For example, is it ethical to create a company which automates the job of a large class of workers? Is it ethical to use such a product? I don’t even think the Golden Rule can account for it, frankly, because the “others” in “do unto others” can be multiple parties, some of whom are helped and some who are harmed.
It's repeated in like dozen different places that you punish people for their parents sins to a few generations down.
On the other hand Ezekiel 18:20, “The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.”
And then there's the original sin - which is punished for infinite number of generations.
Bible is using the oldest trick in the world - holding every position at the same time :) That way no matter what happens you can find a quote which supports it (also contradicts, but you don't share these).
Proverbs 26:4 (ESV) "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself." Proverbs 26:5 (ESV) "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes."
They are "contradictory" but yet right next to each other. It can rather be taken that these are both true in certain contexts and must be held in tension against one another and applied with wisdom.
There are multiple instances of this in the old and new testaments.
I'm not sure what's the point tho. If you start with abandoning logic - you cannot later return back to using it. Starting with 0==1 you can prove anything.
If Bible gets away with contradictions - you can't then accept the conclusions and use logic on them. The moment you abandoned logic you are left without it forever. Full-blown postmodernism. Nothing is true and everything is true.
Note: Exodus 20:5 and Similar Passages: The concept of "visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation" is often understood in the context of the collective nature of ancient Israelite society. It emphasizes the idea that the consequences of sin can affect subsequent generations, particularly in a communal and covenantal context. This does not necessarily mean direct punishment, but rather the natural repercussions and influence of one generation's behavior on the next.
So one interpretation is that: these people's descendants are not directly punished bust just less favorable by God given the jealous nature of God (i.e. the jealous nature to the degree that is expressed in Exodus 20:5 if we take Exodus 20:5 at face value as composed by Moses at the cultural-political time when he received the Commandments where God proclaimed that He is a jealous God)
On the other hand, regarding Ezekiel 18:20, it is a verse that is a part of a broader discussion in Ezekiel 18 that emphasizes individual responsibility when it was composed by the prophet Ezekiel ~6th century BCE, during the Babylonian exile. So once again, one good interpretation can be that due to the cultural-political background at that time, God's message to humanity (for the betterment of humanity) was in a tone where He emphasized less on His jealous aspect and more on the individualism of sins - which is interestingly very similar to the idea of karma formulated in Shakyamuni's Dharma, which was also around that time in human history.
This is a rationalization. If you try to interpret it honestly you can find dozen different places where god punish random people for sins of their relatives (for example "unoborn kids" in cities genocided by Old Testament Israelites either through regular war crimes or direct God's magical intervention).
And then there's the fragment that says that God will not punish a city if there's even one honest man there.
The only way to make it consistent is to ignore contradictions. And I'd say it would be easier to ignore the few ones that are against collective responsibilty (because there's far fewer of them).
You are proceeding to not try to interpret it honestly; and thinking you are a genius for pointing out a supposed contradiction, because this hasn't been studied and researched for over 3,000 years at this point.
> for example "unoborn kids" in cities genocided by Old Testament Israelites either through regular war crimes or direct God's magical intervention
You seem to forget that Egypt, the land where they came from, was literally putting them to genocide first by ordering them to kill all male children; and any country they relocated to, would also have happily committed genocide against them if possible.
We also know from both the Bible and remaining physical evidence that the exterminated tribes were practicing horrific activities of their own. The Canaanites, for example, practiced child sacrifice to Molek, and (though not in the Bible, but from remaining historical evidence) even practiced ritual cannibalism. A command to exterminate them therefore should not be interpreted as intrinsically immoral or undeserved.
2. I'm not claiming to be genious. In fact I was pretty hardcore Catholic for like 22 years before I stopped lying to myself.
> You seem to forget that Egypt
Genociding Phillites' kids because some adult Egyptians were killing Jews is evil.
> The Canaanites, for example, practiced child sacrifice to Molek
Their infants did?
Yeah, no; you found something the church called a sin that you could not, or did not, want to overcome.
> Genociding Phillites' kids because some adult Egyptians were killing Jews is evil.
If evil is only an opinion of mind, who is to say? Russians call Ukrainians evil; Ukrainians call Russia evil; both kill the other. In your opinion, it was evil; but if you were forced between accepting a genocide against yourself on one hand, or fleeing and causing a genocide to survive, you may have different opinions.
what a convenient all-purpose dismissal of any experiences that challenge your view