Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry

[Dicky Underpants]

But it would have been justice. And the Pharaoh was already on the point of letting the Hebrews go - until God hardened his heart.
Were these gods of Egypt real?

I think the writer of that part of Exodus probably thought they were. No doubt the Hebrews thought that their tribal Yahweh was top dog (henotheism), and the gods of other nations needed to be shown who was boss.

I believe it's not until we get to Isaiah that there's the idea that "Yahweh is the Lord and there is no one else".

[Dicky Underpants]

I suppose this is just another place where our views part their way.

Regards, ippy.

Furthermore, you might like to consider why so many evangelical Christians in the USA belong to the gun-owning lobby:

Does Jesus Want Gun-Toting Christians? - The Daily Beast
https://www.thedailybeast.com › does-jesus-want-gun-toting-christians

[jeremyp]

I think the writer of that part of Exodus probably thought they were. No doubt the Hebrews thought that their tribal Yahweh was top dog (henotheism), and the gods of other nations needed to be shown who was boss.

I believe it's not until we get to Isaiah that there's the idea that "Yahweh is the Lord and there is no one else".

I agree with your analysis, but I would be interested to know what Spud thinks.

[SteveH]

I think the writer of that part of Exodus probably thought they were. No doubt the Hebrews thought that their tribal Yahweh was top dog (henotheism), and the gods of other nations needed to be shown who was boss.

I believe it's not until we get to Isaiah that there's the idea that "Yahweh is the Lord and there is no one else".

This is true. The earliest parts of the Bible express monolatry (worship of only one God, without necessarily denying the existance of others). Monotheism (belief in only one God) comes later.

[Spud]

Spud,

Doesn't work. If you think that there's a god and that god acts justly when he kills people who have done nothing wrong, why is it not just for people to do the same thing?

Because He says people shouldn't ("Do not kill")

The Bible (the OT especially) is pretty much a compendium of excuses for bigotry - don't like gay people? Not a problem - just find a reference in the "holy" book and your bigotry will be validated. To be fair though, other "holy" texts with bigotries of their own are available too.

It also says to take the plank out of my own eye first.

Why does God have that right? The innocent person suffers just as much if God does it as if a human does it.

God's priority is for people to repent and be saved. He always uses the suffering of innocent people to that end.

Why is that a bad thing? Nobody would be sinning anymore. Nobody would be suffering. The ecosystem would no longer be under assault from human activities. I can't see a down side.

In other words, why didn't God kill Adam and Eve when they ate the forbidden fruit? Because he created them to glorify him, so he wanted them to repent. Eve seems to have done, Genesis 4:1.

But it would have been justice. And the Pharaoh was already on the point of letting the Hebrews go - until God hardened his heart.

Romans 9:14-18, talking about the Jews' rejection of Jesus, deals with this.
<<What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” 16So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” 18Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.>>
 

Were these gods of Egypt real?

The Egyptians thought they were, but they weren't.

So, if Hebrew didn't kill a lamb, would their first born son have died?

Yes.

What if an Egyptian had found out about the ritual and also performed it? Would his first born son have been saved?

Only if he had been circumcised, apparently, Ex 12:41

[Roses]

Because He says people shouldn't ("Do not kill")
It also says to take the plank out of my own eye first.
God's priority is for people to repent and be saved. He always uses the suffering of innocent people to that end.
In other words, why didn't God kill Adam and Eve when they ate the forbidden fruit? Because he created them to glorify him, so he wanted them to repent. Eve seems to have done, Genesis 4:1.
Romans 9:14-18, talking about the Jews' rejection of Jesus, deals with this.

 The Egyptians thought they were, but they weren't.Yes.Only if he had been circumcised, apparently, Ex 12:41

Your post hasn't done the Biblical god any favours at all, it just emphasises what a very unpleasant entity it is, if it exists.

[jeremyp]

Because He says people shouldn't ("Do not kill")

Maybe he should try to live up to his own standards.

God's priority is for people to repent and be saved. He always uses the suffering of innocent people to that end.

How could he possibly do that in a way that is not morally bankrupt.

In other words, why didn't God kill Adam and Eve when they ate the forbidden fruit? Because he created them to glorify him, so he wanted them to repent. Eve seems to have done, Genesis 4:1.

So, in summary, we only exist because God wanted some sycophants to praise him and inflate his ego the whole time. What's his surname? Trump?

You really need to take a step back and try to read what you are writing from a non believer's perspective. You are turning your god into more of a monster than we previously thought.

[Outrider]

Because He says people shouldn't ("Do not kill")

I'm far from a scholar of ancient languages, but I was under the impression that the particular usage in the Aramaic (I think?) was perhaps better interpreted as 'Thou shalt not murder'?

It also says to take the plank out of my own eye first.

From a deity that self-confessedly reports 'I am a jealous God' and then commences the world's most widespread controlling relationship, that's a bit rich!

God's priority is for people to repent and be saved.

Repent of what? How can I repent for something someone else has done? Why am I in line for an ETERNAL punishment for even my temporal transgressions, let alone someone else's? Why are half of these things even sins? Eating shellfish? Getting a dodgy haircut? Having last year's beard style?  But rape and slavery aren't sins?

He always uses the suffering of innocent people to that end.

Just look at that sentence for a moment.  You are, deep-down, a well-meaning, decent person - we might differ on some specifics, but I'm prepared to accept that you have the best interests (from your point of view) of people at heart - in what reality is it ever anything more than a balance of evils to cause the suffering of innocents to achieve a greater good? We castigate politicians for exposing children or civilians to danger in warzones, but we don't hold an infinitely powerful being to the same standard? He doesn't hold himself to a higher standard?  He can perform miracles when he chooses - he can choose who to save and who to condemn at death, but can't differentiate between guilty politicians and innocent children in Egypt?

In other words, why didn't God kill Adam and Eve when they ate the forbidden fruit?

Given that, before they ate the forbidden fruit, they had no concept of right and wrong, how can they be blamed for anything?  If not eating the apple is important, why did they have access to the apple?

Because he created them to glorify him, so he wanted them to repent.

Narcissist much?  Buy a mirror, don't create a slave race to do your bidding in a vainglorious attempt to make up for the fact that you don't have any friends.

Romans 9:14-18, talking about the Jews' rejection of Jesus, deals with this.
<<What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” 16So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” 18Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.>>
 The Egyptians thought they were, but they weren't.Yes.Only if he had been circumcised, apparently, Ex 12:41

Why is someone else mutilating your genitals a requirement for being saved at any point?  Why is my likelihood of being spared punishment for someone else's actions dependent on a different someone else's actions before I was capable of making decisions?  We don't hold children criminally responsible for actions because they don't understand, and we think it's immoral to punish someone for things they have no comprehension of. We don't exclude categories of people from the justice system based on physical characteristics, but the Jewish God does, then arbitrarily drops some of the requirements?

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

God's priority is for people to repent and be saved. He always uses the suffering of innocent people to that end.

So just to be clear, you think it's a moral good to cause suffering to "innocent" people in order that the guilty people should be encouraged to "repent"?

Is that really where you want to be - espousing the punishment of the innocent for the crimes of the guilty?

Really though?

[ippy]

What - you mean you don't believe that people use religious texts to sustain bigoted views, which then have political repercussions? You don't have to prove the existence of 'gods' to see that such phenomena are a reality of everyday life. These things happen, regardless of whether there's any supernatural reality behind them or not.

There seems to be something moderately successful going on in most of Europe where the various religions are far less likely to be asked to the party when various ethical and moral questions are being taken care of or resolved  like here now in the UK 53% of us are non-religious people and counting, every little bit helps.

Perhaps this could be considered the passive or a more subtractive way having the effect of leaving our old magic and superstition based beliefs back in the past where they should belong.

As things are happening in the present day perhaps it could be looked on as taking this rather tiresome god anachronism of an idea out of the way quietly over the long term, which hopefully in the end will remove the god element from any serious consideration.

In short gradually removing god by the subtractive method, mind you that could easily be thought of as looking on the bright side.

Yes it is difficult to remove these zero evidence based god heads from the picture.

ippy


 

[Dicky Underpants]

There seems to be something moderately successful going on in most of Europe where the various religions are far less likely to be asked to the party when various ethical and moral questions are being taken care of or resolved  like here now in the UK 53% of us are non-religious people and counting, every little bit helps.

This is certainly true. However, the votes of the 'moral majority' and the scripture-bashing drongos of the Bible Belt in the American south are going to be a cause for concern for a long while yet, and every American president ignores their voting significance at his/her electoral peril.

[jeremyp]

I'm far from a scholar of ancient languages, but I was under the impression that the particular usage in the Aramaic (I think?) was perhaps better interpreted as 'Thou shalt not murder'?

"Thou shalt not murder" is somewhat problematic in the sense that it is tautological. Murder is basically killing somebody when you are not allowed to kill them. "Thou shalt not murder" is "you are not allowed to kill people when killing them is not allowed".

[Spud]

Your post hasn't done the Biblical god any favours at all, it just emphasises what a very unpleasant entity it is, if it exists.

Perhaps the problem is due to us not being able to perceive how God is using a situation for good when that appears impossible. But the point remains that he is concerned with peoples' eternal destiny just as much as their brief time in the flesh.

[Roses]

Perhaps the problem is due to us not being able to perceive how God is using a situation for good when that appears impossible. But the point remains that he is concerned with peoples' eternal destiny just as much as their brief time in the flesh.

YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING!

[Spud]

'Pagan principles'? Talk about sweeping statement. C'mon, Spud; you can do far better than that. The Hammurabi law code wopuld have been unknown in Egypt...though it WOULD have been known in the sixth century BC, when many scholars believe the Pentateuch was 'edited'. The theocratic and philosophical outlook of the two civilisations was entirely differnt, and no law code in that form existed in Egypt - since because of the thinking in New Kingdom Egypt, the king was the law. Not only the law, but the spokesman and intermediary with the gods.

Jim, a point regarding Exodus 4:22-23, which says,

Then say to Pharaoh, 'This is what the Lord says: Israel is my firstborn son, 23and I told you, "Let my son go, so he may worship me." But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son'.

In Genesis 42:37, Reuben says to his father, "You may put both of my sons to death if I do not bring him back to you. Entrust him to my care, and I will bring him back." Thus, Reuben had been influenced by this pagan concept of justice while in Canaan. Maybe it was known in Egypt at the time of Moses, and hence God's threat in Exodus 22-23?

[Roses]

Jim, a point regarding Exodus 4:22-23, which says,

Then say to Pharaoh, 'This is what the Lord says: Israel is my firstborn son, 23and I told you, "Let my son go, so he may worship me." But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son'.

In Genesis 42:37, Reuben says to his father, "You may put both of my sons to death if I do not bring him back to you. Entrust him to my care, and I will bring him back." Thus, Reuben had been influenced by this pagan concept of justice while in Canaan. Maybe it was known in Egypt at the time of Moses, and hence God's threat in Exodus 22-23?

What do you think of a god, which makes those sort of terrible threats?

[Spud]

What do you think of a god, which makes those sort of terrible threats?

If I was Pharaoh, I would make a note that he had just destroyed practically everything, then I would pretty quickly let the Israelites go.

[ippy]

What do you think of a god, which makes those sort of terrible threats?

L R Spud reminds me of one of those street preachers preaching their nonsense, we all have suffered from time to time, standing on their little boxes in all sorts of crowded places over the country while the world passes them by with occasional meetings of skyward glancing eyes, as much as to say another one, we all understand each other by the look.

Look, 'Another Spud'!

Regards, ippy.

[ippy]

   



Would you prefer us a race of automata?
Man has used religion as an excuse for wars which are not, essentially, religious, but an attempt at land or power grab.
Christ gave me only two commands; none involved killing, and the only blood shed is His.

You say Anchor, 'Christ gave me only two commands; none involved killing, and the only blood shed is His', how can you possibly know this for certain?

It's this sort of statement that puts me off of the religionists, I'm already off of all of the religions due to the rather minor zero evidence problem religionists have for any of the magical, mystical and superstition based parts thereof.

Regards, ippy

[Roses]

If I was Pharaoh, I would make a note that he had just destroyed practically everything, then I would pretty quickly let the Israelites go.

You are not Pharaoh, you are a believer who apparently approves of the terrible deeds attributed to the Biblical god.

[Outrider]

"Thou shalt not murder" is somewhat problematic in the sense that it is tautological. Murder is basically killing somebody when you are not allowed to kill them. "Thou shalt not murder" is "you are not allowed to kill people when killing them is not allowed".

Let's be fair, use of a tautology is the least of the issues in that work

O.

[Spud]

Maybe he should try to live up to his own standards.

Murder is taking someone's life without a justifiable reason.
Since God gave the gift of life, then perhaps he is justified in taking it away. He will take all of us' lives after all.

[Walter]

Murder is taking someone's life without a justifiable reason.
Since God gave the gift of life, then perhaps he is justified in taking it away. He will take all of us' lives after all.

Spud ,grow up !

[Outrider]

Murder is taking someone's life without a justifiable reason.
Since God gave the gift of life, then perhaps he is justified in taking it away. He will take all of us' lives after all.

That's getting on for Boris Johnson 'new Nurses' levels of mutilating the language.  If I'm given something, it's mine - whomever gave it to me doesn't have the right to take it back, that's not giving it's lending.  I don't recall the bit where God loaned the breath of life to people...

O.

[SteveH]

whomever

Whoever.