, but I don't see how it is in any way helpful. Odds are that future generations of humans will view our societies as primitive and brutish too, President Trump notwithstanding. However the question is whether the 'law of Moses' was
better and more optimal compared to contemporary models from other cultures, in terms of promoting law and order, deterrence from crime, building social cohesion and generally promoting the people's well-being. If it were
better - even just one or two steps in the right direction - then it would be consistent with the assumption that being a 'good' god is like being a good parent, providing lessons and guidance appropriate to the culture's or individual's current stage of development rather handing them everything on a silver platter.
rikuoamero wrote:
They also obviously had a strong vested interest in not killing off their own people needlessly.
Wouldn't killing someone over picking up sticks fall under that heading anyway, of killing needlessly?
Maybe, though the authors obviously didn't think so. I don't know and I don't pretend to know the real 'truth' of the matter. You apparently think that you do know; I'm just pointing out some reasons why you might be wrong, some questions which you really haven't answered.
I think we can agree that probably the three main pillars of law and order in the depicted Israelite society were
social cohesion promoting common purpose and common feeling/empathy with those who would suffer from criminals' actions, an ideal of
holiness or moral guidance and inspiration in the form of a supposedly loving God, and
deterrence from crime in the form of comparatively harsh punishments. The command being violated in Numbers 15 is not "Don't pick up sticks," it was "
Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy" (Exodus 20). This seems to deeply reflect elements of both social cohesion - it would be a day on which all Israelites and resident foreigners would reflect on their shared obedience to Yahweh - and holiness. In fact it was probably the most profound expression and strengthener of social cohesion they had, and second only to having no other gods in terms of expressing and strengthening their devotion to holiness/Yahweh also.
Dishonouring the Sabbath was not just 'picking up some sticks'; it could be viewed (and by the authors apparently
was viewed) as flipping a middle digit at two of the most important pillars of law and order in their society, a litmus test for what kind of person this is, as it were. How can you claim that it would be needless or pointless to reflect a similarly strong deterrent message in response to that violation?
rikuoamero wrote:
It might surprise you to learn that I actually agree with pretty much everything you said there. I can certainly understand the harshness of life 'back then', and how social cohesion was such a paramount concern that any threat to it would be met with harsh reprisals.
The reason people like myself call this "stupid, barbaric" or other similar terms is to highlight how it would most certainly be the case coming from an all knowing and all powerful god who is supposedly there to love and protect his chosen people.
If I had a group of people who worshipped me, obeyed my laws and were eager to learn from me, I'd do a better job at teaching law than what Yahweh in Numbers 15 apparently taught - give a command against a mundane action and declare the simple but harsh punishment of death by stoning.
I'm sure that's a firmly-held opinion, but without any evidence that's really all it is. One of the most interesting and recurring themes in the Pentateuch is the message that all people belong to the same family (despite the alleged sins and 'need' to commit genocide on some specific nations); all people were viewed as descendants of Adam, descendants of Noah, and for many of the nations around Israel descendants of Shem or even Abraham himself. Another interesting and recurring theme is a particular concern shown for the poor and vulnerable.
- Exodus 22:21 “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt. 22 Do not take advantage of the widow or the fatherless. 23 If you do and they cry out to me, I will certainly hear their cry. 24 My anger will be aroused, and I will kill you with the sword; your wives will become widows and your children fatherless. 25 If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not treat it like a business deal; charge no interest. 26 If you take your neighbor’s cloak as a pledge, return it by sunset, 27 because that cloak is the only covering your neighbor has. What else can they sleep in? When they cry out to me, I will hear, for I am compassionate.
Even in the 21st century, even in enlightened America, such notions of brotherhood between all races, respect for resident aliens and compassion for the vulnerable and needy are often not particularly evident, I'm sure you would agree: Often the most visible attitudes seem to be precisely the opposite! There's been no shortage of people trying to generally encourage or even specifically outline why and how we should improve ourselves, but it seems that aggregate human nature is a rather stubborn thing; the problem may not be a lack of conceptually better models, but the pragmatic facts of people not following them. If anything, much if not all of our social progress can be correlated to
technological changes improving interconnectedness and understanding much better than to novel ideas for society.
Are you that much better than anyone else who has ever tried to make the world a better place - people whose plans and inspiration provide a shining example but who, ultimately, have had relatively little effect discernable from technological changes - that
you could provide a societal model whereby bronze age savages achieve things that in many respects we're still struggling with even given 21st century technologies?
Again, if we're talking about more of a 'parental guidance' idea of god, imagining that you would just hand the Israelites advanced technologies or be constantly intervening to keep their society on track would make you a
bad god, ultimately stunting their potential and growth. You can give them a societal model and some initial impetus, maybe even a direct or indirect course correction every century or so, but that's about it. Ultimately, the fact remains that the people you're trying to guide are still bronze age savages in a bronze age world (as if 21st century savages would be a whole lot better without our technology). Would you adopt some approach other than a model of social cohesion, holiness and deterrence? Or do you just think that you might be able to get away with a little less deterrence, even for violations which undermine the first two pillars?
