Was God immoral in the Bible?

farmerman have you read "Blink" ?

echi,

Thank you for the explanation.

Conscience can come from your social environment. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a higher power.

Momma-of course its my belief. I have no evidence in support , other than about 20000 years of cave paintings in which it appears that someone is trying to convey something of a spiritual nature to appease spirits of animals or the later neolithic civilizations who prcaticed ritual burials and the neolithic African civilizations culminating with Egypt wherein records of gods and spiritual practices were kept in stone. I believe that they were trying to convey something. The Judeao/Christian and Muslim traditions cap off the stories quite completely.

Ilam believes that Christ was actually spirited away at his crucufixion and never died at all. Whose truths ya gonna believe? Im just standing back and saying that they all have differences and commonalities that seem to be proportional to societys maturation.

Husker, no Ive never read "Blink" do you recommend it? I just reread the "Gnostic Gospels". I need to be grounded in opinion and data from various sources.

Questioner,

Ok, but where does the social environment derive its conscience from?

Momma, I think we are confusing "derive" with "attribute"

Actually Farmerman, I meant derive. You seem to be assuming that a conscience is inherent. Perhaps on the simplest of terms it is, but the basics of right and wrong do derive from some source IMO.

The myths arise out of our instinctual nature as the animals we are. Like any animal, we have patterns of behavior we are born with, augmented and refined by passing along knowledge from generation to generation. That is why we don't need divine inspiration for morality.

I don't see any "right" or "wrong" what I do see are social contracts that are intended to benefit members in a reciprocal manner. Probably formalized in the human critter with the advent of "property" via agriculture/ animal husbandry. There is no "rightness" in nature. Conscience is a taught/learned attitude that varies from society to society.

So you are saying that a conscience is also a product of the evolutionary process?

What?

All things living.

The social environment gains what it deems as a conscience based largely upon how it's basic needs are met.

In America, we see canibalism as a sin. In other parts of the world where food either isn't as plentiful, or where spiritual rituals differ, canibalism is excepted.

Many countries consider 15 year old girls entirely to young to wed. Other's do not. The argument that morals and/or conscience are supplied to us by God is a weak one, and one that typically panders to people that wish to believe it.

Conscience and morality are different. Everybody has a conscience, but what we deem right or wrong depends on the morals that we've learned. I think that even those of us who reject the moral code of a society will still develop a sense of right/wrong (use other words if you like) if only through our own experiences.

And that experience is that within one's society.
Morality is a function of society.

But what do you do when you have such conflicting moralities?

I agree that it's impossible to not be influenced by the moral system of your society. But a person's conscience operates independent any set of morals. What someone believes is morally right or wrong, as defined by society, can conflict with one's conscience; society's morals are imposed primarily for the purpose of benefitting society, not the individual.

I think people do things all the time that they believe are good because society says so. But I also think it's impossible to totally deny your conscience.

IMO this is one reason why it's not a good idea to pass laws based only on what some group believes is morally right (Gay Marriage, for example). We should leave those decisions, as much as possible, to the individual to decide.