Yahweh and Allah. Are they moral and ethical Gods?
I have thought deeply about all aspects of religion as long as I remember having grown up in a fundamentalist church and have to come to the conclusion that it is impossible to try and reconcile an advanced creator who developed an advanced and mathematically sound universe of unimaginable complexity, with the man made idea of a god who demands the sacrifice of blood for sins - whether this blood be from animal or human sacrifice, or that of Jesus. It just doesn't add up and I'm inclined to believe humans, who hail from a primitive background and have had a few thousand years to develop compared with the approximately 600 million years since life began evolving, needed to assuage their feelings of guilt by introducing the notion of sacrifice.
I'd appreciate some thoughts and feedback on this idea. Attending church as a child I recall the minister intoning how "the sacrifice of blood is necessary for forgiveness of sin" but no source was given.
Consider the primitive backgrounds of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and their bloodthirsty histories.
An advanced Creator who has been around for billions of years wouldn't need anything from us. Try reconciling that with the Old Testament and a being who insisted on circumcision of the chosen people and on what types of fibre should be worn. It just doesn't seem to make sense!
Your feedback on this dilemma would be appreciated! Because the descriptions in the OT are anything but advanced.
The only feedback I can give is agreement.
Except that the concept of sacrifice is also a tool to give longevity to the religion or organization. The more one sacrifices to something, the more it will be preserved and last.
I cannot speak for all religions but the Jewish sacrifice was more of a party to forgive all the little sins within the tribe. Sure, a beast was sacrificed and another let loose as the scapegoat, but then it was party time with the roasted one.
Let's not forget that Jewry was heading towards a much more moral theology before Christianity usurped their God and changed much of the moral to the myths. For example, Christianity saw a fall in Eden while the Jews saw man's elevation.
Regards
DL
In reality, though, it's fairly obvious that the genocide described never actually happened. A lot of branches of Christianity and Judaism, at least, see hell as something less literal and sometimes as entirely subjective (in Eastern Orthodox Christianity, God treats everyone with the same love, but sin makes you reject that love to the extent that it's painful). So, it gets a little more complicated.
I like how the Jews interpret their myths.
https://vimeo.com/7038401
I agree that to a thinking person who has rejected the immoral demiurges on offer, like Allah and Yahweh, it gets more complicated but then produces a more complicated and better, more moral, theology.
The ancients knew this and that is why they were God seekers and not the idol worshiping cults that Christianity and Islam have become.
http://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2
Regards
DL
Those most common orthodox versions is what I was looking at.
You judge accurately.
Regards
DL
If you say no, please tell me how morality and ethics fit into what you do - or choose not to do.
me, "Reader and Righter"

My morality and ethics guide me daily. They tell me that there is never a good reason to torture and murder innocent children instead of their guilty parents.
Your God seems to think otherwise and does exactly that in stories like the King David and killing of Egypt's first born.
Care to debate for the morality and ethics of your God in such situations?
Regards
DL
envirozentinel
Forum Moderator

Joined: 16 Sep 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,172
Location: Keshron, Super-Zakhyria
GB,
-where did the primitive idea of a bloodthirsty god to whom sacrifices should be made, originate? It doesn't rhyme with the idea of a loving One who loves unconditionally. Many things I read in the OT (not the sweet stories learned in Sunday School but the stuff discovered later) are greatly disturbing.
_________________
Why is a trailer behind a car but ahead of a movie?
my blog:
https://sentinel63.wordpress.com/
It depends on if you care a God is immoral while he still supposedly exists.
If he is real, then there is no point arguing with someone who is the immortal lord of the
multiverse, if he is even malevolent or benevolent would be a point not worth risking your 'soul' over.
If he is not real, you should get over it and stop caring that some old fart
wrote on ancient stone tablets that an omnipotent jerk told him to genocide non-existent Canaanites.
_________________
comedic burp
-where did the primitive idea of a bloodthirsty god to whom sacrifices should be made, originate? It doesn't rhyme with the idea of a loving One who loves unconditionally. Many things I read in the OT (not the sweet stories learned in Sunday School but the stuff discovered later) are greatly disturbing.
IMO.
Blood sacrifice was the excuse that some dreamed up to justify the killing of unwanted children in communities and city states that had finite resources.
We have to remember that in those hard days, there was no excess of food in the many desert communities. If the newborn were allowed to live, then an older productive worker might have starved to death.
Those reasons were also why the religions tried to make copulation for children special. Having permission to reproduce to fill the few available feeding positions that were being freed up by someone dying, were the exception and not the rule.
That is also why the Temples had fleets of Temple prostitutes who basically took the sexual edge off of men so that fewer unwanted pregnancies would happen with their wives.
This rather long link speaks of the depth of the sacredness of sex (with wives) that the ancients wanted to instill to reduce those child sacrifices.
It is rather all esoteric teachings but that is how the religions were taught in those days.
In a real sense, IMO, those teachings were superior as compared to the teaching of the mainstream idol worshiping Christians and Muslims of today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TndLzFZI9A
Regards
DL
-where did the primitive idea of a bloodthirsty god to whom sacrifices should be made, originate? It doesn't rhyme with the idea of a loving One who loves unconditionally. Many things I read in the OT (not the sweet stories learned in Sunday School but the stuff discovered later) are greatly disturbing.
I also have this that explains, if the ancients knew of this and I think they did, that sacrificing to any cause or religion will likely help in survive longer than those religions or causes that did not draw sacrifices from their adherents.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T64_El2s7FU
I appreciate your time and took a lot of it with that other link. In light of that, you can open this one at the 9 min. mark to see what todays science says of sacrifice to a cause of religion and how the more is sacrificed, the longer the entity will survive.
Regards
DL
If he is real, then there is no point arguing with someone who is the immortal lord of the
multiverse, if he is even malevolent or benevolent would be a point not worth risking your 'soul' over.
If he is not real, you should get over it and stop caring that some old fart
wrote on ancient stone tablets that an omnipotent jerk told him to genocide non-existent Canaanites.
I agree with your first and that is why I by-passed the reality of God's existence to have people judge whatever the creed preaches.
Real or not, God and the religions he spawned, becomes important, be you a believer or not, because a jihadists or crazy right wing fundamental Christian bent on murder will not care if someone believe or not.
I cannot ever win a moral debate against an absentee God. I can win against a theist when he shows his beliefs if they happen to be immoral and morality is important to them.
Unfortunately, most Christians do not care about their moral values and only care about at they think their imaginary Gods will reward them with after death.
Regards
DL
Would You Kindly provide a source for that claim?
Because... well, apparently it doesn't apply to US Catholics, at the very least...

Source: http://www.pewforum.org/2016/04/12/few- ... decisions/
Would You Kindly provide a source for that claim?
Because... well, apparently it doesn't apply to US Catholics, at the very least...

Source: http://www.pewforum.org/2016/04/12/few- ... decisions/
Ask any Christian or Catholic if they agree with this statement.
Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.
Most will agree when speaking of secular courts and that is the moral position.
Then ask them why they ignore that just judgement on their part when it comes to them and Jesus.
You will get the reverse answer thus proving that Christians, when it comes to their religion, do not care about the immorality of what they believe.
That immoral double standard is proof that morality is not their forte or reason for being Christian.
Regards
DL
Would You Kindly provide a source for that claim?
Because... well, apparently it doesn't apply to US Catholics, at the very least...

Source: http://www.pewforum.org/2016/04/12/few- ... decisions/
Ask any Christian or Catholic if they agree with this statement.
Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.
Most will agree when speaking of secular courts and that is the moral position.
Then ask them why they ignore that just judgement on their part when it comes to them and Jesus.
You will get the reverse answer thus proving that Christians, when it comes to their religion, do not care about the immorality of what they believe.
That immoral double standard is proof that morality is not their forte or reason for being Christian.
Regards
DL
I repeat:
Would You Kindly provide a source for that claim?
Would You Kindly provide a source for that claim?
Because... well, apparently it doesn't apply to US Catholics, at the very least...

Source: http://www.pewforum.org/2016/04/12/few- ... decisions/
Ask any Christian or Catholic if they agree with this statement.
Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.
Most will agree when speaking of secular courts and that is the moral position.
Then ask them why they ignore that just judgement on their part when it comes to them and Jesus.
You will get the reverse answer thus proving that Christians, when it comes to their religion, do not care about the immorality of what they believe.
That immoral double standard is proof that morality is not their forte or reason for being Christian.
Regards
DL
I repeat:
Would You Kindly provide a source for that claim?
I already did through discourse reason and logic.
Regards
DL