Literalism. Applying modern standards to ancient cultures and writers, anachronistic or lack of context. Not seeing the similarities in the questions that all human's face.
What do you mean? What lesson are we to derive from David's child being killed for being born a bastard? Are modern standards superior to Old Testament ones? What's the anachronism - that at one time, it was okay to commit divinely-sanctioned genocide (1 Samuel 15:3, Numbers, etc.)?
Is there any point to anything in creation? Is there any justice inherent in the universe or is it all completely capricious? Does the evil we do inexorably harm our children?
Not sure what it has to do with the point I raised:
I SAID: What’s the stereotype in seeing, say, for example, the failure of morality when David’s child is killed for only being born a bastard? Killed by the same entity that supposedly created it - why create it in the first place? Why was an innocent life taken away after it was made to suffer for a whole week? Why are your scriptures deathly silent on this serious contradiction?
YOU SAID: Why do innocents suffer? And what, then, is the value of being innocent?
This is for you, and all believers in the OT mythology to answer. One is forced to digest whole sections that condone genocide and the killing of innocent lives (Amalekite infants, David's bastard child), therein. I've seen four modes of "reasoning" that are made with regard to this. There may be more, but these are what I can remember for now:
1. Your god is supreme, and can do whatever it wants.
2. Humans cannot understand why your god does certain things - they are beyond normal comprehension.
3. Silence. Questioning is evil.
4. Combinations of the above three.
The problem is, neither is any effort spent by the same scriptures in explaining what are serious, serious moral flaws - absolute violations of the Golden Rule - and leaves to the human interpreter to infer whatever he or she pleases regarding the divinity-induced killings.
Are they? All of them?
If you think your scriptures reason the behaviour, please do share the same.
What do you mean? What lesson are we to derive from David's child being killed for being born a bastard?… What's the anachronism…
The OT is comprised of theology, history, myth, etc. that was composed, revised, orally transmitted and finally written over centuries. It is the record of a group of related people in the ancient world and reflects their view of events and their view of what the events mean. It was of great value to them as knowledge and for their identity.
We can start with this in order to keep the proper context. Our modern interpretation from outside this group is difficult, even more so if one takes the Christian view of the Jewish scripture. We can remember the first Christian martyr Stephen was killed in part for teaching God does not reside in the Temple. Supreme blasphemy in Judaism.
We can also remember that much of Jesus teaching was that the scriptures were being wrongly interpreted and applied by the Jews. There was debate early on in Christianity of whether God in the OT was the same or different God. The point here is that what meaning we take from the OT is not standard, not the same across even Judeo Christianity.
At the bottom line, we have in David's story some history and its context according to the writers of the time. If we assume the history is correct we have that David had a child out of wedlock who died and its death was attributed to God.
An anachronism, I think comes in when we don't realize that the people we are talking about, and the others in the region, had no concept of the "laws of nature." Everything in their experience was directly and personally ordered by God or gods. The very concept that God could enter into contracts, or covenants, with man was a novel concept.
I subscribe to the view that what we see in scripture is differences in man's understanding of God and his relationship to the cosmos. We see both contradictory views and a wide arc of progression. It is to these people's credit that they saw no need to exclude one view or the other or make all scripture conform to one view.
This is for you, and all believers in the OT mythology to answer.
Only? What do you tell a child who's parents die? What do you say to a friend who just lost their child? And when such tragedy comes even closer, how do you deal with it personally?
What life means; what we make of it all - of the world we live in; how should we react when bad things happen to those we love; what is good, of what value is being good, how ought we relate to and judge others and ourselves; what is our goal in living and what is our standard, is life's purpose only what we decide it to be; what are we willing to sacrifice for others and why…
These kinds of questions are for everyone who lives to answer. And everyone who consciously examines their life, you included, has some "mode of reasoning" about such questions. This is an integral part of his or her religious beliefs - whether they even realize they have them or not.
Thanks for the ping.
“1. Your god is supreme, and can do whatever it wants. 2. Humans cannot understand why your god does certain things - they are beyond normal comprehension.”
First, let’s acknowledge that number one above is as solid a reason as any could ever be. No refutation of it makes sense.
We have no choice but to acknowledge that things and ideas exist in hierarchies. The “Golden Rule” does not supersede God’s authority or supreme will.
Looking at number two—it’s another “mode of reasoning” for which there is no logical refutation. For example, imagine one possible argument: we can understand everything God does. Now, does that sound reasonable?
Would it ever make sense, under any contortion of the imagination, for you to expect your dog to turn to you on some sunny day in the park and say fetch, James? Or for a salamander to pass the final exam in an advanced physics course?
To attempt judgement of Divine Intent (Lord forgive us) is more absurd than believing you can build a nuclear powered submarine with nothing but a four year old child’s tinker toys.
What source informs us that we can use human standards to judge God’s will? And if you’re not using human standards, please explain what kind of standards you’re using.
Here’s the insurmountable problem for the atheist/agnostic argument: the claim that God’s actions don’t meet secular human standards of morality is not a refutation of God’s existence.
If anything, it accepts the premise of God’s existence.