well that's kinda what we're dealing with because the us is a multitude of different cultures with different levels of crime and poverty.

There are no reasons to own them otherwise and certainly don't need to keep them at home. — Benkei

do you think your position would change if the crime rate was 10x higher than it is around you? or if there were break ins and shootings in apartments/residences near yours? how about if you were a member of a marginalized population that has historically been the target of hate crimes?

just say you want to take our guns already. let the bootlickers show themselves.

i checked the past two pages of this thread and the only proposed solution outside of the empty moralizing was this:

(more extensive background checks, barring guns to mentally ill) — Benkei

1) how much more extensive? in what way are our current background checks insufficient? the texas shooter had no criminal record nor documented mental health issues. should everyone who wants to buy a gun get a psychologist sent to their homes for an evaluation?

2) background checks already bar those iirc (i have been through 5) voluntarily or involuntarily committed to mental institutions. but outside of what qualifies as mentally ill? should be the bipolar not be able to own guns? how about the depressed? has anyone considered that such a law might discourage the mentally ill from seeking care?

It would be like asking me to actually consider what it would be like if Winnie the Pooh were a non-fictional book and that would lead me to start contemplating what it would be like to interact with a sullen talking donkey. — Hanover

It's not hard for me to imagine myself talking with e.g. a donkey or winnie the pooh. If you told me that you talked with God I would have questions. I don't know what talking with God would be like or how I would know it was him.

The idea of seeking objective truth cleansed of bias with all sources checked and verified is a modern scholarly ideal which suggests a virtue in recording truth for truth's sake. — Hanover

This discussion is getting too broad and we would need to go book by book for me to add my input. I can't meaningfully comment. Many of the books are not meant to be historical accounts, some are poems and others advice. In my previous post I was only talking about Ezra-Nehemiah which is the most historical/non-divine of all the books.

Sure the writer might be biased and sure we can keep this in mind when reading it. When you're reading with the bigger picture in mind questions like whether a writer favored Judah over the northern kingdom can be considered, but this should hardly be the main focus unless we're simply reading for history. I mostly read for ideas, not for explicit details about things. In any case neither judah or the northern kingdom comes out unscathed; both places are very evil at some point. the book makes sure to let the reader know that the israelites are far from saints and that they're not inherently morally better than their neighbors (Aish HaTorah ought to take note.) a lot of the lessons are very sound and applicable.

Some of the battlefield casualty number seem absurdly high (120k in a day). One passage mentioned martial law, scorched earth tactics, psychological warfare...and this is around 730 BCE in a battle vs the Assyrians (2 Chronicles) that presumably also has Assyrian sources behind it. It's not that I uncritically accept everything but certain ideas can really resonate and astound me that ancient writers were able to capture.

I don't understand the focus on fulfilling preferences. If a couple of racists tell you to grab them a beer do you do it because it fulfills the preferences of many at little cost to yourself and is therefore good? Even in an example where they're not racists I don't get why I need to be constantly compelled or obliged to fulfill the preferences of those around me. Why am I obliged to fulfill an alcoholic's preferences for more beer? Talk about enabling.

Similarly, if I had a child or someone that I actually cared about had a speech impediment and was ashamed and responded by hiding themselves from the world is it morally good to respect those preferences and in turn reinforce those views? Absolutely not. You cannot reinforce those views. It is incumbent upon you to challenge them; note that I am not necessarily "compelling" or "forcing" here, but I am challenging. Some ideas/assumptions need to be fought with fire and ableism is among them. Do not let it creep into people's minds.

Existences can be characterized as good or bad.. not just people. If you lived in hellish conditions at all times..you would call it bad. — schopenhauer1

But what if your family/children are happy? Or you see a higher purpose in your suffering? How does that compare to someone who's content but without family/community? People are not isolated, atomistic individuals that you can conduct thought experiments on because that's not true to real life; people are embedded within communities and families and their own happiness is inseparable from that. We also just don't know whether the soul is immortal/what happens after death and our conception of happiness would change depending on that. We have no idea.

Sometimes someone's preferences can also hold them back; for instance Moses' preferences were not to step out into the world/public sphere because of his speech impediment, but God had other plans and was able to see the real good for Moses beyond his preferences.

I recommend book of Ecclesiastes to op.

The solution is to concentrate more power in the hands of the state. We need policemen to take away the guns so that only the good guys like cops and government agents have them. That's the vision the founders had; a castrated country where only the state decides who gets to own and use firearms. Maybe if you play nice and let them check your butt they'll let you have an airsoft gun, just make sure to get your application in on time and do whatever the nice man with the badge tells you.

The shooter had no criminal record or mental health history.

Interesting difference in our positions though. You say that you have no delusions that God communicated the Torah to Moses on Sinai. My position I think is even more skeptical; I don't know what such a thing would look like. If we were with Moses on Sinai and heard a booming voice coming down from the clouds would that be God? Maybe we're delusional? Or maybe it's not God? I don't know what it means to talk to God.

As for the texts could there a bias towards Judah and against the kingdom of Israel? Sure, but that's not particularly important to me. I guess I just don't understand why someone would go through such lengths to write historical fiction/lies about an event that actually happened and that they were presumably there for. Do you hold this level of skepticism for other historical accounts? When we find ancient greek texts about e.g. the construction of a public place like a library or a temple do you just assume it to be lies? I get that you can doubt the supernatural but a good portion of the bible is not supernatural, and often when they mention the supernatural it's about praying or seeking guidance, not direct divine intervention.

@Banno you could say that Hanover and I are playing the God language game now (Judeo-Christian edition.) I don't disagree with the conclusions you reached in the OP.

If you're trying to argue from the text that it must be true else why would it be written as it is (or something along those lines), I'm really not biting. — Hanover

Ok, we agree the Babylonian exile happened? so when the Babylonian exile ended in 538 bc the jews went back to Jerusalem and rebuilt it. that's basically ezra-nehemiah. there is no divine intervention. most of it is boring details like who helped rebuild what. a ton of the text is genealogies. there's a political conflict with the arabs.

you don't start with the torah, that's no fun. you start the other way and ask yourself when exactly do things become supernatural/unbelievable.

But sure, God's constant interaction with the Hebrews is what the saga is about. — Hanover

sure, and the tl;dr of it being follow god, don't be disobedient. anytime the Israelites stray they get hit. sometimes the prophets will go into detail about the practices; one i remember was 'father and son sharing woman' and they mention cannibalism and child sacrifice. worshipping other gods is among the worst crimes; don't you dare abandon our value system.

Have you read the OT cover to cover?

If the OT is propaganda for the Israelites, why is a good portion of the OT prophesying destruction for the Israelites because they've strayed from God? Why are most of the kings described as bad/evil kings? The kingdom of israel constantly looks bad, and Judah is only marginally better. If you were to say that it's God propaganda I would agree with you.

It is a work of fiction. That's just the case. — Hanover

How about book of ezra? book of nehemiah? do you believe that the babylonian exile happened? do you believe nebuchadnezzar existed? i don't currently believe in oral tradition/"the oral torah."

and by believe i don't mean 100% true, i just mean that it can be considered as a reliable/reasonable historic account. let's start with our benchmarks and go from there because nebuchadnezzar does mention at least one hebrew king.

My resort to the Bible for wisdom has nothing to do with delusions that God himself spoke it while Moses transcribed it. — Hanover

I don't even know what that would look like. Do you believe that God ever spoke to Moses? If not, do you believe that Moses existed?

If the book is a work of fiction then the authors possess moral insight beyond the current day. It's fascinating how they juxtapose insanely good, progressive moral insight (especially for ~800 BCE) with something incomprehensible. For example God holds King David accountable for Uriah the Hittite's death (this is very sophisticated moral insight, especially for antiquity to hold a king accountable for such a relatively minor infraction) but the punishment is the death of his unborn son. It's just this balance of brilliancy with incomprehensibility which makes this an insane work of fiction. Other cultures choose warriors and princes as their heroes, Jews take a guy with a speech impediment who gets help from his priest brother and the two make a decent team. I also love how it begins with such a strong supernatural element in the Torah but if you read past that things slowly become more "normal" until you reach the ~6th century BC and by around that time you're just into historical accounts like Ezra-Nehemia. I can't quite pinpoint where things turn "normal" and that's what fascinates me. King David straddles this line.

Morality is generally regarded as something one "either has or doesn't have", not something that can be learned (psychopaths/sociopaths "learn" morality, but it's not a natural part of who they are). — baker

This is not how the Bible describes morality (at least the OT). If you read the OT it basically just tells you to follow the rules. Doesn't matter who you are or how nice you are - follow the rules, be good, don't be bad. Simple. Obey God. You can sometimes question or argue with him. The bible doesn't care what people label themselves as or what their demons are or whatever; do this, don't do that. That's morality for ya.

We have the now and our experience of it - that is all. — Ennui Elucidator

I disagree. Completely. How do we process that experience? That is everything. The brain processes things; the mind is not an empty receptive vessel for the outside world. Read Stephen Pinker.

How do you process losing that baseball game? Or tennis match? Or a crush rejecting you? How do you explain it to yourself when you're recounting that failure to yourself later.

Call it god, call it justice, call it whatever you want, but the universe does not weep if I die now, tomorrow, or never. — Ennui Elucidator

What are you expecting from the universe? How caring do you need the universe to be for a death? Do flowers need to pop up when people die? Would that be caring enough for you?

Gussying up emotivism with appeals to reason, logic, and other intellectual contrivances to get people to more readily agree with you — Ennui Elucidator

You don't get it. I don't care if people agree with me. I'm not engaging with you for popularity points in the philosophy forum or to make internet friends. If I'm engaging you it's because I enjoy challenging/learning the boundaries of your thinking and if you can answer my queries then you've helped me gain a better understanding so thank you.

Show me that I'm legitimately wrong and I'll thank you for it. That's philosophy.

intriguing is how the Jewish Elohim seems hard to distinguish from pagan god(s) — Agent Smith

I don't know the pagan gods so you'll need to teach me on this.

how do the pagan gods view disability? how about the poor? do they get the big issues right? jewish god is surprisingly good on both these issues. not a common thing in 600 bce.

Thanks for the post. You bring up a lot of different points here so I'll try to address a couple more in detail. I prefer substance over breadth. Let me know if I glossed over something you'd like to address.

I'm not quite sure what your position on God is. You say God abandoned us which would be deism, but you also say that the world/universe is devoid of divine meaning which sounds more like atheism. I would also argue that moral nihilism is not a strong practical grounding to build a religion/moral system.

Accepting the origin story of a group with an agenda is dangerous - if not for the simple reason that accepting it achieves the goal of the story. — Ennui Elucidator

What is the agenda here? Who are these villains that edited the Torah?

On the subject of God you have surprisingly definitive/strong views. More definitive/stronger than mine (I'm an agnostic theist.) You express a greater degree of certainty and I don't know how this certainty is warranted. I'm the skeptic in this convo.

I also don't believe humans have this kind of immediate, direct knowledge of God/ultimate reality where we can look at the world and say "God has abandoned us" - what do we as humans really know about that? We live like 70-80 years if we're lucky (or unlucky, maybe death is bliss and life is pain); we can't zoom out. We don't know what happens after death and we take our best guess at what happened before and then process it with faulty minds prone to a billion cognitive biases. We'll never know the effects of events 100, 300, 1000 etc. years in the future. It is beyond our comprehension.

I don't know where draw the line in terms of existence. Do you believe that Moses existed? King David? It's an interesting question to ask what it would even mean for these people to exist. This is actually one of the fun parts about reading the bible - in book of daniel it starts off historical - in babylon after the exile with king nebuchadnezzar and it mentions he had jewish subjects who needed to learn babylonian (this to me seems plausible for an ancient ruler to do) and the story involves one of those subjects although he probably didn't exist - in any case the story starts off plausible but somewhere along the line things just kinda veer.

If it is made up then someone at some point in history created pages and pages of fake genealogies. The OT is more progressive than the Greeks - who wrote centuries later - on disability and on the poor. If nothing else, considering its time period it's quite good on some issues.

Get the big ones right and I'll take a closer look.

The idea that something as powerful as a God would care about any individual person's happiness does not really jibe with any stories about the gods or about the Hebrew God. — ASmallTalentForWar

I don't know about happiness (what exactly do we mean by that?), but God does care about the individual well-being of Moses which he demonstrates in Exodus among other prophets.

Also:

Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? (Ezekiel 18:23)

God was understood to be the lord of good and evil. Evil generally synonymous with misfortune rather than malevolent intent. — ASmallTalentForWar

:100:

You ought to read Ecclesiastes; it'll challenge your own intuitive value judgments. Humans have no idea how the world ought to be or whose better off or how good or bad events often are because they can't see long term effects. You can't zoom out, we only see things from our limited perspective.

A get-out-of-jail card for God. Again, a theory that explains everything explains nothing, oui? — Agent Smith

That last sentence is just a contradiction. I don't know what you're talking about.

When you say "a get out of jail free" card you're already passing judgement. Humans have no idea.

More thoughts on reconstructionism vs. orthodox judaism.

Let's take homosexuality; orthodox judaism is against while reform/conservative/reconstrictionist community is de facto pro/permissive of it.

so the reconstructionist could argue that the bulk of the "modern" (excluding orthodox+) jewish community today is accepting of homosexuality and how civilization has evolved and to trust in the process of civilization evolving.

the honest reconstructionist accept the implication that he smuggles normative connotations into the term "evolving" for evolving here is seen as a good thing.

this position also goes directly counter to the bible in that the bible describes the israelites as a stiff-necked people who frequently stray from god and are in turn punished. this happens repeatedly. so given that we ought to learn from history where should that bring us now?

The points you raised reminds me of the maxim a theory that explains everything explains nothing. I dunno! — Agent Smith

More on God: I've heard God described as essentially good, and you'll hear Jews describe him as good but not benevolent too often. We have basically no grounds to lay judgment on God as humans as to God's actions however. Read Ecclesiastes - who is really better off the stillborn infant or the wealthy man who fathers many but is unable to enjoy it? It's all dust to dust.

Not sure how to take your statement. Are you asking me whether there are things more important than truth?

Yeah. a lot of rhetoric is bullshit. It could serve a purpose but it's still bullshit. It's fine. It depends on the bullshit. It's a pervasive in modern society but on some topics like religion it becomes too much for me.

...every axiological claim is of necessity "bullshit"'; — Banno

this was ennui's position, not mine.

Only, when an abolitionist claims slavery is unacceptable, they do care about the truth of that statement. That's by way of pointing to a problem with naive emotivism; moral statements are statements, and hence prima facie are truth apt. — Banno

:up:

Bullshit = Rhetoric then?! — Agent Smith

i think we'd have to better define rhetoric so no comment. the bullshitter is unconcerned with truth/more interested in persuading the listener. if one is being honest and transparent about one's views like many of us are on TPF then we are not bullshitting. i think you see more bullshit in religion than in philosophy.

When I mentioned bullshit I was referencing Harry Frankfurt's conception of the term. Bullshit is "speech intended to persuade without regard for truth. The liar cares about the truth and attempts to hide it; the bullshitter doesn't care if what they say is true or false, but cares only whether the listener is persuaded."

I don't think reconstructionist judaism falls under this definition, but humanistic judaism is obvious bullshit. Under humanistic judaism anyone who feels like it can be a Jew, morals are whatever is popular; it's feel good ethics without backing (or at least none that I could find). As far as I can tell the movement (around 50 years old) is more designed to be super-inclusive and progressive and unconcerned with philosophic truth or rational explanation/backing of ideas. One can disagree with utilitarianism or Kant but at least there's an underlying logic to it.

It's fine if people think morality is nonsense, but if you think that then please don't present moral claims.

Seriously, the people (and religion) have long since moved on (undeniably helped by the destruction of the second temple and the transition into the diaspora). — Ennui Elucidator

What do we keep and what do we throw away? You imply that having "moved on" is a good thing but you clarified that you're a moral nihilist so moral advancement shouldn't occur for you. The purpose of the OT is to instruct/inform regardless of whether you agree with it. The OT is a guide. I don't understand on what basis a reconstructionist jew comes to advocate a moral/ethical positions. People always need to live and make decisions on what basis ought we make them. Religions need to answer this. There needs to be something here. Especially in the realm of ethics.

The core/central ideas and practices are not found in the Bible (books of Moses or otherwise). You can't hold up a book, say "This is your religion!" — Ennui Elucidator

You're digging your heels in here. Earlier I said we can conceive of Judaism as either a current practice/civilization or a philosophical system but for some reason you reject this distinction. I'm happy to consider both angles, we could talk about Jewish civilization today or we can talk about Judaism as a philosophical/theological system. I don't see why we need to point to one definitively and totally exclude the other. I'm happy to talk about jewish civilization today, but we'd really just be describing what is, not what ought to be unless you think I've missed something.

I also don't equate the bible with my religion. That is not my position. It is a history, so if you're into that...

Regarding meaning I'm not going to say much. I feel like we should just use our words to clarify and we can discuss different aspects of a concept and use precise wording to aid understanding.

Good discussion, let me know if there anything you'd like me address that I missed. I'm also not sure where you got that I'm an outsider.

:sad:

Just as it pleased the LORD to make you prosper and increase in number, so it will please him to ruin and destroy you [if you do not follow his ways]. You will be uprooted from the land you are entering to possess. (Deut. 28:63)

I was actually wrong here. Later we have:

Ezekiel 18:23
New International Version
23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?

Turns out second translation overrides the first and it comes down to translational issues from the original Hebrew.

is either a Sadist or a fiction — 180 Proof

Ezekiel 18:23
New International Version
23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?

More on humanistic judaism according to wikipedia:

-Ethics and morality should serve human needs, and choices should be based upon consideration of the consequences of actions rather than pre-ordained rules or commandments.

Humanistic judaism adopts some form of consequentialism but what do we tell the child who asks "why?" More importantly, how do we judge the consequences of the actions? That's the real question.

Also what about animal needs? What if the needs of humans conflict? Where do you go for answers to moral questions through this religion?

-Jewish history, like all history, is a human saga, a testament to the significance of human power and human responsibility. Biblical and other traditional texts are the products of human activity and are best understood through archaeology and other scientific analysis.

This one is just an attack on theology and philosophy.

-A Jew is someone who identifies with the history, culture, and future of the Jewish people.

Translation: Descent is meaningless, anyone is free to identify as a Jew or not. This is just a deconstruction of the word/meaning of "Jew."

What is being asked is not what Christianity, Islam, or Judaism is without God, but whether one can have a religion without god. — Ennui Elucidator

It depends what you call "religion." Typically religions have God/s, but Buddhism is defined as a religion yet there is no central creator figure. No traditional God.

NEVER HAVE BEEN the justification for religion - the justification was always provided by human communal practice. — Ennui Elucidator

You're just too far into your own field here. It's okay. My background is Philosophy. This is a Philosophy Forum so you should expect us to approach ideas from that angle. Is your background anthropology? I approach things more as an ethicist. In any case I don't understand why we're talking about justification for religion here.

Why you think that the Bible is a life guide, I'm not sure — Ennui Elucidator

I meant OT, not Torah. Book of Proverbs is a good life guide, good wisdom, a lot of it is common knowledge today.

Being Jewish is not about interpreting some text correctly (hermeneutics), but about being a part of a people, i.e. community. — Ennui Elucidator

I understand and agree; as long as you're a Jew you're a Jew. However, humanistic judaism essentially asserts defines a Jew as anyone "who identifies with the history, culture, and future of the Jewish people."

Do you agree with that? Do words just not have any meaning anymore? Anyone can define whatever identity now. Why speak the truth (biblical principle, btw.)

AFAIK Jews often don't describe God as benevolent, at least to the same extent that Christians often do. In the OT he can be quite brutal and even states that he will happily destroy the Israelites if they deviate from his commands and he does this time and time again. Jews have had terror wrought on them from many empires: Assyria, Babylon, etc. Also consider that Jews view the soul as immortal so death is not the end.

It is tough to take comments like this seriously when there are active Jewish and Christianity communities that do just that and still find the religion worthwhile. Religion becomes aesthetics just like everything else. If it is your cup of tea, great, if not, move along. It isn’t very hard. — Ennui Elucidator

One can find practicing their religion worthwhile (maybe it fits social needs), but it could still be bullshit (intellectually). I can't wrap my head around any version of Judaism or Christianity which removes God from the picture. If you remove God then the Bible goes too, but if we come to know these religions from the Bible then this Godless Judaism/Christianity seems to be basically saying "hey here's our Holy text but we don't believe in the absolute main character" - and God is definitely the main character. What are these religions central texts?

I also believe that there are worse and better ways to interpret text and the better interpretations ought to take precedent if you value intellectual honesty. Within a religious framework there are better and worse answers to questions.

EDIT: The Pentateuch is largely a life guide; if religion has been degraded to mere aesthetics then it has been degraded.

Unfortunately, he should have specified this to be secular humanism, because one can of course be a humanist and also a theist. — Paulm12

:chin:

Humanism:
noun
an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.

Maybe this works for a polytheist? I can't imagine a monotheist in the Judeo-Christian tradition thinking like this. A traditional theist who values humanism over theism is a very bad theist.

Humanists would have a much better go of it if people realized that they could reject beardy head without abandoning communal practices such as meaning making and belonging. — Ennui Elucidator

We have plenty of institutions that have communal practices without reference to the divine. Corporate cultures engage in meaning making and provide a sense of belonging, so does the military. The problem is when you try to remove God from religions and still maintain that the rituals or morals are still good; it's like removing the foundation from a house and expecting it to still stand. If you remove the idea of God from Christianity or Judaism or Islam then it's basically lies and bullshit. A very extensive history of lies and bullshit. Sure you could try to salvage some of the ideas like human life having value or being nice to the poor but these ideas need to be justified on totally different foundations.

IS that the best folk can do in the face of autocracy? Quoting American mythology? — Banno

Do you have a better defense against autocracy? What, in your view, is the best defense?

But they are equal. They are all endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. Among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. To secure these rights, Governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. — T Clark

Could you provide me with the theological roots of rights theory? Where in the Bible (or elsewhere?) is rights theory derived?

The Bible says that women are property, that homosexuals ought to be put to death, that anybody who worships a false God ought to be executed, that a child that talks back to his parents ought to be stoned at the gates of the city. — Bishop John Shelby Spong

I'm not dealing with all of these but I'll deal with a couple.

Homosexuals being put to death is no longer applicable because there's no longer any supreme religious council (known as sanhedrin) to conduct the trial, and there hasn't been since around 400 CE. Religions evolve and practices change. In regard to your last point you'd see the reasoning behind killing rebellious sons if you read Kings I. This was only carried out in extreme cases. A rebellious son attempts a coup in the beginning of Kings. Nobody is saying that a child that talks back to his parents ought to be stoned, that's a straw man of that verse.

I guess you haven't been married. — ssu

I was going to say the same thing -- their wives wouldn't let them.

Why do you have to rely on John? God forbid you actually read the thing. I'm not going to debate the Bible with someone who hasn't read it. You can't meaningfully engage a work before you read it with an open, impartial mind. It isn't a bad read. It's actually kind of funny sometimes.

Sorry, I had you for a run of the mill apologist... I disagree about the Bible being of any use today re morality, but I don't have the inclination to explore this again. — Tom Storm

It's a shame you shrug it off like that. There are some verses I disagree with but there's so much good in it such as grounding the moral worth of the individual, defending the dignity of the disabled, giving to the poor, opposition to murder, adultery, theft, exploiting the poor... anywhere from 80-90% of the moral teachings of the bible are just common sense today. If I'm down with 80-90% of a philosophical system I'll go with it. Lot of good practical life tips. Be steadfast.

I think your position that Bible defends rape is not tenable when we look to the text and consider that just because the Bible describes slavery doesn't mean that it supports slavery.

To me, it seems absurd to make the comparison between existence and nonexistence as a characteristic of an individual in the first place as nonexistence isn't a quality something can have, nor is it something we can meaningfully evaluate comparatively. — ratgambling

I agree on this one, if we're just going by human subjectivity then we can't possibly compare existence vs. non-existence.

I think experience can lead us -- should lead us -- to conclude that existence per se is actually amazing. From a scientific perspective it's incredibly complex and from a personal perspective there's all types of different ways to experience it along with countless different environments. Find one that suits you. My basic starting point is Genesis where God says that life/existence is good but I understand that not everyone accepts that. I think you're right that purely rationally speaking we have no ways to compare between the two.

You're a good Stalinist, Moses. — Tom Storm

I don't think you understand my position. We're probably closer than you imagine.

One of the influences in my thinking is former Episcopalian Bishop Shelby Spong who, obviously, was not an atheist.

"Some parts of the Bible are dreadful. In fact, my working title for The Sins of Scripture was "The Terrible Text of The Bible." - Spong — Tom Storm

I agree with this. We don't always know if God agrees with every action that was taken, but God certainly directly causes "innocent" deaths or at least deaths that would seem innocent to humans. Before going to the Midianites and other tribes who were described as evil/wanting to wipe out the Israelites, consider that God kills thousands of Israelites for basically no other reason than the general Israelite community was grumbling about harsh conditions after leaving Egypt. Trust me I don't believe in this goody-two shoes Christian all loving God. If the God of the OT is real he is absolutely a piece of work by 21st century standards. You can call him crazy and maniacal and I get it, but he is survival e.g. when your community or you start needlessly complaining the situation will often get worse. IMHO the deaths of the Israelites in the desert was a warning against unproductive complaining and negative thinking.

He is first and foremost to be feared and obeyed. But it's also ok to question, there's a balance. Fear is a good motivator. I think Jewish thought teaches that God ultimately has the best for us in mind but this is beyond human understanding. Sure its a vicious book but as someone who has studied moral philosophy its honestly quite a bit better than utilitarianism or rival secular moral theories if you don't interpret it literally and try to make some reasonable adjustments to the rules. Tons of good lessons. I have my questions about the bible too but if I can make sense of 90% of it that's significantly better than alternatives. It's also much more encompassing than rival moral theories - it's more than morality. It's an actual life guide.

You don't know anything about evil. What even makes something evil? Is it just that you don't like it? Do you have any sort of alternative conception of evil or is it just things you don't like?

genocide — Tom Storm

Evil ought to be destroyed in its entirety. God makes it clear his view on these Canaanite tribes who occupied Canaan before the Hebrews in Leviticus 18:28.

"For the men who were in the land before you committed all these abominations, and the land has become defiled. So if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it spewed out the nations before you."

imho certain societies could theoretically become so disgusting that this type of thing is called for, but in other instances moses manages to reason with God and save some cities if he's able to find righeous people among the wicked.



Thanks, I understand what you're saying. In regard to the afterlife in the OT I wrote that thinking more along the lines of how the OT never resorts to the "if you want to secure your place in the Heaven..." line of reasoning. Of course there is an afterlife if we go by the book, but it's never the focus. It's very easy to become immersed in that type of reasoning and in doing so you essentially devalue life on Earth. It was just a commendatory comment towards the OT and a bit of a slight to some (?) Christian groups that might think that way. I'm not sure I don't have a ton of experience with Christian groups.