Name: Loth
E-Mail:
lothelia2000@yahoo.com
Comments: I am responding, actually, to your biblical morality pages instead of your main ST v SW site.
First, my position; I believe your interpretation of the biblical code(s), et all, to be a gross misinterpretation.
Point 1. Loving (New Testament God) vs Old Testament God.
To begin, within the entirety of your arguement I had the disinct feeling that you viewed the whole of the Bible to be self contradictory. Nextly, you stated, I quote;
"What kind of morality does the Bible teach? While there are undeniably some nuggets of wisdom hidden in it, the Bible frankly has far too many horrifying messages to be considered the unequivocal and unquestionable source of morality that fundamentalists make it out to be."
Herein lies the principal criticism I have. Now, using my own interpretation of the Bible, it is my belief that God is in no way human, that is, God the Father. Now, Fathers punish disobiedient children, which, I expect, is an arguement you have heard before. None-the-less, it is the Fathers position to do so. It is not, however, the childs position to question the Father. Unfortunately, but only slightly, and only from this point of view for this criticism, Jesus clearly states that God views us as friends and not, to be more precise, NO LONGER SLAVES. Please excuse the capitol case, but I will use caps when selecting something I believe to be particularily important.
So, where am I going? The answer is simple, we are NO Longer Slaves, or viewed as such by God, but friends. This would explain the difference in God's actions in all three of the Major monotheistic religions. This point shouldn't need to much explaining. It is simple, the difference between slave and friend.
2. Your view of God seems flawed within a fundamental manner. This is not simply a restatement of the above, sorry that it sounds like that. You seem unaware that God is GOD, and NOT MAN. God's love is perfect, but what are we to judge perfect? Of course, the answer to that is that we are ourselves, and by all means, judge love as you wish. But then, there is the wrathful side of God. Or rather, should it be, the Just side of God. Human justice is very much limited to ourselves, and what we can interpret. God's is not. This can have radical ramifications on what is good and just and what is not. You have, as I noticed, addressed the Holy Wars and other examples yourself. The error, when comparing it to God, is that is was written by Man. The Bible is not void, however a certain caution should be used when approaching it. As for the one thing about KKK "Old time Gospel." Well, I disagree with their White Protestant interpretation of the Bible as much as anyone, but my concern is not the view of mere mortals. Which, brings me to the third point.
3. Modern values are utterly irrelevant. They reflect, for the most part, the ancient values, but still, not entirely. As an example, I do not agree with abortion of a child which is concieved during a mutual relationship, however, although I would object to the abortion of a child brought about by rape, I would not stand in the way of the abortion. Consequences should be suffered for foolish actions, and the living should not be punished by abortion, because they were concieved during consentual sex. This is a matter of responsibility. Don't want a baby?, don't have sex, it's as easy as that. Furthermore, the modern values of which you speak, caring for others, and what not, are all reasonable, however, the old style laws are just as reasonable, if, a large bit harsher. Of course, the old times were harsher. But then again...
4. Having thought to have suitably put my third point into perspective, I will now address my fourth. Is it not God's right to be jealous, cruel, wrathful? It certainly isn't hyporitic. Ouch, that will take a bit of explaining. God created us for a purpose, and GAVE us free will to explore ourselves-image of God, etc-and it is not hypocritic to state this is the ideal path to salvation, take it or perish. Especially when ones understanding exceedes by far that of man. We went to war to stop Hitler, correct, and save the world from an evil by destroying it. What does this attest to, that corruption spreads, easily, because it appeals to baser desires. God is therefore in the right to destroy those who would corrupt us all, or who would attempt to destroy those who could save us from corruption. If he floods the land to save humanity from eternal Hell, a goal of perfect love, then is he in the wrong? He is, essentially, doing what is right for his children. I see know wrong in that. If he gives us a moral standard, and saves those who obey that standard, then that is right, he is God after all, and his wisdom extends beyond our own. Of course, he does not impose those standards, if he did the flood would not have occurred and we would not be disobeying him now.
5. My final criticism, involving your moral statements, seems to me a great injustice.. Go ahead, disagree, that's your right, I just hope your open minded. .And, after all, your merely stating your opinion, as am I.
I quote;
"Biblical values are incompatible with a more enlightened sense of ethics, so why not update them?"
You assume our modern ethics are more enlightened, and you do so on the grounds that the morals you view as inferior are indeed inferior. That seems a bit circular, although you go to great lengths to prove it. Nut I'm not arguing about your logic. No, indeed not, instead I must point out that your view of ethics is influenced by your times and experiances, which in turn, is hypocritic when you argue the Bible is wrong based on it's times and what not. A fallacy if ever there was one, although, to be fair, your arguement is not without merit from the point of your opinion. None the less, based on the above Fallacy you can stated the Bible to be morally inferior to modern ethics, but using that same idea your arguement can be thrown back in your face, and used to support Biblical Ethics as being the superior.
So, in conclusion, I believe that the Bible is not morally inferior, or less adept in any way than modern ethics. Whereas a modernist might try to give aid to the Middle East, and change their system on the assumption that ours is morally better, which, I'm inclined to think it is, for the most part anyway, our situation would be wholey reversed should it be them with the power. I also believe your logic is circular, although not by intention, but rather as an inevitable by-product of any moral view like yours (is presented). Finally, I believe the Bible to be an EXCEPTIONAL Moral Code, although, because of modern morals, it is something which should be used in conjunction with, not not in opposotion to the modern ethic.
I will end with a purely Biblical Joke, which I imagine you will "get." I will mention that it is a joke, and not an attack on your character, I just happen to think it's amusing given your point of view;
"See you in Hell."
--Loth Elia.
User's browser was: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)
User's hostname was: 66.72.202.107
User's IP was: 66.72.202.107
,
, N(
