Is Yahweh breaking an objective moral tenet?

We agree on the issue of meaningful discussions. The point of such discussions, however, should be to get closer together, to look for the common, not for the divisive. While I'm not opposed to irony, and even mocking some aspects of religions, I'm very much against attacks like that in the OP. Stressing a point to force people to think about their religion is one thing; accusing the faithful en masse and demonizing their god is quite another.

 

That is not how and what Jesus taught.

He taught to judge our actions and thinking constantly as to improve out thinking.

How could we correct poor attitudes if we did not judge them to be needing correction?

Are you sure want to live without judging good from evil?

I hope you are not that brain dead.

If you do not judge god, how do end in thinking a genocidal god is good?

Regards
DL

 

Foolish.

Condemnation always includes guilt.

Regards
DL

 

When a god can cure as easily as kill, there is no rational reason to kill.

Regards
DL

 

Note how the vile critics of mine never discuss morals or ethics.

They let me demonize Yahweh because, as in the days of the inquisitors, Christians do not have decent morals to convert with.

My way or die they said, just like that genocidal prick Yahweh did.

If you cannot demonize that satanic prick, your morals are as foul as Christian morals.

Care do give your apologetics on his many mass murders?

Or do you just bitch without decent arguments or apologetics?

Regards
DL

 

There is no such thing as an objective moral tenant. Morality is subjective. Further if the God in the Bible is a Supreme being he is not bound by human morality.

 

Religious fundamentalism, based on literal interpretation of texts, is indeed very dangerous. But fundamentalism is an indestructible feature of human thought, be it religious or secular. The only way to deal with it is understand what causes it and how it works. Some completely non-religious ideologies also instruct their followers to do heinous things. The problem lies not with religion, but with the way our brains are wired (let's keep in mind that after all religions are products of the human brain).

Cognitive flexibility vs cognitive persistence:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29948184/

Of course. We have to fight against religious fundamentalism. But forcing believers into the fundamentalist corner with finger pointing and demonizing is not going to lure them on our side. Who are we to tell billions of other human beings that they're completely wrong and immoral, and only we are just and moral? Even if it was true (it's not), it's not going to work.

Again, even if all religions will completely disappear, our own brains will not stop producing other fundamentalist ideologies (unless evolution changes the wiring, but that's not going to happen anytime soon). Many militant atheists are themselves followers of a dogmatic, inflexible, fundamentalist ideology (the far left).

This is a bit of a conundrum, isn't it?

The above is not a defense of religions, or religious fundamentalism. It's a plea in favor of changing perspective, of understanding that religious beliefs are normal human behavior, that religious people are normal human beings even when that normal seems heinous to us (not talking about extremes like ISIS here), of initiating a dialogue in which both sides are equally entitled to respect (splashes of irony here and there notwithstanding).

I'll answer the rest of your post later.

 

Why not?

If we are to follow a god, and scriptures tell us we are to emulate our god, then we are to do all he does and if he ignores good morals, then so should we. Right?

If created in that prick's image, we can all be genocidal and infanticidal and all have our children murdered needlessly.

How nice for us.

Regards
DL

 

I gave an example in the O.P.

If you are to just deny without explaining why you disagree, then you might not want to engage with me.

Show when the good of the many is outweighed by the good of the few.

Regards
DL

 

Who are we not to correct when required?

Image the tree or cave you would be living in if we had not collectively corrected each other over time.

We might still have Christians that think a genocidal god is somehow good.

Oh wait, should I correct those brain dead genocidal god lovers?

Should you?

Regards
DL

 

Rigid thinking isn't great, but that isn't the biggest problem in Islamic and Bible fundamentalism. The bigger problem is the fundamentals of Islam/Christianity. A fundamentalist Jain isn't much to worry about. They will only get very very worried about killing a fly.

True. And we are right to call them out on it too. Scientology, is a good example. So is the recent "woke" anti-liberal left that has been becoming more and more authoritarian. Religious groups shouldn't get a special pass on us calling them out just because they are used to special treatment and deference for being established religions.

The problem is both. If the Bible had less nasty and more nice in it, we could have avoided a lot of the nasty from Christians. Same with Muslims and the Quran. Imagine if the Bible didn't say homosexuality is an abomination and instead said to accept one another and be kind to others regardless of sexual orientation. Imagine if the Bible said rape is bad, slavery is bad (instead of saying who you can take as slaves and how to treat slaves), etc. The religions and texts themselves ARE problems.

You may be surprised what standing up to these religions can do. The number one cause of atheists is Christians reading the bible for themselves. If we can be kept silent as blasphemers, people tend not to question. But when we do speak up, sometimes that does make a difference. And as I wrote before, it isn't the Christians that are the problem. They can change. It is the bible that is the problem.

As I wrote above, good moral people who are "Christian" discard the vast majority of the bible, and twise and turn whats left. They aren't immoral. Their morality is what is causing them to distance themselves from the holy texts.

And who are we to call out the horrible immorality of these texts and those who DO adhere to them? We are decent human beings who care about our fellow humans who are hurt by these people.

Splashes of irony indeed. We are the ones that have been burned at the stake, branded blasphemers, were not allowed to give testimony in courts until less than a century ago, etc. If religious people are calling for us not to demonize them, that's find, I don't demonize them. But I ask them to return the favour.

Please do. I am curious if you still have any doubt about my thesis that one of the biggest themes in the bible is the authoritarian confusion of obedience for morality.
I see no other theme in the bible as often repeated or as strongly pushed.

And when I ask a Christian if there's anything they would refuse to do if God asked them to, I'm either met with a swift "no" or an uncomfortable silence. Would he fly a plane into a skyscraper if God told him to? Would she be ready to kill her child like Abraham or Andrea Yates? I would like to be able to assume the answer is an obvious No. And an obvious yes that there are some things that go too far and they would stand up to God if he ever asked it of them. But sadly, that's not so clear in too many cases.

 

The Matthew cite of what Jesus said does not support what you're saying here.

Jesus was explicit about the duty of his followers toward others. And, his requirement put the golden rule to shame and states hell as the penalty.

I know of NO place where Jesus suggested we get to judge others. And, I really do believe that the Eden story kicks that off. Mankind was denied the fruit of the tree of good and evil - the fundamental requirement for being capable of judging others. Adam's transgression demonstrated a permanent flaw in all mankind.

 

Obviously, leadership in the Abrahamic religions has been HIGHLY judgemental with deadly penalties against those who aren't outwardly accepting.

So, where is THAT directive in the Bible?

Again, the Eden story makes it clear that the very idea of man as judge is a serious and fundamental error.

 

The Bible includes more than just religion. It includes history, the contemporary view of how this universe works, the cultures of various times, etc.

Obviously, mankind's interpretation of religions has been unbelievably horrible at times. But, I don't believe you can accuse GOD of that. Neither God nor Jesus told those of the Abrahamic faiths to slaughter nonbelievers.

Am I giving Christians an out? Absolutely not! I'm saying it's on THEM for their actions. They can NOT hide behind God/Jesus for everything from discrimination to slaughter.

And, that goes for the various discriminations that our own culture exhibits.

Look how STARK the difference is:

In Matthew, Jesus says his followers are REQUIRED to search out those in hospital, in prison, in poor houses, etc., and supply their needs - with hell the penalty for his followers who fail at this.

But, today we have Christians who think that Christian medical workers should be allowed to refuse to treat people they judge to be sinners!!

 

I don't accuse GOD of anything, because God is imaginary. God is a character that different people imagine differently, and the writers of the Bible wrote stories about how they saw God; which is rather viciously. Not only is God depicted by these writers as telling people to kill other people, he is depicted as directly killing people himself.

Indeed. Good point. And also note how STARK the difference is between meek and mild Jesus and fire and brimstone God.

 

Why not what

I'm not aware of scripture that says we are too emulate God.

Who does God murder?

 

you can't give an example of something that doesn't exist.

Not sure what I denied but okay.

??????

 

In the bible he is written to murder many. The people of Sodom and Gammorah, Everyone but Noah for starters.

 

As I've mentioned many times, I'm an atheist. For me, religion has to be discussed within the framework of the religion in most circumstances, as I'm not here to convert anyone to atheism, or whatever. It seems possible to me to seriously reduce the conflict that religion seems to encourage without attempting to refute the various religions.

There are good lessons in the Bible that strongly disfavor the point of view of large numbers of Christians today who choose the route of hatred and judgement.

I think that hatred route does prevail TODAY in our international policy (such as our aid and support for Israel's ethnic cleansing, the hate for China that is based on religion rather than recognition of the serious challenges they pose) as well as domestic events (suh as Christians wanting to refuse needed medical help to those they hate, support for abject discrimination throughout society, etc. - even after reading the words of Jesus in Matthew 25 where such behavior Jesus says will be rewarded by everlasting hell).

My view is that Jesus had some very strong words for Christians, and those words should be heard. Beyond that, Matthew 25:30 on is a strong message for us all to take seriously (not the hell part!!). It's stronger than the Golden Rule and fully applicable.

Today Christians are majorly failing their own religion. Serious improvement doesn't require refuting Jesus. Obviously, religion is absolutist and totally unreasoned, so it's really dangerous. But, I doubt I can covert anyone!

 

I don't believe that's the point. The story is that God wanted to start over. I think the real question is how an omniscient god would create something that was so flawed that it had to be destroyed. And yet he seems to have changed his mind - another serious question concerning the behavior of an omniscient being.

Whether there was a reason to restart is beside the point.

 

How is that murder explain?

 

God is stated to have facilitated the slaughter of Jericho (all men, women, children and animals) - a clear act of terrorism, as it was used as a threat against other cities should they not surrender.

God facilitated the slaughter of the Midianites - including men, women, children and prisoners. Only the virgin girls were allowed to live and were divided among the generals.

I hope you can argue that these were the acts of man, but it sure doesn't sound like that in the Bible.

 

What would you call it if almost every human on Earth were purposefully put to death as happened in the Noah story?

Do you have another name for that?

 

Murder is culpable homocide. Homocide means killing humans. He is written to have done so. He is homocidal. Culpable means unjust. If you want to say he isn't culpable because he can kill whoever he wants because he is God, then that tells us a lot about yourself.

 

A Supreme being isn't bound by such principles.