Abraham's God Gets Morality Wrong (In All "His" Incarnations)

The short version: The deity of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam has a demonstrably false sense of morality, whether you're examining the character as fictional character in literature or as an actual being is irrelevant (as I have previously been asked if I believe in the events of the Bible if I disagreed with them, I thought I'd make things clear)

The long version:
The Bible gets the following things absolutely wrong:

1. Slavery
   
2. Rape
   

For the first one, the Abrahamic deity sanctions slavery. Simply that act alone would void the absolute morality of the Bible. For more: From the Brick Testament (Warning: Lego depictions of events from the Bible may be consider graphic)

For the second one, rape victims are treated with additional punishment. A raped woman (as the Bible doesn't address men being raped) is either going to get stoned to death or be forced to marry her rapist.
From the Brick Testament (Warning: Lego depictions of events from the Bible may be consider graphic)

Now, the New Testament does nothing to clear up these two horrible misjudgments, so I can't really say anything about that.

I'll address the Qu'ran if asked, but I don't want this to become a 'this book is better than that' thread, I'm trying to point out that any form of the Abrahamic deity is horribly wrong on certain points of morality.

I'll also elaborate on points as this is merely a jumping off point. I hate scaring off newer members with walls of text.

Good grief.

Do you get paid for each thread that you create along these lines?

That's a serious question. These sorts of threads serve to do nothing beyond attracting "atta boy" messages from those of similar thought, and righteous indignation from those who don't agree. The likelihood that you will change anyone's perspective is effectively zero.

How about creating a thread that encourages intelligent discussion, rather than just another "I want to bash those of faith and collect stars and flags from similar disbelievers" line?

I think it is dangerous when people use this type of logic:

"Abrahamic God is _______ (fill in blank) until you can finally say that he is --> NOT REAL,
and therefore, since it has been proven that the God of Abraham is Not Real, then it should be undeniable fact and proof that there is NO GOD. "

This is dangerous, dangerous in the sense that this type of reasoning is not sound, and instead is equally as close minded of a belief system as those who defend the God of Abraham. Think about it.

What I'm saying it that this Logic can be reversed. If someone somehow were to miraculously prove that the God of Abraham was, indeed the real God he claims to be in The Bible, then it forces the non-believer/Atheist to accept that Yaweh IS God, and who the hell wants to do that?

Trust me, you're better off with circular reasoning when it comes to religions and stuff. Myself personally, I believe in The Angel and The Devil that live inside of me, without them, there would be no me, and without Me there would be NO GOD. That's what keeps me happy, and so, I play to my own tune, I know ALL and Nothing too.

Originally posted by leira7
What I'm saying it that this Logic can be reversed. If someone somehow were to miraculously prove that the God of Abraham was, indeed the real God he claims to be in The Bible, then it forces the non-believer/Atheist to accept that Yaweh IS God, and who the hell wants to do that?

Huh?

If someone proved that the God of Abraham is the God that is depicted in the Bible, what kind of fool would NOT want to accept that? Ignoring, for the moment, the fact that I do believe this, what on Earth would lead one to any other conclusion if absolute proof was given?

We all (supposedly) seek the truth. Your supposition is that the truth is given -- by what means do you represent that this is a bad thing?

reply to post by adjensen

Originally posted by adjensen
Good grief.

Do you get paid for each thread that you create along these lines?

Starting out with a personal attack acting as if this thread is identical to others. This is a thread that has to do with specific problems with specific religious morality as outlined by specific holy books. I don't think I've done many of those...

That's a serious question. These sorts of threads serve to do nothing beyond attracting "atta boy" messages from those of similar thought, and righteous indignation from those who don't agree. The likelihood that you will change anyone's perspective is effectively zero.

I was hoping to see if people could actually come out and try to defend Biblical morality. I'm not here to actually change perspectives as much as I am here to get a better understanding of other people's beliefs. It's useless trying to deconvert people, but maybe you can help them refine their own beliefs.

How about creating a thread that encourages intelligent discussion, rather than just another "I want to bash those of faith and collect stars and flags from similar disbelievers" line?

If you notice, I get like...3-6 flags at most and very few stars from these threads. If I wanted to gain flags and stars I'd attack the Vatican and say that it's run by the Illuminati and the Knights of Malta and the Jesuits.
In fact, the threads that get the vast majority of flags are the sort of out there ones, not the atheistic ones.

Being active in my questioning of religions in various ways shouldn't be considered a bad thing.

I'm pointing out that the religious morality of the holy books starts off by getting things wrong. That is encouraging open discussion by challenging people to refute my statement or try to justify the misconceived morality of the holy books in question.

Is asking "How can an all-knowing deity get slavery wrong from the get-go?" not an intelligent question that encourages discussion?

What would be an example of an intelligent discussion in your view? One that doesn't challenge someone else's beliefs?

And why did you fail to actually address the post?

reply to post by leira7

Originally posted by leira7
I think it is dangerous when people use this type of logic:

"Abrahamic God is _______ (fill in blank) until you can finally say that he is --> NOT REAL,
and therefore, since it has been proven that the God of Abraham is Not Real, then it should be undeniable fact and proof that there is NO GOD. "

Nope...not what I'm going for. I'm simply saying that the character, whether real or not, fails at morality. This isn't about theism, this is about religious morality.

We can leave the question of whether the deity in question exists to other threads.

reply to post by adjensen

Originally posted by adjensen
If someone proved that the God of Abraham is the God that is depicted in the Bible, what kind of fool would NOT want to accept that? Ignoring, for the moment, the fact that I do believe this, what on Earth would lead one to any other conclusion if absolute proof was given?

Well, obviously there are those that would believe in said deity and yet oppose it, such people would do so for various reasons. Those who worship actually worship Satan would have to first believe in the Abrahamic God in one form or another.

We all (supposedly) seek the truth. Your supposition is that the truth is given -- by what means do you represent that this is a bad thing?

Out of all the possible deities, I don't think the Abrahamic one would be the best choice to be true, so that could be seen as a bad thing.

I'd still accept the existence of said deity and try to conform my thoughts to said existence, but I wouldn't necessarily be happy about the existence of that specific deity.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


So you watched the Daily Show with Jon Stewart last night too?

This post is almost verbatim what his guest had to say last night, promoting his book.

At least give the credit.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
And why did you fail to actually address the post?

Because I am not a fundamentalist, and therefore, arguing about the Old Testament is pointless. Where it is in conflict with Christ's teachings, a non-fundamentalist does not need to "figure it out," because it doesn't matter. We are not Jews, so Jewish Law is not relevant. Period.

As for the New Testament, if one follows Christ's two commandments, one can neither own slaves nor rape anyone, so, again, your point is moot.

We all (supposedly) seek the truth. Your supposition is that the truth is given -- by what means do you represent that this is a bad thing?

Out of all the possible deities, I don't think the Abrahamic one would be the best choice to be true, so that could be seen as a bad thing.

I'd still accept the existence of said deity and try to conform my thoughts to said existence, but I wouldn't necessarily be happy about the existence of that specific deity.

The question is not whether you'd be happy or not, but why one wouldn't accept the truth, given absolute proof.

Your unhappiness, at any rate, is predicated on your fundamentalist view of God, which is not the prevailing Christian view. If you are bound to a fundamentalist or Conservative Jewish view of the Old Testament, yeah, I wouldn't be too keen on meeting him after spending a lifetime badmouthing him, either :-)

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
And why did you fail to actually address the post?

Because I am not a fundamentalist, and therefore, arguing about the Old Testament is pointless. Where it is in conflict with Christ's teachings, a non-fundamentalist does not need to "figure it out," because it doesn't matter. We are not Jews, so Jewish Law is not relevant. Period.

Nothing in the New Testament rectifies the teachings on rape or slavery.

As for the New Testament, if one follows Christ's two commandments, one can neither own slaves nor rape anyone, so, again, your point is moot.

I could have posted this in my last bit, but here's how I can simply address this:

Matthew
5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven
5:21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Straight from the mouth of Jesus. He's the one that states that the laws still bind, even though in other parts of the NT it says that they don't.

As for your statement, it is actually irrelevant. You believe that the same deity that laid down the OT law laid down the NT law. How come the OT law was wrong in the first place? How come you view the lion's share of your Holy Book as irrelevant? Why bother keeping the OT if it's irrelevant?

Just because you don't believe it anymore doesn't mean that your deity, again separate from its existence, isn't responsible for making it in the first place.

How do you reconcile the fact that you needed a new law system?

The question is not whether you'd be happy or not, but why one wouldn't accept the truth, given absolute proof.

Your unhappiness, at any rate, is predicated on your fundamentalist view of God, which is not the prevailing Christian view. If you are bound to a fundamentalist or Conservative Jewish view of the Old Testament, yeah, I wouldn't be too keen on meeting him after spending a lifetime badmouthing him, either :-)

I still have a problem with Jesus no matter which view you're given. The simple act of vicarious redemption is deplorable enough for me, and that's a universality of the Christian religion.

reply to post by Alpha Arietis


Huh...no, I hadn't, I just watched the interview online after seeing this post. Parallel lines of thought it seems. I was simply sitting in bed and thinking about the basis for morality after a heated discussion with a religious friend of mine in which he claimed that atheists have no basis in morality. We've now moved on to this discussion about how his morality is acceptable.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Maybe it's a case of world consciousness. Or synchronicity. Or something.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Matthew
5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Straight from the mouth of Jesus. He's the one that states that the laws still bind, even though in other parts of the NT it says that they don't.

They still bind, yes, and do to this day. The Law of the original Covenant still exists, FOR JEWS. If you are not of the Jewish faith, the law has been fulfilled in Christ, and we are reconciled to God through him. If you are Jewish, you are welcome to reconcile yourself to God through the Law (though the destruction of the Temple in 70AD makes that a bit more difficult.)

However, there is the Law and then there is the law. Much of the contents of the Torah and Talmud have nothing to do with God, they are tales and cultural traditions of the ancient Hebrew people. Do you think that God cares whether you eat pork, or which hand you use to wipe your backside with? Christ violated a number of Jewish practices, ridiculed others and made it clear that things which are not aspects of "love God, love everyone else" are things that get in the way of our relationship with God, they don't accentuate it.

Do the Ten Commandments still exist, and, as Christians, are we expected to live by them? Yes, but they are made redundant by Christ's Two Commandments -- you can't steal from your neighbour if you are loving him as yourself. The entire message of Jesus is a repudiation of things like rape and slavery -- you don't get that, I understand, but Christians do, so a true follower of Christ doesn't need a laundry list that says "don't rape, don't steal, don't kill" and so on.

How do you reconcile the fact that you needed a new law system?

Because no one can live up to it, the ruling authorities had clouded the original faith with irrelevant doctrine and beliefs (much as the current churches do, though as I argue in another thread, they serve a valuable purpose, so long as one is wary of these doctrinal concerns,) and, most importantly, it was solely for the Jews. Gentiles, not a part of it.

I still have a problem with Jesus no matter which view you're given. The simple act of vicarious redemption is deplorable enough for me, and that's a universality of the Christian religion.

Well, you are welcome to reconcile yourself to God on your own, should you ever determine that he exists.

Who are you to say what the "true" morality is? Who is anyone to say?

Perhaps rape and slavery are to be highly valued in the "true" morality?

Perhaps "survival of the fittest" is the highest morality. It certainly seems to be the law of the Earth. Perhaps it is to be valued higher than currently accepted Christian based morality.

To say that rape and slavery are wrong only displays that your own moral system is inescapably Christian-based.

On what authority do you claim to understand what the true morality is, so that you can say that anything or anyone gets it "wrong"? Or that rape and slavery are wrong?

If there is no ultimate moral authority, that is, if there is no ultimate judgment or eternal life...then anything one can get away with is permissible. It means that morality is a social contrivance to subjugate human kind to a false authority.