There is No Morality Without God

by whereami 161 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  NewChapter

  I would suggest you read " Is God a moral monster?" because it seems some of the issues you have with God are because of what we have read and interpreted in the bible.

  I have no issue with God whatsoever. I simply see that he is a human creation, and as such, acts exactly as anyone can predict. As a human creation, I expect him to be contradictory. I expect him to show love when it suits him and anger and violence when it does not. I expect him to be jealous and convinced he is right. I expect him to justify bloody deeds by claiming a greater good. This is exactly as humans are, and so their gods.

  However, if there was an all powerful god, I would expect his book to be consistent and not dependent on the norms of the day. I would expect his word to transcend cultue and time. I would expect his word to be scientifically accurate, focused, and reliable. I would not expect him to leave it up to my subjective conscience, molded by contemporary values and understandings, to accept certain passages and explain away the rest. In this regard, the bible fails to stand up along with the god that was behind the writing. There is nothing special about the bible nor the god it created. It is very human-all of it-with nothing extraordinary. Some of it's truths are universal, so all can gain some insight. Some of it's directives are petty and violent and self-serving. That's exactly how a human would create and then write about a god.

  Now if you want to discuss evolution start a new thread please.

  I already started an evolutionary thread, just for Bioflex.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/217088/1/Evolution-Thread-to-continue-conversation-with-BIOFLEX
• 

  Terry

  The source of Morality is LIFE itself.

  Why?

  Without life there can be no values at all.

  Dying FOR a value is ludicrous when only LIFE can be fundamental to value itself.

  Moral choices, therefore, are choices which further LIFE.

  This makes Morality a practical matter.

  Practical how?

  What we rationally do must never interfere with the self-sustaining aspect of our actions.

  If we make ourself or others sick we are immoral.

  If we destroy our network of family, friends and social supports we are immoral because our life is lessened correspondingly.

  We don't lie, cheat, steal because we are impacting what supports, sustains and improves our life's chances.

  PRACTICAL=MORAL=LIFE

  God was a primitive projection by ignorant mankind.

  The mysterious (unknown) was Personified and feared.

  Consequently, rituals of appeasement were created to fend off disaster. (Life sustaining action)

  Sacrifice and ritual became commonly held group myth and eventually codified religion.

  There is NO MORALITY with God. Only appeasement, subjugation of rational thought and the lessening of practical action.

  What seeming "good" religious people do is not rationally performed for the right reason. It is mere avoidance of feared reprisal.
• 

  designs

  'the lessoning of practical action' that really captures why we never did anything to help out in our communities when we were JWs.
• 

  PSacramento

  I have no issue with God whatsoever. I simply see that he is a human creation, and as such, acts exactly as anyone can predict. As a human creation, I expect him to be contradictory. I expect him to show love when it suits him and anger and violence when it does not. I expect him to be jealous and convinced he is right. I expect him to justify bloody deeds by claiming a greater good. This is exactly as humans are, and so their gods.

  However, if there was an all powerful god, I would expect his book to be consistent and not dependent on the norms of the day. I would expect his word to transcend cultue and time. I would expect his word to be scientifically accurate, focused, and reliable. I would not expect him to leave it up to my subjective conscience, molded by contemporary values and understandings, to accept certain passages and explain away the rest. In this regard, the bible fails to stand up along with the god that was behind the writing. There is nothing special about the bible nor the god it created. It is very human-all of it-with nothing extraordinary. Some of it's truths are universal, so all can gain some insight. Some of it's directives are petty and violent and self-serving. That's exactly how a human would create and then write about a god.

  That is a very interesting view point.

  Not sure how you could convery the big bang as we know it in the 21st century to a Nomadic hebrew 5000 years ago, even more so since we are STILL discovering things about the universe RIGHT now that may even through what we know NOW into the "obsolete bin".

  Still, a very interesting view.

  Have you seen these sites: Biologos. org or testoffaith.com ?
• 

  NewChapter

  I'm in the middle of studying and just taking breaks PS, so I haven't looked over your link. But here is the thing. You may not be sure how to convey the big bang (just a theory) to a Nomadic Hebrew 500 years ago---but an all-knowing god who created you WOULD. And if not, it would at least be able to give you information that would not be clearly contradicted by an ever-growing knowledge. It doesn't have to be deep scientific stuff--but an all knowing god would see what was ahead (after all--it's only 6 days to him, and he can do prophesy and stuff). He would know how our brains worked and how we would grow in knowledge and how the creation story would be disproven. Not wanting to lose honest hearted people through inaccuracy (he would have designed us to treasure accuracy--right?), in his infamous wisdom he would have found a way to give us a believable synopsis.

  If I Were An All Knowing God----And I Foresaw That Humans Would Get a Clue--Here Is How I'd Write Genesis:

  NC Chapter One

  Vs One. In the beginning, after the stars were formed, earth sat submerged in water full of life that the almighty put there. From this life fish grew. Fish breathed the water through gills. Some of the fish then sprouted legs and lungs and the lungs breathed the air, but the young still lived in the water. From the fish with legs came a new kind that breathed only air, even their young could not breathe water. From this kind some grew feathers and then wings and flew, others grew fur and fed their young milk. From this kind grew a special branch that walked on 2 legs, and could grasp with hands. From this kind grew the most special of all, MAN who walked on two legs and did not have as much hair as it's forefathers, and could think and could be like god. This is who you are today.

  Honestly---if the story can be told that individual kinds, with no relation, came into being, then just as easily the story could tell a simplified version of evolution. The details could have been left to science, for that matter---science might have moved so much more quickly if we had had proper information--and we would have given glory to this wise creator instead of finding nothing but fault with the Genesis account.

  Who needs to go back as far as the big bang? Genesis never really attempted to explain the universe---just the earth.

  NC
• 

  PSacramento

  NC, for someone that has studied the bible as you, why would you formulate the view that Genesis is a "science Book" ?

  I don't know ANY Jews that believe that and they wrote it !

  I don't think that God transmitting anything to a person is the issue, that issue may will have been how THAT person transmitted what God "showed" him into the oral tradtions of His time that were 100's of years later, put into writing.

  Genesis wasn't an attempt to explain the universe or earth for that matter, but the creative desire of God.

  There is no doubt that the many books of the bible are accomdationist to the audience of their time and it makes sense that would be the way since, if we read the many books in context and take into account Christ as the final revelation of God, they are also progressive in their revelation of God and are NOT to be take INDEPENDANT of the other ways God reveals himnself to Man.

  There was no need for the bibel to be a "science book" because it was NOT to be a science book, if man wanted ot understand the universe he observed IT, he didn't need the bible to tell him about it.
• 

  NewChapter

  I did not say it was a science book. I said for a book that claims to be inspired by an all-knowing God, I would think it would at least AGREE with science, no matter how simplistically. Instead it is exactly what I figure a human 5000 years ago would write---with not help from a god.

  And if this was simply a human transmitting what a god had showed him, and he had it so terribly wrong, one wonders why a god was involved at all. To say that the bible is not a science book, even where it delves into science, is to say that either there is no all-knowing god, or he lied, or he allowed humans to mislead humans. Any of the 3 busts the narrative of a wise all knowing god.

  Progressive understanding of god---so does this then mean that former understanding is wiped away by new understanding, and that this god allows himself to be misrepresented until he reveals the truth about himself? Sounds like new light to me. Maybe we should just stick around for new revelations. Under this system, it's all bound to change anyway.

  As far as Christ being the final revelation, he completely agreed with everything written before. As far as the bible not being a science book---that is not necessary but should agree with science where it touches on it. As far as this merely being a human interpretation of what god has shown, well then this all-wise, all-knowing, honest god droppped the ball on that one. Why would he allow his servant to mislead centuries of humans?

  So---if the bible is merely a few men's interpretation of what their god showed them, and therefore highly subjective and inaccurate, then who is to say the writings of Jesus are true either? They too would be highly subjective accounts, full of inaccuracies and all the imperfections that man is plagued with. So again there is absolutely no reliable source---except hearsay. We need to approach hearsay with much suspicion, and by your own admission this retellling is subjects to many mistakes.

  NC
• 

  JonathanH

  NC brings up a big point that got me out of the borg. God acts exactly like a tribal barbarian, violent and greedy. That is until the jews lost all of their military power, then he mysteriously went silent for a few hundred years and all of the sudden his new message isn't of conquest and destruction of his enemies so much as it is "Can't we just get along? Don't worry about right now, it gets better when you're dead. And besides, some day, I won't say when but some day, I'll fix it, don't worry about it. Just do what the romans say for now, and when you die, you'll get your reward." This is exactly what you would expect of a god that was strictly a human invention.

  And why was his plan to glorify his people and make his way known such a primitive barbaric plan? Kill everybody that happens to be on your land, and offer slavery or death to everyone else? A god of infinite love and wisdom could have just made a civilization so enviable that Bablyon, egypt and every single neighboring country would be clamoring to join them. Why not show his people how to produce penicillen? Teach them advanced mathematics and architecture? Teach them about the golden ratios found in music, and other artistic theory? Why not teach democracy and civil rights rather than mysogeny? Teach them about contraception, and infectious diseases. Make a mighty nation of engineers, scientists, artists, architects, and doctors? Show the world the glory of god rather than the horrors of man? Instead of building a mighty, advanced and enlightened nation, he apparently decided to go the route of primitive barbarity and violence. The nation of god is completely indistinguishable from any other primitive nation.

  And you can't blame the Israelites and simply say "well god would've if his people weren't so hard hearted!", that makes god an incredibly pathetic leader. The US went from slaughtering natives, enslaving blacks, and repressing women, using leeches, and dumping feces out of their windows to high technology, medicine, civil rights, incredible architecture, math, art and science in a few hundred years, all without a cheat sheet showing how to do it. And god apparently couldn't accomplish that in the entire history of his people. Pathetic.

  Also, Biologos is a stupid stupid website, and it's only getting worse as time goes on. Please stop using that as a possible answer to people's objections to the bible.
• 

  JonathanH

  NC also brings up a point that Jerry Coyne and some others have been debating with some theologians about (rather publically). If you throw pretty much all of the old testament under the bus as being a series of metaphors, and imperfect stories from humans, then where does that leave jesus? Why is THAT the true part of the book, but the rest is just metaphorical stories and human misunderstandings? What is the criteria for saying "well this part of the bible doesn't really represent what god really is, but just a human interpretation of experiences." and then "Well that is clearly a metaphor, there was no adam and eve LITERALLY, it's just a story about the human condition." and then from that go to "Well jesus was totally a 100% true event, he was born of a virgin, performed miracles, died as a ransom sacrifice for the original (metaphorical) sin, and rose from the dead! He's the important part." There is no methodology to determine which is the factual parts of the bible and which are the fables and metaphors to tell us about humanity, that is of course except for the method of consulting with historians, scientists, and the like and removing the parts they prove wrong. Which is really the whole mindset of religion, and the problem. It assumes it's right until proven wrong. A completely backwards notion. What will have to be demonstrated before Jesus also becomes just another man, and a metaphor just like Noah and his big boat?

  As a footnote, if you want to see some of the back and forth of this theological debate look up some of Andrew Sullivan's articles at...I think it was the daily dish, a quick google search will bring it up. And also Jerry Coyne on his website whyevolutionistrue.com

  Sullivan engages is some grade A sophistry, as he claims that the bible is "true" but it's not "real", and Jerry Coyne just doesn't understand the fine difference between the two. That is where the bible is heading though. As it's picked at more and more, the religious intelligensia will be forced to abandon it as anything more than a metaphor that contains nothing more useful than art. Which is what religion is. Art mistakenly elevated to the level of science and politic. Genesis works great as an ancient story about man fighting against his nature. Jesus works great as a pre-renessaince vision of kindness and sacrifice. But to say that the nature of the universe is revealed by these stories is a mistake. To assume it tells us anything about where humanity came from, or how the universe got here is naive and childish. It may be a great ancient set of stories and myths but it doesn't tell us anything factual about our universe, it tells us something subjective and artistic, and that is fantastic too. Just let it be that.
• 

  tec

  However, if there was an all powerful god, I would expect his book to be consistent and not dependent on the norms of the day. I would expect his word to transcend cultue and time. I would expect his word to be scientifically accurate, focused, and reliable.

  One... you can't speak 'above' the level of understanding a person has, and think that they will 'hear' you. You cannot give people more than they can bear.

  Two... His Word DOES transcend culture and time. But God's Word is not the bible. His Word is Christ. Are there things that Christ taught that you don't think transcend time and culture? Truly curious and would love to discuss. Scientifically, I believe He did shed some light onto science that we have not yet discovered yet... but we may will. I think science does support some of the things He taught - such as moving from the physical to the spiritual. (moving between matter and energy/the possible implications of standing wave theories, etc... all new, all just a glimpse, but still...)

  As far as Christ being the final revelation, he completely agreed with everything written before.

  NC, if He agreed with everythign written before, then why would he have corrected anything? "You have heard it said... but I tell you now..." Or also when He says that Moses gave the Jews certain laws because their hearts were hard. Not because that was how God wanted things to be. (such as the previous laws on divorce)

  Peace,

  Tammy