The problem with God

Putting aside the whole 'divinely inspired' thingamabob, the morality of the bible is the morality of man. Now this wouldn't be such a bad thing, as morality is morality, right? Be good, don't kill.

The problem however is that this biblical morality is not just the morality of man, it's the morality of 'ancient' man. And there's the rub. The morality in the bible is 'dated morality.' It is the world as ancient man saw it, and although the core morality is the same (be good, don't kill) most of it is behind the times and of little relevance now.

Indeed, sometimes this ancient morality leads our theist friends astray, desperately trying to make a square peg of yesterday fit into the round hole of today. (And if Freaky is reading this, that hole is definitely spherical, not flat).

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
The problem however is that this biblical morality is not just the morality of man, it's the morality of 'ancient' man. And there's the rub. The morality in the bible is 'dated morality.' It is the world as ancient man saw it, and although the core morality is the same (be good, don't kill) most of it is behind the times and of little relevance now.

And in particular, upper-class educated ancient man from a particular place in the Middle East over a span of several centuries or more (hence the changes in the moral messages within the Bible).
Chinese writings on morality from the same period are quite different.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke

Putting aside the whole 'divinely inspired' thingamabob,

Well, no, not so fast for me. I am NOT willing to fling aside divine inspiration.

When Jesus was born, Herod, incensed to hear about some "born king" in his domain, asked the experts in Scripture where exactly this "born king" should be found. They pointed him to the prophecy of Micah 5:2 and said -

"In Bethlehem Boss! So says the prophecy of the prophet Micah."

That such a personality as Jesus was born in the city that was predicted to be the birthplace of an Eternal King come as a man, does not encourage me to dismiss divine inspiration so easily.

For the moment, I will consider your opinion aside from the strong evidence of divine inspiration.

the morality of the bible is the morality of man. Now this wouldn't be such a bad thing, as morality is morality, right? Be good, don't kill.

Well if man is created in the image of God and in the likeness of God (Genesis 1:26,27) it is understandable that some morality of the God would also be that of man. Right?

If in creation we reflect our Creator than man's morality would be expected to at least frequently correspond to God's morality.

Whether we could live UP ... to that morality is another issue.

The problem however is that this biblical morality is not just the morality of man, it's the morality of 'ancient' man. And there's the rub. The morality in the bible is 'dated morality.'

I have asked elsewhere WHY the speech of Dasa is objectively evil. I suppose this thread is one in which Atheists will sit back, NOT answer that question, but instead point out problems with the Bible.

Okay. Is all the morality of the Bible dated ?

Adultery is okay in one age but not okay in another ?
Stealing is wrong in one age but when another date arrives stealing is good?

To be cowardly in battle is not noble in one age, but when the date rolls over to show cowardice in battle is a virtue ?

I don't see the changing of date to effect all morality.
I see virtue expressed perhaps in different ways in different ages.

In ages gone by to bow to one another is a show of respect.
At another date to shake hands is a show of respect.
The concept of showing respect has not been changed.
The WAY respect is shown has been effected by the passing of date.

It is the world as ancient man saw it, and although the core morality is the same (be good, don't kill) most of it is behind the times and of little relevance now.

This attitude of arrogance surprises me sometimes.

Thieves are active today on the high tech Internet as thieves were active in the street markets.

Pickpockets were scheming how to cheat you out of your wealth in ancient times with togas and robes. Today hackers are scheming to do the same to PCs a thousand miles away from them in our "oh so modern" age.

Is the net progress of morality that much higher ?

We call stone age people with spears "savages".
And we moderns can push a button and kill a million people in 10 seconds.
But they are backward "savages".

Anything "savage" about destroying a city of a million people with the push of a button ?

Indeed, sometimes this ancient morality leads our theist friends astray, desperately trying to make a square peg of yesterday fit into the round hole of today. (And if Freaky is reading this, that hole is definitely spherical, not flat).

There are plenty of acts which were evil in ancient times which are also evil today.
And there are plenty of acts deemed noble and good 5,000 years ago which are still deemed noble and good today.

In what age did wanting to marry one's beast animal go from evil to good or the other way around ?

In what age did showing sacrificial love for another go from good to evil because of date change ? I think showing sacrificial love is deemed morally exemplary in ancient times as well as today and on into the future.

I think you are banking too much here on the changing of times.
And it is somewhat also an insult to people of the ancient past, as if people in those days had less of a human conscience in them.

Do you see some danger of arrogance in this attitude "We know better morally about everything today" ?

Let's take the matter of mental illness. I grant that we have additional knowledge about mental illness in this 21rst century. But I don't believe that ancient people had no sympathy or forebearance towards people that they perceived as having problems in their thought life. Though they may have not known how to treat all of them, I don't believe that they didn't understand that the mind could suffer damage as well as the human body.

Don't gloat in over confidence that moderns are more good than ancients necessarily.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Putting aside the whole 'divinely inspired' thingamabob, the morality of the bible is the morality of man. Now this wouldn't be such a bad thing, as morality is morality, right? Be good, don't kill.

The problem however is that this biblical morality is not just the morality of man, it's the morality of 'ancient' man. And there's the rub. The moral ...[text shortened]... und hole of today. (And if Freaky is reading this, that hole is definitely spherical, not flat).

What you fail to mention is that only Technology has advanced, the problems of the heart are still the same today as thousands of years ago.
There is still envy, greed, hate, etc. Same yesterday, same today. The bible says the heart is deceitfully wicked and beyond cure.
Jer 17:9

9 The heart is deceitful above all things
and beyond cure.
Who can understand it?
NIV

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Putting aside the whole 'divinely inspired' thingamabob, the morality of the bible is the morality of man. Now this wouldn't be such a bad thing, as morality is morality, right? Be good, don't kill.

The problem however is that this biblical morality is not just the morality of man, it's the morality of 'ancient' man. And there's the rub. The moral ...[text shortened]... und hole of today. (And if Freaky is reading this, that hole is definitely spherical, not flat).

The problem is that you assume that the whole "divinely inspired thingamabob" is nonsense. Of course the Bible only has inherent value if it's divinely inspired. If it is, then it's timeless. If it's not, it's worthless.

You are assuming the conclusion that you're setting out to prove.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Putting aside the whole 'divinely inspired' thingamabob, the morality of the bible is the morality of man. Now this wouldn't be such a bad thing, as morality is morality, right? Be good, don't kill.

The problem however is that this biblical morality is not just the morality of man, it's the morality of 'ancient' man. And there's the rub. The moral ...[text shortened]... und hole of today. (And if Freaky is reading this, that hole is definitely spherical, not flat).

Your analysis seems to be glossing over some very real dynamics present in the telling of the story, insinuating that the morality of ancient man was somehow distinguished (meaning, inferior) from contemporary man.
Closer scrutiny disabuses such a view.
The morality of ancient man often times balked at the directions given him by the Living God, like a body rejects an implanted heart.
Abraham agonized at God's direction to kill the promised son.
The Israelites at times purposely and at others haphazardly ignored God's directions to wipe out whole groups of people--- sometimes because of their greed and others because they listened to the dictates of their emotions.
The morality of the Old Testament is decidedly not the morality of ancient man; in fact, when viewing the reactions of the people named, their morality looks and feels similar to every man from recorded history on.

Starkly contrasting the morality of man is the economy of God.
His values are, frankly, foreign and alien to every man then and (despite the commercialism and emotional appeals of contemporary evangelism) now.

He is, in a word, repulsive to man's view of life and the Bible records a fascinating consistency: man has always been repulsed by God, insulted by bizarre demands.

Today's equivalent of Abraham's test-burden of killing his son is God's insane insistence that man humble himself and accept a gift, which also called for a Father killing His own Son.

Thousands of years later, God's economy is still insulting, still offending man's delicate sensibilities.

Originally posted by sh76
Of course the Bible only has inherent value if it's divinely inspired. If it is, then it's timeless. If it's not, it's worthless.

I don't agree with this at all. Why can't it have some of each - the timeless, and the worthless?

Originally posted by sh76
The problem is that you assume that the whole "divinely inspired thingamabob" is nonsense. Of course the Bible only has inherent value if it's divinely inspired. If it is, then it's timeless. If it's not, it's worthless.

You are assuming the conclusion that you're setting out to prove.

My opening post was intentionally contentious to inspire debate. I obviously didn't expect theists to take my direction to 'put aside' their belief in the divine inspiration of the bible. I was obviously presenting my case from an atheist's perspective.

Discussions in another thread about homosexuality is perhaps one example of how moral values from the bible are out of touch with modern sentiment and understanding.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Putting aside the whole 'divinely inspired' thingamabob, the morality of the bible is the morality of man. Now this wouldn't be such a bad thing, as morality is morality, right? Be good, don't kill.

The problem however is that this biblical morality is not just the morality of man, it's the morality of 'ancient' man. And there's the rub. The moral ...[text shortened]... und hole of today. (And if Freaky is reading this, that hole is definitely spherical, not flat).

If you read ancient Egyptian writings, you will find something interesting. When they write about their own history they seem to be flawless in every way.

Now contrast that to the Bible where even the largest of heroes, like King David, were condemned for their sins such as murder and adultery.

The only flawless man in the Bible is Jesus who was then nailed to a cross.

Interestingly, Jesus said, "It has been told to you to hate your enemy, but I tell you to love those who hate you and despitefully use you".

So where exactly did this morality come from? Many people today don't even recognize it, let alone in ancient times.

Originally posted by whodey
If you read ancient Egyptian writings, you will find something interesting. When they write about their own history they seem to be flawless in every way. Now contrast that to the Bible where even the largest of heroes, like King David, were condemned for their sins such as murder and adultery.

Why does this make you think the Jewish-Christian literature is divinely inspired?

Originally posted by FMF
Why does this make you think the Jewish-Christian literature is divinely inspired?

The charge was made that the Bible displays ancient morality.

Ok, from whom? From where? Obviously, whoever wrote the Bible seemed to be in direct opposition to the morality at the time it was written and even with morality of today.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
I don't agree with this at all. Why can't it have some of each - the timeless, and the worthless?

Timeless from an anthropological or academic standpoint, perhaps. But if the Bible is not divinely inspired, then it's useless as a behavioral or legal guide. If it is divinely inspired, then we puny humans must bow to its superior wisdom.

You can point to things that you don't like about the Bible to try to show it's not divinely inspired. But you can't start with the assumption that it's not and then explain why it's not a binding moral code. If it's not divinely inspired, then it's just a history book. Nobody could put forth the proposition that the Bible is both not divinely inspired and a relevant or binding moral code.