UnitedIssues U.S. Political Debates - Debate

"Is it morally right to worship the god of the bible?"

Original Opinion by Gaelin (136)

The god of the bible is a pretty terrible person in my opinion. look at the time he had Moses massacre an entire tribe of Israelites for worshiping an idol. Look at how he had the israelites kill every man woman and child in the city of Jericho, along with many other cities in Canaan. Look at how he kills every first born egyptian sun because Pharaoh wouldn't let the Israelites leave (after god purposefully hardened his heart) after already sending many plagues against the Egyptian people. The question here is not whether Yahweh is real, it is whether anyone should worship him if he is.

Responses

"Which Bible?" by FreeRoamer (42)

First of all, we have to determine the question - What is morality, and who decides morality? Yes many of the things God does, in the Christian Bible, seem very repulsive to human standards or morality. However, are human standards of morality correct? Who decides what's moral and what's not?

Personally I think morality to a large degree is relative. God's biblical actions that we deem repulsive today would have been praised in the past.

"Morality subjective, not relative. " by Gaelin (136)

In roman times it was very normal and socially acceptable to have sex with young boys. what this shows is that Morality is of course completely subjective. however I think it is fair to say that mass murder and Genocide are frowned upon in all but the most brutal moral codes, how can someone worship a god or a figure like Moses that is by most moral standards a war criminal? and such things cannot be thought of in relative terms as by that standard many of the greatest war criminals in history cannot be regarded as immoral because at that time cruelty and slaughter was the norm.

"Greeks, not Romans" by FreeRoamer (42)

I tend to agree with you that morality is subjective, however I think there are a select few morals (don't kill, rape, steal, etc) that apply to all humanity regardless of society, culture, etc. The rest of morality (the majority of it) could be thought of as "secondary morality" and this is what is subjective.

While I do believe morality is subjective to a large degree, like I said, I've always had a slight bit of doubt. For example, you might say even morals such as "don't kill" are relative because people kill anyways. But is a certain moral rule negated just because someone chooses not to follow it? And just because someone particapates in an immoral action, does that necessarily mean they see no moral questionability to their actions? In other words, what defines a person's moral standards? What they believe to be moral, or how they behave? Sometimes the two can contrast. For example someone can believe it is immoral to kill, but end up doing it anyways in the heat of the moment. Does this mean morality is relative just because someone breaks a moral code? I don't think so, because if it were and everyone behaved morally, we would have no need for morality, nor the dichotomy between moral vs immoral actions.

People in the same society tend to think alike. That's why from our perspective, the Holocaust, for example, was inexcusable, barbaric, and horrifyingly evil beyond words. To the Nazis and many Germans however this was excusable.

As for the example of Moses you gave, people tend to view normally immoral acts such as murder as excusable under the guise of "war." I think it's wrong, but that's how it is.

"That's my point." by Gaelin (136)

You can try to explain it all you want, but the bible describes cities being exterminate and in my heart I know that to be wrong. and I think you do too. I think we all do, and that's what I'm appealing to here. not rational argument, but natural emotive response.

"Yes I think it is wrong too..." by FreeRoamer (42)

But you have to recognize that the events of the Bible are supposed to have happened THOUSANDS of years ago. Young people of today claim a huge difference in their moral standards compared to older citizens. Imagine this gap times one hundred. I think this is wrong too, but this "natural emotive response" you quote is probably a conditioned sociological response that we have gained through interaction with the rest of our modern race and adoption of their moral code. Who's to say that we would not advocate these acts (which are horrific in both of our opinions) were we alive a lot closer to the time period in which they were supposed to have happened?