Yes, you don't know why, but people don't share value systems and often construct totally different worlds from each other. — Tom Storm

You're right, but I'm going to say that societies that don't value human life and normalize suicide are just objectively terrible societies. That's basically a society where the marginalized would be pressured to kill themselves to escape problems. For me this is not a case of "you have your views, I have mine."

but I'm going to say that societies that don't value human life and normalize suicide are just objectively terrible societies. — Moses

Sure, but no one has said this is a matter for society. The question is, what are an individual's philosophical beliefs. It is unlikely there will ever be enough advocates of this approach to change the fundamental dynamic of an entire culture. Do you know of a society that has 'normalized' suicide (by this I am assuming you mean have made it a part of the culture) and what the effects of this have been? Or are you making a guess here?

Hello Moses! First I would like to welcome you to the forum!

I agree with some of this post but I don't know where you're getting the "ascend into heaven for eternity" bit. The OT says next to nothing about the afterlife; is that NT stuff? In the OT when Korah challenges Moses God opens up the Earth and all of Korah and his family fall in and are destroyed. God often strikes down evil people in the OT and nothing would lead me to believe that they end up in heaven. He also sends plagues and poisonous snakes on the Israelite community because they start complaining ("grumbling") about conditions in the desert and thousands are recorded as dying

Firstly, I would like to clarify that I was not making an argument from my own opinion on the topic at hand, nor an argument that was geared towards asserting that it is true in relation to the Bible: I was providing some further context to the OP about what biblical literalists typically believe (with regards to the excerpt you quoted from me). My entire response wasn't meant to convey that my points therein were true of the bible (in terms of my own interpretation of such): only that they are true representations of many Christians, and specifically (in terms of what you quoted) what biblical literalists believe (typically). In other words, the intents and purposes of my post (in relation to literalism) was not to portray biblical literalists as correct, only that they do indeed exist (as the OP seems to have a disposition that completely lacks most Christian perspectives beyond quite a rudimentary interpretation of the bible).

Secondly, in terms of whether the Old Testament "says next to nothing about the afterlife", it depends on what you mean whether I would agree. It references that there is an afterlife (heaven) countless times. Just as a quick example, 2 Kings 2:11 (King James Version):

And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

As another example, Daniel 12:2-3 (King James Version):

And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.

Now, if what you meant was that the Old Testament doesn't give incredibly vivid descriptions, nor honestly detailed descriptions whatsoever, of what "everlasting life" truly is beyond being in the present of God for eternity, then I would agree with you on that. In the New Testament, it goes in somewhat deeper detail, but I would still say that (unless I am misremembering) the concept of heaven isn't vividly detailed in the bible in a literal sense (mainly metaphorical--but I guess that is up for debate).

Thirdly, it is a completely separate question from my original post whether or not we have reason to believe that anyone that God striked down in the Old Testament went to heaven. Again, I would like to emphasize that I wasn't attempting to address that issue in my post: in terms of biblical literalism, I haven't spoken with a biblical literalist that utilized examples in the Old Testament of people going to heaven after being struck down to support their argument. Likewise, the absence of any example of the Bible explicitly stating that some person went to heaven after God striked them down does not imply its impossibility. They typically, from my encounters with them, argue that it is possible, regardless of whether it has happened before. Likewise, quite a few examples of God killing people doesn't even bother to mention where they got sent to in the afterlife, so an analysis of this is typically done by inspecting God's attributes to infer its possibility/impossibility.

Which leads me to my fourth and final comment: the excerpt you quoted was in relation to moral justification (i.e. it is moral for God to strike someone down even if they would have gone to heave, so to speak), which was not meant as a proof that there exists a specific example of God actually striking someone down and sending them thereafter to heaven.

Bob

Sure, but no one has said this is a matter for society. The question is, what are an individual's philosophical beliefs. It is unlikely there will ever be enough advocates of this approach to change the fundamental dynamic of an entire culture. — Tom Storm

It is both a matter for society and the individual. The question is, a) what are an individual's philosophical beliefs and b) Is s/he actually acting on them? Societies do change and they change in fundamental, radical ways. We've seen a definite loosening of attitudes towards suicide.

Do you know of a society that has 'normalized' suicide (by this I am assuming you mean have made it a part of the culture) and what the effects of this have been? Or are you making a guess here? — Tom Storm

I don't feel like getting into the empirical side of things but I think we can both agree that society has liberalized over the past few hundred years and I wouldn't be surprised to see this trend continue. I'm not prepared to deal with the empirical side right now, let's stick with philosophy.

I just wanted to comment that as I've been going over the OT I'm very impressed with how the writings/teachings align so well with the principles of evolutionary fitness. I know this isn't philosophy but it's interesting to me.

Sure, but no one has said this is a matter for society. The question is, what are an individual's philosophical beliefs. It is unlikely there will ever be enough advocates of this approach to change the fundamental dynamic of an entire culture. Do you know of a society that has 'normalized' suicide (by this I am assuming you mean have made it a part of the culture) and what the effects of this have been? Or are you making a guess here? — Tom Storm

One might argue Buddhism and forms of intellectualized Hinduism are religious versions of philosophical pessimism. Pessimism is not about necessarily committing suicide. Camus' philosophy is bringing attention to meaning in an absurd world, a long tradition of questioning why we do anything at all. Philosophical pessimism is about recognizing the suffering and negatives of the world, and sees its inherent nature either in the world itself or in the human condition, itself. In other words, there nothing that expiates it.. no utopia, no magical formula of right living and political philosophy or mental exercise. As a movement, it wants this view to not be overlooked by the general population, downplayed, and forgotten. It doesn't want you to assume that you should have the decision to bring about other people's "having to deal with" into the world. It is the communal recognition of the suffering as a society so as to not manipulate others and force burdens onto them. It is giving the other side of production, work, and dealings with overcoming burdens and encountering dissatisfactions is a good thing, a necessary thing, a holy thing, or the right thing. We are not self-proclaimed prophets proclaiming yet more humans who "Must" encounter "life" and its various trials and tribulations, in the name of some supposedly deemed "goodness". At the end of the day, it does not want to continue the collateral damage of negative whilst proclaiming "It's for the good!" nay, it's for your good. Who says? Yes we are forced to work to survive, we are forced to comply with social standards to work, we are forced at the end of the day if we don't want slow or immediate death to our individual selves.

I understand those arguments and you put them well.

Bit of a glaring problem in this, but don't worry, it's quite widespread with contemporary opinion of history. The fact is life in the past was BRUTAL. Lives were (say it with me now) "nasty, brutish, and short". It is imperative to view ancient texts like the those that were used to form the Bible through this lense. You say that the content of the Bible is disturbing. Rape and murder was a mundane fact of life for most people as recently as the medieval times, perhaps even the Georgian and Victorian times at a stretch.

TL; DR ancient peoples were a lot more used to brutal acts than us pampered 21st century philosophers. The content of the Bible should therefore not be read as an early humanist attack upon religion merely on the basis that it is, to modern observers, abhorrent.

The content of the Bible should therefore not be read as an early humanist attack upon religion merely on the basis that it is, to modern observers, abhorrent. — BigThoughtDropper

So when god promotes slavery and genocide and rape in the Bible, how is humanism or religion supposed to understand this?

You seem to be saying that because it was common it was normalized and therefore... ok? Was rape morally wrong 2000 years ago? If not how does the observation assist us?

The Bible is just a wicked scheme set up by even more wicked atheists. It's a very refined attempt to lure people into the atheist trap.

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.

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. — Moses

Except that the god described in the Old Testament is evil, right? This creature has an enormous blind spot and is mafia boss and thug, running belief in him as a protection racket.

Numbers 31:17-18 - Vengeance over the Midianites - take the virgin women for yourselves and kill all the men. Exodus 21 - support of slavery and rules for buying/keeping slaves. 2 Samuel 24, god killing 70,000 people because David took a census without permission. Etc....

Now, those Christians who make justifications or attempt tricky interpretations of this and other awful material depicting this unjust and evil god are like the Stalinists of the 1950's, justifying Stalin's atrocities or pretending they did not happen.

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?

You're a good Stalinist, Moses.

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

If you are arguing that I think god is evil because I don't like god killing innocent men, women and children and because he condones slavery, then you must like mass murder and slavery because your god condones it. Good for you, Comrade.

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.

Trust me I don't believe in this goody-two shoes Christian all loving God. — Moses

:up:

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.

Sorry, I had you for a run of the mill apologist... — Tom Storm

:chin:

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.

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. — Moses

This is why I don't debate Bible versus with people. Even my friend John (who is a Catholic priest) describes the Bible as 'mostly barbaric'. Bishop John Shelby Spong did a lot of the hard thinking here.

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.

Why do you have to rely on John? — Moses

Who says I rely on John? I already mentioned Bishop Spong. As it happens, I have read much of the Bible - I grew up in the Baptist tradition. I also undertook Biblical studies for four years. Some people think it's just atheists who find the Bible inherently problematic.

The Bible is full of dreadful things

The Bible was written between 3,000 and 2,000 years ago, and it's filled with the knowledge that people had in that period of time, some of which you and I rejected long ago. 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. Those ideas are absurd. — Bishop John Shelby Spong

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.