The Contradiction of Morality from Christianity's God

[rikuoamero]

I have a moral code, one that has taken me my entire life to cobble together, and I will be changing it as I continue to live my life, as I experience life and learn new things, and consider fresh perspectives on old ideas.

According to Christians and Christianity, God is the author of morality, or the source of morality or some such similar claim or words to that effect. However, there's a problem: my moral code. My moral code prohibits me from bowing down and worshipping bloodthirsty tyrannical warlords, which is what God supposedly is, according to the Old Testament.
The conundrum I face regarding Christianity is that from where I'm sitting, the religion is demanding that I compromise on my morality, when a real god (at least my own view of what a real god would do) would not do such a thing. The religion demands that either I discard my moral code, or that my moral code (among which is the non-worship of warlords)...is from this God, who demands I worship him?

So questions for discussion: Are our moral codes, even on an individual level, given to us/written on our hearts/preloaded onto us by God?
Does Christianity demand that one discard their moral code, even if not 100% explicitly?

[dio9]

[Replying to post 100 by rikuoamero]

for goodness sake you and I know God doesn't send plagues. But The people in Samuel's age did. They believed psychoses were devil possessions too.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 100 by rikuoamero]

for goodness sake you and I know God doesn't send plagues.

Your God disagrees with you:

Ezekiel 14:21
For thus says the Lord GOD, "How much more when I send My four severe judgments against Jerusalem: sword, famine, wild beasts and plague to cut off man and beast from it!"

Leviticus 26:25
"I will also bring upon you a sword which will execute vengeance for the covenant; and when you gather together into your cities, I will send pestilence among you, so that you shall be delivered into enemy hands."

Numbers 14:12
"I will smite them with pestilence and dispossess them, and I will make you into a nation greater and mightier than they."

Jeremiah 21:6
"I will also strike down the inhabitants of this city, both man and beast; they will die of a great pestilence."

Amos 4:10
"I sent a plague among you after the manner of Egypt; I slew your young men by the sword along with your captured horses, And I made the stench of your camp rise up in your nostrils; Yet you have not returned to Me," declares the LORD.

Jeremiah 14:12
"When they fast, I am not going to listen to their cry; and when they offer burnt offering and grain offering, I am not going to accept them Rather I am going to make an end of them by the sword, famine and pestilence."


Tcg

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to rikuoamero]

From our 21st century medical science knowledge Perhaps it is an error to blame God for a pestilence.

The first, God does not set pestilences on people.Pestilences happen , that's life. What we might say God has done is give us antibiotics and vaccinations.

[Replying to post 100 by rikuoamero]

for goodness sake you and I know God doesn't send plagues. But The people in Samuel's age did. They believed psychoses were devil possessions too.

I disagree with your points because you're interpreting Scripture (or revising it) based on modern-day scientific knowledge and you're doing so while still justifying these stories. Two points:

- To understand the Bible and God, you should be going by how the ancient Jews understood God and the world. They're the ones that tell us about God in the first place. This is how any historical document should be treated, you understand it in terms how of the writers /audience of that time/place/culture would've understood it.

- If or when medical/scientific knowledge conflicts with the beliefs of ancient Jews, then that actually counts as an inaccuracy on the part of the ancient Jews. In the same way, how do you know your revised God-beliefs will hold 50 years from now given scientific advancements that may discredit our current day knowledge?

Your type of reasoning tends to be a way to avoid acknowledging the wrong parts of the Bible. Now as an agnostic, I don't deny that a God possibly exists and that he may have morals for everyone to follow. I also don't think everything in the Bible, including the supernatural, are false. I'm sure some things are true, and some we don't know either way. But to keep an honest picture, we need to acknowledge the falsehoods!

[dio9]

[Replying to Tcg]

The prophets just said that to scare the Kings. The dumb kings believed it but the prophets knew God doesn't send plagues onto people.

[dio9]

[Replying to post 103 by AgnosticBoy]

I agree, just saying God doesn't strike people with lightning bolts or whip up tornadoes.
Prophets like Isaiah and Jeremiah however did see the Babylonian invasion coming and Judea was going to be over run. Indeed With invasion comes death by sword famine and petulance. Its happening before our eyes today in places like northern Africa or Syria. Even I could predict there would be famine death and pestilence in a modern war zone. By the way the sword famine and pestilence Isaiah and Jeremiah prophecies was brought upon Judea by the armies of Babylon.

[AgnosticBoy]

I agree, just saying God doesn't strike people with lightning bolts or whip up tornadoes.

Well lets make some distinctions because I'm not sure if you agree completely after reading your entire post. IN this matter, we are dealing with truth as it applies to the ancient Jews beliefs of literal events, and then there's truth as it applies to reality. The former should be determined by how the Jews understood these biblical stories and the world. Modern-day science has nothing to do with determining what the Jews believed back then. If we're trying to determine if the biblical stories are true to reality, then this is where scientific evidence comes in to justify that. So it's very possible for the ancient Jews to have believed something to be true, while it not be true in reality.

It doesn't seem that you make this distinction and that's where I disagree with you. Many Christians tend to want the stories that don't conflict with their view or science as being literal, but then hide those that do conflict with their view or science as being "non-literal". Sorry, but that's an interpretation based on convenience and not one based on logic and evidence.

[dio9]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy]

The underlying fact is God is the same now as then. The only difference is what people thought then and what people think now. God is the same.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy]

The underlying fact is God is the same now as then. The only difference is what people thought then and what people think now. God is the same.

It's worth mentioning that you're also getting this idea from the biblical writers and what they thought then. I assume the moral law given to Moses are what God expects today, as well??

So I still don't see any logical reason for interpreting what the Biblical writers wrote based on Modern-day knowledge. Nothing you've learned today about God should contradict with the Jew's literal beliefs of talking donkeys, walking on water, miracles, tornadoes swallowing humans (Elijah???), etc.

[William]

[Replying to post 108 by AgnosticBoy]

The underlying fact is God is the same now as then. The only difference is what people thought then and what people think now. God is the same.

It's worth mentioning that you're also getting this idea from the biblical writers and what they thought then. I assume the moral law given to Moses are what God expects today, as well??

From what I can gather, Dio is arguing that ancient people thought things about GOD which were based upon their knowledge at that time, but GOD has always been GOD, regardless of how anyone images GOD.

So one could argue that assuming Moses was given anything by GOD, and that what was assumed to be given is what GOD expects today as well, is all based on the underlying assumption that the ancients were correct about GOD in relation to their knowledge, which I think Dio is trying to say is not necessarily the case.

So I still don't see any logical reason for interpreting what the Biblical writers wrote based on Modern-day knowledge.

One can take it or leave it. I decide that all ancient cultures and aspects of their mythological stories of creation can be dovetailed with modern day scientific discovery as new thought stems from old notions, remembering that;

1: Our modern day knowledge will one day be ancient notions based upon what was known and what was presumed from that knowledge in that particular time-frame.

2: GOD will still be in the position of always being GOD, regardless of how anyone images GOD, in whatever time/knowledge zone their images of GOD are formed in.

In relation to [2] the best position to hold is a fluid one, rather than a static one. Organized religions cling to their 'snapshot' of "what GOD is" through dogma where everything is 'written in stone' - so to speak - and thus are nominally at odds with the evolving human knowledge and are compelled to try and force the square peg into the round hole.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to post 108 by AgnosticBoy]

The underlying fact is God is the same now as then. The only difference is what people thought then and what people think now. God is the same.

It's worth mentioning that you're also getting this idea from the biblical writers and what they thought then. I assume the moral law given to Moses are what God expects today, as well??

From what I can gather, Dio is arguing that ancient people thought things about GOD which were based upon their knowledge at that time, but GOD has always been GOD, regardless of how anyone images GOD.

I can understand that line of thinking but I still disagree with the viewpoint. Some people come to an understanding based on modern day knowledge that there is no God or that god is nothing like the one in the Bible. Dio's standard amounts to a lot of subjectivity in figuring out God unless God has a reliable means of revealing Himself to people in which case it seems He doesn't if even the Bible was subject to a lot of ignorance, even on the supernatural aspects.

So one could argue that assuming Moses was given anything by GOD, and that what was assumed to be given is what GOD expects today as well, is all based on the underlying assumption that the ancients were correct about GOD in relation to their knowledge, which I think Dio is trying to say is not necessarily the case.

But then how do I know that Dio's knowledge about God is correct? The Jews claimed that God "revealed" his morals. I can understand the Jews not getting things right when it comes to history and science, but to get the supernatural things wrong, especially the parts that are "revealed" is damning to the Bible. I mean I'd even call the existence of their God into question because they could've gotten anything wrong.

One can take it or leave it. I decide that all ancient cultures and aspects of their mythological stories of creation can be dovetailed with modern day scientific discovery as new thought stems from old notions, remembering that;

1: Our modern day knowledge will one day be ancient notions based upon what was known and what was presumed from that knowledge in that particular time-frame.

2: GOD will still be in the position of always being GOD, regardless of how anyone images GOD, in whatever time/knowledge zone their images of GOD are formed in.

In relation to [2] the best position to hold is a fluid one, rather than a static one. Organized religions cling to their 'snapshot' of "what GOD is" through dogma where everything is 'written in stone' - so to speak - and thus are nominally at odds with the evolving human knowledge and are compelled to try and force the square peg into the round hole.

I'm not against your view entirely but I will say that it does not represent the Christian conception of God. Perhaps it is valid for a non-Christian version of god in which case, I'm open to one existing. But any claim about it or him should be based on logic and evidence.