Can we find evidence of a good Jehovah?

[marco]

God's anger fills the pages of the OT and his rage destroys many. Yet some believe Jehovah was gentle, merciful... a thoroughly just and good God. We could WISH he was but if we read his biograpjical details we woud find it very hard to conclude he's a nice being.


It is remarkably simple to find evidence of nastiness, savagery and spite. But can we redeem God in any way, and find convincing evidence that he's good and merciful FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT?

[2ndRateMind]

Are paedophilia and child abuse to be subjectively justified and accepted as matters of self-interest, and to preserve a stable society, or not?

I wonder which part of my post sought to justify paedophilia?

I did not, and would not, say you did. I am more than willing to accept that all contributors to this forum are at least as moral, or maybe more so, as I am. Meanwhile I am just interested to know whether, as your previous post implied, you really think child abuse justified by 'self interest and a stable society'. And if they are not, what is the factor overrides these ideas?

My point is that in SOME societies things are accepted that would not be accepted in others and this shows that we do not have a divine donation.

So some societies advance more quickly or more slowly than others. Tell me something new.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[marco]

So, do you think it more appropriate that God determines how we should live our lives, in the interests of complete clarity, or that we should make such decisions for ourselves?

I think my previous posts have made it clear where I stand. It is disastrous for humans to believe a god determines how they interact with each other. He doesn't - we do.


Do we derive rules for this interaction from some objective sourcee? No. In fact we do not all agree on what is right, so there is no objective rule. The mark of civilisation , of progress seems to be man's willingness to coexist with man, and I feel this has come about because it is in our interest. It leads to stability.

If you think that God has designed the human psyche to assess matters of morality then it would seem his assessment instruments are not too efficient. Of course we get out of that problem by saying God also donateed free will, when of course it is apparent that we are trapped, most of us, by geography, on a planet, with limited hours to expend. But we can believe what we like and I believe man works for man and dies for man. Some choose to die for God, and that is a tragedy, sometimes for the rest of us.

In the meaaantime, interesting though God's dispensary is, we are forgetting his role in the OT where his moral rules were still under construction.

[marco]

Meanwhile I am just interested to know whether, as your previous post implied, you really think child abuse justified by 'self interest and a stable society'. And if they are not, what is the factor overrides these ideas?

You are attributing a position to me that is not mine. The point I was making is this.
You claim God gave us a moral code. I point out that people act in a way that suggests something is seen as bad in Europe and seen as good in Africa. That seems to suggest that there is no objective standard.

So some societies advance more quickly or more slowly than others. Tell me something new.

I guess this is a rebuttal of something but I don't know what. You are not claiming morality is a slow process of learning, but a gift from God. We advance and so does our morality; at one stagee we killed homosexuals; now we do not - unless we are awfully religious - and in not doing so we are throwing out some biblical rules.


In other words we DO make our own moral rules to suit a stable society. We don't usually eat each other, but just occasionally we might have to.

To reconnect with the OP, the OT God gives us many examples of how to be immoral.
Does he demonstrate goodness, or is he wholly bad? One would have thought that an easy question to answer, but it seems to be a puzzle.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 42 by marco]

No, I'm not claiming God gave us a moral code, once and for all time. I have a different model.

Your idea seems to be that, in the interests of a stable society and our own well-being, we should allow sex with children and for people to hack off female genitalia. I am saying that such acts are not just wrong because we in the developed Western world think them to be wrong, but that they really are objectively wrong, irrespective of how one attempts to justify them.

Try this little test: is it better to have a stable society that permits and promotes child abuse, or an unstable society that forbids it?

So, as to that model of morality I alluded to above; I think there is an objective morality, but I do not think humanity has yet discovered it. But some societies are closer than others, though even they still have a way to go before they achieve it. This objective morality is sometimes called 'natural law', and for me it is synonymous with God's Will. However, it is my belief that, barring catastrophe, humanity's various subjective moralities, informed by academic progress in ethics, will gradually over historical time converge on what is objectively right, and good, and just, and kind, etc. And as we converge, the cosmic battle of good against evil is being won, and God and all His angels rejoice.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[marco]

Try this little test: is it better to have a stable society that permits and promotes child abuse, or an unstable society that forbids it?

It may be that stability comes with discarding the abuse of innocent people. Another interesting question would be: Is it better to have a stable society that discards God, or an unstable one that accepts him?

And as we converge, the cosmic battle of good against evil is being won, and God and all His angels rejoice.

Poetic reverie! Do you suppose the planet Neptune is involved in this "cosmic struggle." And are angels, endowed with primitive flying devices modelled on the birds of the air, relevant?


Our progress has been DESPITE the Bible and Koran; despite the murder of scientists who disagreed with Scripture; despite the slaying of intelligent men who were magnetically drawn to their own sex. Yahweh has disgraced humanity and, one hopes, humanity will one day recover.

[2ndRateMind]

Try this little test: is it better to have a stable society that permits and promotes child abuse, or an unstable society that forbids it?

It may be that stability comes with discarding the abuse of innocent people.

Indeed it may. And I would not be at all surprised if it did. It seems to me to be the case that what is (objectively) morally correct disseminates the good in many unexpected ways.

Meanwhile, I will count your vote as an idealistic preference to do what is good, for the sake of that goodness, rather than the cynical real politick idea as to do whatever leads to a stable society, for the sake of that stability. By all means correct me if I am wrong.

Best wishes, 2RM

[William]

William: My point was that Israel as a State, has achieved a great deal of good

Zzyzx: Exactly what good has been accomplished by Israel?


William: Given the OP issue stems from the idea of morality - it is really a question of opinion as to what is good or evil.
The good I am referring to re Israel has to do with its achievement in contributing to the modern world, and such things can be found by the reader who is interested, notwithstanding individual opinion on the matter.

Zzyzx: Taking over land occupied by others and establishing a state is likely to create enemies all around.


William: Especially if you do not genocide them, or conquer them so completely that even their culture is outlawed, such as with the Native American.
There is a great possibility that the country you reside in may well have been conquered by another people at some point or points in its history.

Zzyzx: People of the Jewish religion are dispersed over much of the world. How, exactly, are they not separated?


William: In one sense, the same way you and I are not 'separated.'
Cultural identity is not defined by where about's one is situated on the planet, if that is what you are implying.

Zzyzx: There is separation regarding Israel, even within the religion of Judaism. Many Jews are Anti-Zionists

William: I wrote "Jews do not separate from one another even that the diaspora made every attempt to make it that way." Having a homeland in which to occupy has caused many decedents of the Jewish diaspora , the opportunity to gather. Politics and religious differences in themselves do not determine who and who is not a Jew.

Zzyzx: What was the settlers connection to the Middle East OTHER than religion?
WHAT was the connection to the land by people from Europe, Russia, and the US?


William: Real World History. Their religion is not the only thing which makes a Jew a Jew.

Zzyzx: Jews / Israelites initially took land by conquest; Romans took over by conquest. Might makes right " agreed?


William: The nature of your statement makes it too sweeping for me to agree with that. Also it is a moral issue, which means personal and varying opinions come into play.

Zzyzx: Notice: God, the Creator of the Universe has promised this land to our forefathers. We are now here to claim our inheritance, and we ask you to leave peacefully.


William: Yes. That would get up the noses of a few - but is not unusual in relation to most human history. The Christians (Roman) did that with the American Natives, although there was nowhere for them to be banished to in the new world - so they were placed onto reserves.


Zzyzx: Is this to claim that the ancestors of Europeans, Russians, and Americans who migrated to Israel had lived in The Holy Land 2000 years ago? Kindly provide readers with verifiable evidence.


William: I think the claim is that the decedents of these ones had lived in The Holy Land 2000 years ago.
Evidence for or against such a claim is not something I can verify. Can you?
What I am told is that the Jewish diaspora happened, and that the decedents survived throughout that period, in other parts of the world.
Do you have better information?
My point in relation to the OPQ was that they are evidence of a people who know what it is like to suffer being the victim - even of their GOD - but have learned to rise above the state of victim-hood and show the world an actual example of how a people can achieve much even under extreme adversity.

Zzyzx: It is not uncommon for religious groups to claim victim-hood (even when they are in the majority " as evidenced by US Christians playing the victim / persecuted card while claiming 70% majority.

William: I wasn't arguing whether it was common or not.
Nor do I accept it is just a symptom of religious groups to claim victim-hood for perceived wrongs done against them.

Zzyzx: Kindly provide references to actual known history of Jehovah.


William: It is interlinked with the history of the Jewish people, for one.
The Jews lived there and had been living there for hundreds of years. 2000 years ago it was actually the Romans who dominated the area.

Zzyzx: Palestinians had been living in the area for thousands of years.


William: I haven't argued otherwise. Indeed, Palestinians are still living there to this day.
One could use your words to state "That Romans dominated the area 2000 years ago is not adequate justification to impose the Jewish diaspora in that region."

Zzyzx: Has someone claimed that Romans have legitimate claim to the land?


William: No doubt way back then, the Romans themselves made the claim. It is what conquering cultures do.
The area in question was taken over by the Brits (Politically Roman) and gifted to the Jews. Some did not like that and made war on the new State of Israel. Israel withstood the attack and no doubt many of her citizens saw the whole event unfolding as evidence of Jehovah's will involved. Whether you and I or the OP author have the same opinion on that or not, doesn't really matter. To the victor go the spoils.


Zzyzx: That is another way of saying, Might makes right

William: I don't think so. "To the victor go the spoils" is a statement less based in morality. Might makes right has more to do with issues of morality, but then it also depends upon individual opinions and whether 'might' actually did 'make right'. Sometimes yes and sometimes no, and most often a mixture of right and wrong.
That is why the mythology of David and Goliath, which I mentioned in another thread'
Link.
The Israelis in general thought of the 6-day War as something they won from position of underdog. The spoils of that war gave them more territory than the Brits had originally delegated to them.
That is one of the rules of war.


Zzyzx: Romans are victorious they are entitled to the land of Jews. Agreed?

William: Real history is evidence of that being the case, agreed. Real history is what I am writing about. Real history is what the OP was asking for re evidence.
Why complain that this shouldn't be the case because the spoils are going to 'The Jews'?

Zzyzx: Does the religion of a group determine their right to lands of others?

William: Your focus is only on one aspect of the Jews as a people.
The prevailing culture doesn't tend to separate politics from religion or Jehovah from the advents of the said culture.
But really, humans make the rules regarding 'rights' they have to 'land.' In reality, nature can often be the one which determines outcomes. 'Rights' and Human morals may be insinuated, but don't come into play re that.

[marco]

Meanwhile, I will count your vote as an idealistic preference to do what is good, for the sake of that goodness, rather than the cynical real politick idea as to do whatever leads to a stable society, for the sake of that stability. By all means correct me if I am wrong.

I didn't vote. Saints may indeed always choose good for good's sake; I don't believe that is how human society evolved. But I don't think cynicism was a part of it either, just a realisation that the bad we inflict on others can be inflicted on ourselves.

Let us with a gladsome mind, see if OT Yahweh's kind. We have become side-tracked from my OP.

[2ndRateMind]

Let us with a gladsome mind, see if OT Yahweh's kind. We have become side-tracked from my OP.

No, I don't think so. If God is infinitely, perfectly moral, as I propose, and the OT is not, then the fault does not lie in God, but with the authors of the OT. It is anachronistic to think that we should judge God by today's ethical standards, and then use recorded bronze age mores in His defense as the basis to reach that judgment about Him. And particularly so since the approach rules out the transcending relevance of Jesus' teachings, and the paradigm shift He wrought, concerning His loving Father of all humanity. For His mercies ay endure, ever faithful, ever sure.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[marco]

Let us with a gladsome mind, see if OT Yahweh's kind. We have become side-tracked from my OP.

No, I don't think so. If God is infinitely, perfectly moral, as I propose, and the OT is not, then the fault does not lie in God, but with the authors of the OT. It is anachronistic to think that we should judge God by today's ethical standards, and then use recorded bronze age mores in His defense as the basis to reach that judgment about Him. And particularly so since the approach rules out the transcending relevance of Jesus' teachings, and the paradigm shift He wrought, concerning His loving Father of all humanity. For His mercies ay endure, ever faithful, ever sure.

That's fine. I shall take your comment to mean there are no redeeming features of Yahweh in the OT.


The stuff about Jesus reinventing Yahweh and making him nice, while STILL upholding Scripture, is optimistic fantasy. Calling the devil dad changeth not the devil.


One can be anachronistic about judging ancient people by modern standards, but not God, "who never changes." If you discard Yahweh, as you seem to be doing, and we are in the territory of a bright new deity full of love and opposed to tsunamis and mosquitoes, that is a tale for anotheer thread. There are many who believe in Jehovah, so perhaps he MAY still have some defenders here. But it's a tough task to defend him.