Morality of the Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter MikiBee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MikiBee

Guest
I am wondering how to reconcile the morality of the bible, particularly adultery, slavery, murder, beating people… etc. with what we feel and know is immoral by our standards today, or even what the church teaches.

The bible is full of what I would consider adultery. Men had more than one wife, wives were allowing their maids to sleep with their husbands to produce children (almost what we’d consider surrogacy today which the Church condemns), the keeping of slaves-- being able to beat them to within an inch of their lives… the list goes on and on. People murdered, but God said all they had to do was pay the father, wife, husband, whoever off with money to be forgiven…

I’m just having a hard time understanding how that could happen, and why the modern Catholic church will say that Jesus did away with the old law with His new covenant. But if that were the case, why does the Church still cling to some of the old law, but not all of it?

Yes, you can say I’m ignorant about much of my faith. I know I am, even though I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic school for 12 years. That is why I am asking. I don’t want to be ignorant, I want knowledge. I want to be able to convert my husband to Catholicism, and keep my kids’ interest in Catholicism. I can’t do that if I can’t answer the tough questions, because I myself don’t understand.
 
Well, one thing is that the CC teaches that Jesus fulfills the OT, not does away with it. Perhaps a subtle difference, but important.

One way of explaining the OT Mosaic law is that it was a stepping stone, through Christ, to the New Covenant; that the OT old covenant laws were preparation for the new one. Prior to the Old covenant, there was no covenant, in a sense, no morality at all.
 
Plural marriage was permitted in the Old Testament. It was not until marriage was raised to a Sacrament that plural marriage (multiple wives/concubines) was eliminated as a permissible practice.

Beating of servants, that was an acceptable discipline, same as spanking a disobedient child.
 
Newbie2 said:
Well, one thing is that the CC teaches that Jesus fulfills the OT, not does away with it. Perhaps a subtle difference, but important.

One way of explaining the OT Mosaic law is that it was a stepping stone, through Christ, to the New Covenant; that the OT old covenant laws were preparation for the new one. Prior to the Old covenant, there was no covenant, in a sense, no morality at all.
Click to expand...
The Ten Commandments were the moral rules of the OT, right? What exactly did “Thou shalt not commit adultery and thou shalt not murder” mean back in the OT?
 
MikiBee said:
The Ten Commandments were the moral rules of the OT, right? What exactly did “Thou shalt not commit adultery and thou shalt not murder” mean back in the OT?
Click to expand...
To commit adultery was, and still is, to have sex with someone other than your spouse. In the past, men were permitted to have more than one legal wife.

Yes, men in the Old Testament did commit adultery. It was a sin for them as it is a sin now.

Murder is murder, taking of human life when you do not have the authority to do so. The death penalty is NOT murder, and in past times there was far more need for the death penalty. With modern prisons, we do not need to use it.
 
kage_ar said:
To commit adultery was, and still is, to have sex with someone other than your spouse. In the past, men were permitted to have more than one legal wife.

Yes, men in the Old Testament did commit adultery. It was a sin for them as it is a sin now.

Murder is murder, taking of human life when you do not have the authority to do so. The death penalty is NOT murder, and in past times there was far more need for the death penalty. With modern prisons, we do not need to use it.
Click to expand...
When David committed adultery with Bathsheba, they were punished in that the child of that union died. Not exactly the kind of thing that would lead people to contemplate the joys of adultery. . .

Even Moses, who murdered the Egyptian (today he would probably get off with manslaughter) did not get a ‘well done’ pat on the back for it. He had to flee into the wilderness.

People sinned then just as they do now. The thing is, they weren’t rewarded for sinning.

Rahab was a prostitute but she wasn’t rewarded for being a prostitute but rather for helping the cause of the Israelites even though she had to betray her own people in doing so. One could imagine those brave Germans who smuggled Jews out of Germany during WW2 as being like this --going against their own leaders and laws in order to obey a higher moral law.

Even Jacob, who pretended to be his brother in order to get the favored blessing, did not get the blessing without consequence. He spent 14 years serving Laban. He ‘lost’ his favorite son for many years. His own sons contemplated murder of their brother and suffered years later when Joseph made it appear that Benjamin had stolen and would likewise ‘disappear’. Actions have consequences.
 
As an example of how adultery was considered immoral in the OT, we have the example of Jacob’s son Reuben, who committed adultery and suffered the consequences. 1 Chronicles 5 gives a genealogy of Jacob’s sons, starting with Reuben, and verse 1 says:
“The sons of Reuben, the first-born of Israel. (He was indeed the first-born, but** because he disgraced the couch of his father his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph**, son of Israel, so that he is not listed in the family records according to birthright.)”

(emphasis is mine)
 
Tantum_ergo said:
When David committed adultery with Bathsheba, they were punished in that the child of that union died. Not exactly the kind of thing that would lead people to contemplate the joys of adultery. . .
Click to expand...
What a horrible punishment. That is like if I did something bad and the government killed my son for it.
 
jpjd said:
As an example of how adultery was considered immoral in the OT, we have the example of Jacob’s son Reuben, who committed adultery and suffered the consequences. 1 Chronicles 5 gives a genealogy of Jacob’s sons, starting with Reuben, and verse 1 says:
“The sons of Reuben, the first-born of Israel. (He was indeed the first-born, but** because he disgraced the couch of his father** his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph, son of Israel, so that he is not listed in the family records according to birthright.)”

(emphasis is mine)
Click to expand...
I always thought of that as more of a family feud. Didn’t Reuben sleep with his father’s concubine? Man, the OT just seems so twisted.
 
MikiBee said:
I always thought of that as more of a family feud. Didn’t Reuben sleep with his father’s concubine? Man, the OT just seems so twisted.
Click to expand...
The OT is twisted. It is full of horrible things that God did. God wiped out tons of people. I guess he doesn’t like free will after all…

Anyway, I don’t really pay attention to the OT. I don’t think that the events in the OT actually happened, nor do I think God was talking to all those people as they say he did in the OT.
 
MikiBee said:
I am wondering how to reconcile the morality of the bible, particularly adultery, slavery, murder, beating people… etc. with what we feel and know is immoral by our standards today, or even what the church teaches.

The bible is full of what I would consider adultery. Men had more than one wife, wives were allowing their maids to sleep with their husbands to produce children (almost what we’d consider surrogacy today which the Church condemns), the keeping of slaves-- being able to beat them to within an inch of their lives… the list goes on and on. People murdered, but God said all they had to do was pay the father, wife, husband, whoever off with money to be forgiven…

I’m just having a hard time understanding how that could happen, and why the modern Catholic church will say that Jesus did away with the old law with His new covenant. But if that were the case, why does the Church still cling to some of the old law, but not all of it?

Yes, you can say I’m ignorant about much of my faith. I know I am, even though I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic school for 12 years. That is why I am asking. I don’t want to be ignorant, I want knowledge. I want to be able to convert my husband to Catholicism, and keep my kids’ interest in Catholicism. I can’t do that if I can’t answer the tough questions, because I myself don’t understand.
Click to expand...
The only way to reconcile it is to realize that the OT was written by human beings who lived in an uncivilized (by modern standards) environment, and that God did not edit the OT when they wrote it.
 
MikiBee said:
I always thought of that as more of a family feud. Didn’t Reuben sleep with his father’s concubine? Man, the OT just seems so twisted.
Click to expand...
Yeah, people sinned, it shows us that NOTHING has changed. Only difference is we flaunt our sins on YouTube.
 
kage_ar said:
Yeah, people sinned, it shows us that NOTHING has changed. Only difference is we flaunt our sins on YouTube.
Click to expand...
Haha, so true!

I pray the LOH every day, and frankly praying the psalms led me to the same conclusion: the more things change, the more they’re the same.
 
Yeah, you know you’re right. I didn’t think of it in reverse. I’m sure if the people of the OT saw how we live, there is much that would shock them as well.
 
I tend to think of some of the more inexplicable elements of the Old Testament in terms of what Christ said in the Gospels - that Moses (ie the OT) permitted divorce only out of the ‘hardness of your hearts’.

In other words there were certain things God tolerated in the OT because He knew the world wasn’t ready to learn or do any better at the time.
 
LilyM said:
I tend to think of some of the more inexplicable elements of the Old Testament in terms of what Christ said in the Gospels - that Moses (ie the OT) permitted divorce only out of the ‘hardness of your hearts’.

In other words there were certain things God tolerated in the OT because He knew the world wasn’t ready to learn or do any better at the time.
Click to expand...
Right. “tolerate” meaning that God didn’t say it was a ‘good thing’. (people today misunderstand ‘toleration’ and think it means you have to embrace and accept something as ‘good’. Not so. One only ‘tolerates’ what one thinks is wrong but which, for whatever reason, cannot at that point be eradicated or changed.)

Some people think God is so mean and awful. Yeah, I suppose if I went ahead and ‘created’ a being that I shouldn’t have any ‘say’ about the being. . .not even to stop its existence --which I and I alone had brought about in the first place. How ‘awful’ of me to claim as a Creator that I can do anything I please. How awful to claim (from a limited view as a limited mind) that a Creator can do ‘evil’ . What a lack of love and trust.

And heaven forfend that other creatures (again whom God and God alone created) should see God acting in a way that their puny little minds thought ‘unfair’. Because of course, creatures are so much more intelligent, rational, and ‘loving’ than their own Creator. And of course we living in this piddly period of ‘time’ certainly know so much more of the ultimate ‘plan’ than Almighty God does. And we’re so much more just and rational, too. Yeah, we can take a few pieces of data here and there and fashion them into a ‘noose’ whereby we hang God for his ‘crimes against humanity’ as ‘demonstrated’ according to us. God help us, what a sick world we live in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top