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?

[marco]

The reason? I am not convinced that the version of God known as Jehovah exists. If such a beast exists, it is a petty self-centered god who possesses such a fragile ego that it can't stand the fact that some would dare to not accept the existence of a petty self-centered god.

Today we have cities destroyed without his finger pushing the button. In the past it would be called divine retribution for bestiality and child sacrifice. Yahweh's creators could not resist the temptation to make their deity bigger and better, more brutal and more vindictive than any other in the area. He acts as Mighty Defender of the Israeli nonentities, but when asked for serious assistance, he plays around with plagues, just wasting time, and then lets people shuffle around in the wilderness for
- can you believe it? - FORTY YEARS?


With friends like Yahweh, who needs enemies?

[2ndRateMind]

So, is the argument that because God is immoral, He must not exist? Or because the concept of God the ancient, primitive, bronze age Jews believed in is immoral, He must not exist in that way? I do not see how either argument precludes the existence of an utterly and perfectly and infinitely moral God. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

Best wishes, 2RM

[marco]

So, is the argument that because God is immoral, He must not exist? Or because the concept of God the ancient, primitive, bronze age Jews believed in is immoral, He must not exist in that way? I do not see how either argument precludes the existence of an utterly and perfectly and infinitely moral God. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

For all I know a thoroughly evil deity might exist. We are dealing with Yahweh and I deduce his non-existence NOT from his morality, or lack of it, but from the man-made garments he wears. This unsophisticated being who rages and roars, and drops on to mountains, presumably from "heaven in the sky" is a very unlikely author of the universe. He's a nomadic fighter who enjoys a bit of finest beef and expects genitalia as trophies.


When I discuss Yahweh I am discussing what I see as a fiction, but a dangerous fiction, in that people believe his reported pronouncements and have murdered human beinsg in response to his decrees.

There may well be a kinder, moral deity invisibly in residence somewhere, but I have not deduced this. If he does exist he seems remarkably shy.

[2ndRateMind]

So, is the argument that because God is immoral, He must not exist? Or because the concept of God the ancient, primitive, bronze age Jews believed in is immoral, He must not exist in that way? I do not see how either argument precludes the existence of an utterly and perfectly and infinitely moral God. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

There may well be a kinder, moral deity invisibly in residence somewhere, but I have not deduced this. If he does exist he seems remarkably shy.

Doubtless, 4000 years from now, this discussion will still continue. If we are fortunate, our descendants will make the same allowances for us as I prescribe we allow the early Jews, 4000 years ago; that given their state of religious, theological, philosophical and social development, we could not expect better of them. That does not mean, however, that we should not be grateful to them for their first approximations in these areas.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[marco]

Doubtless, 4000 years from now, this discussion will still continue.

I think we shall then have long moved on to a new discussion. As Tennyson said: "The old order changes, yielding place to new, and God fulfils himself in many ways," ..... but always at the bidding of believers. In 4000 years time I hope we will have new and exciting texts to study, and our bodies may well be transformed, not in the superstitious manner that Paul imagined, but through the steady advance of mankind.

If we are fortunate, our descendants will make the same allowances for us as I prescribe we allow the early Jews, 4000 years ago; that given their state of religious, theological, philosophical and social development, we could not expect better of them. That does not mean, however, that we should not be grateful to them for their first approximations in these areas.

Our gratitude should go to the people who made our advancement possible: fiery furnaces, snake-gardens and edicts on stone are not iron swords turned to ploughshares, or the theorems lovingly attributed to ancient Greeks, or the viaducts of Rome.
"If your daughter sins, hand her over to the good men of the town so that they can stone her."

When through Muhammad the Koran inherited this, we have:

"If your wives continue to disobey you, despite your remonstrations, you must beat them."

Archimedes wrote a letter about his method to Eratosthenes, and we are grateful that this was passed down to us. But I cannot see any reason to thank the writers of the Bible for giving us licence to kill. We are good because that is as it should be, in a regulated, ordered society, not because some titan thundered on to a mountain and primitively scratched words on stone. Let us instead thank the giants on whose shoulders Newton claimed he stood.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 34 by marco]

If you read Plato's Republic, in the light of modern political ideas, you will find it something of a justification for a Fascist state. That does not mean we should not be grateful to Plato, however wrong he was, for kicking off the entire field of political philosophy. One has to start from somewhere, and an exposition of bad ideas may be just as useful in this respect as a manifesto of good ideas. I will readily admit, however, that when immorality is written into scripture, there is a danger that that immorality will become entrenched into a society. Even scriptures need be read with a critical stance.

So, if 'we are good because that is as it should be', we should acknowledge our indebtedness to our ancestors, who in conversations now long forgotten, helped define goodness and shift our societies in such a direction, irrespective of the attitude of their convictions. And if 'we are good because that is as it should be', then it can only be that it should be because it is God's Will, objective morality, and natural law that we might be that way. Else it is simply by subjective preference and capricious accident that good people are good, and bad people bad, and there is no 'should be' about the contention.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[marco]

If you read Plato's Republic, in the light of modern political ideas, you will find it something of a justification for a Fascist state.

I studied the Republic as a work of philosophy, interested in ideals, and in particular the ideal of justice. We can extrapolate anything from anything.

Even scripture needs be read with a critical stance.

Especially Scripture since it is regarded as the inspired word of God.

we should acknowledge our indebtedness to our ancestors,

I totally agree. I am full of admiration when I read Horace or smile at Catullus or sympathise with his farewell to his dead brother or wonder at Caesar's daring "iacta est alea" when he moved his army over the Rubicon. Hannibal inspired the tactics used in the Gulf War. So I acknowledge our indebtedness, but I am not sure that I am indebted to Matthew, Mark and Luke for anything, and certainly not to Abraham.

And if 'we are good because that is as it should be', then it can only be that it should be because it is God's Will ....

Here we disagree. I think self-interest and the preservation of a stable society result in laws that we uphold. The details of these rules vary from place to place and from time to time. A 13-year old getting married and having a child is fine in some societies, bad in others. The immensely pious Muhammad married a 6-year old and consummated the union when she was 9. That might be frowned on today - by some. A girl effectively being raped by an older man - (called a hyena) - when the parents pay for the privilege as a rite of passage, is acceptable in some parts of Africa (Malawi I believe) and of course female circumcision to many is brutal abuse but to others a sacred rite. It seems that when we introduce God, we open ourselves to all sorts of horrors. It is best to use common sense, and I think that is how civilised societies have advanced - even though they have not always got it right.


Man does best when man works things out for himself. It was a major step when he accepted thunder is NOT God's voice - nor is the moral code God's gift to us.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 36 by marco]

So, I sense a little prevarication going on, here. On the one hand, you seem to want to say that sex with a nine-year-old, and female genital mutilation, are objectively wrong (and I would not disagree). And on the other hand, you seem to want to say that ethics are justified as a matter of self-interest and the preservation of a stable society. Which do you really want, marco? Are paedophilia and child abuse to be subjectively justified and accepted as matters of self-interest, and to preserve a stable society, or not? Does the individual selfishness, or the society that promotes the abuse, actually make any difference to the immorality of that abuse, at all?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[marco]

So, I sense a little prevarication going on, here.

Sometimes our senses let us down, 2ndRate Mind. And often people have different ideas about what is morally right, as I tried to illustrate. That suggests God has no say, otherwise there would be complete clarity.

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? 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. My belief is that we have developed ideas of how to treat others, and how to treat animals and these ideas are often different from what God has ordered folk to do. In Christ's thoughtful speeches I see no evidence of any concern for animals: the opposite I think, going by his derogatory remarks about dogs.

I can understand that it is convenient, if one upholds Yahweh, to credit him with a moral code. The question we are digresing from is about Yahweh's nice side, as demonstrated, somewhere, in the OT. My moral code would tell me it is wrong to slaughter infants. Yahweh's commands would suggest it is NOT wrong. I conclude he has nothing to do with any useful moral code.

[2ndRateMind]

...often people have different ideas about what is morally right, as I tried to illustrate. That suggests God has no say, otherwise there would be complete clarity...

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?

Best wishes, 2RM.