Yes, there is a difference, of course. But if you really meant what you said - that you define your standards for how to judge the Bible by what it says in the Bible, well...that's no good, is it?
My standards on how I view the Bible are based in logic.
Making it clear and understandable, on the other hand, would prevent the majority of the world from misinterpreting it.
That's not necessarily true. I work in Law Enforcement, and I can tell you that a lot of my job is reading stuff for people. I can tell you that countless ignorant people will, day after day, misinterpret clear and understandable information. Common sense is not common.
And it's not that it isn't clear and understandable, it's that one has to work on finding that clarity. One has to study it and put it into practice in order for it to be understandable.
Again I must quesiton the motives of the divine author. It's not as if the Bible is obviously complex - something that can't be understood without the "notes". It really seems rather simplistic. But even if it were - sure, there are many math books I don't really understand on their own (or at all). But I don't need to look at my notes or understand the subject completely to find errors - that's much easier. But the Bible, on its own, seems very clear and understandable. It is not obvious that one needs some further reference to make sense of it or that any hidden meaning exists. In that way it seems to achieve the opposite of what you say is its "purpose" - as it lends itself to the (wrong) interpretation rather than just being difficult to understand.
I understand how you could reach that conclusion. And as much as I hate claiming that translation has to do with how you are interpreting it, I have to say that here. If you read the Bible in Hebrew, it really makes no sense. If you want, there is a commentary called Rashi. Rashi is a Torah commentator from about 1300-2000 years ago (I don't know specifically when he lived, I could find out but I'm being lazy). Rashi goes through the Tanakh from the first page to the last page and identifies all the problems in the original Hebrew.
I mean, the very first sentence of the Torah isn't completely understandable. If you read the Torah in Hebrew, it is obvious that a lot is missing.
Comes the translator and says "Well, I can't translate it like this. " and then translators will attempt to translate out the problems.
If you read the Torah, it becomes clear that much is missing because the Torah will often tell the reader to refer to information that is found no where else in the Torah.
This link contains some examples.
Infallible would be something that could be safely relied upon to be true (especially as regards to questions of a moral nature). I have never met anyone who believes in the god of the Bible claim otherwise. For instance - if god says that slavery is permissable and even condones and encourages it, then it must be the case that slavery is not morally disputable. If the book says, 2+2=4, that must be the case - no matter what the explanation is and regardless of whether or not we understand it. That is infallibility - this is the notion that allows you to claim the book as moral authority and as a justification for your actions and beliefs.
In that sense, I do believe it is infallible.
Apostasy is not a sin and it is not a crime. Stoning is not an appropriate punisment for any crime.
Whether or not apostasy is a sin is not really up for you to decide. It is a crime in a society that decides to live by the laws of God. Pure and simple. A person can either leave the society and be an apostate (which people are completely free to do) or they can stay in the society and purposefully rebel against the system of people who want to live by God's laws.
No, look - it doesn't make any difference to me how sure you are of one's sin - it's the sin itself that I'm disputing. I don't care if there was not even one case in which someone had been convicted of a sin and then stoned to death. But what's clear to me is that that doesn't happen inspite of what god deems as an appropriate punishment, not because god deems it impermissible or immoral - as I do.
And I'm pretty sure you would find it impremissable and immoral as well for someone like me or another member of RF to be killed for having different beliefs - and knowing full well what the Bible says about the subject, not to mention being informed by numerous members about this fact. But I could be wrong.
I think you're misunderstanding the nature of killing someone for apostasy. All you see is person A being stoned for his apostasy.
How did person A come to be stoned?
1. He committed apostasy.
2. He was warned by two upright witnesses that his behavior is wrong and he committed it anyways. (Now, after being warned, he could have left, he could have gone to another country that shares his apostasy, he could have went home and had his beliefs in private, etc etc).
3. Those witnesses report him.
4. He is tried and convicted.
5. He is stoned.
In essence, what is the Torah saying we can execute people for? Can we execute people for apostasy? (Or for breaking any Torah law?)
No, we cannot.
Every execution that might or would take place as a result of transgression of a Torah law is an execution of a person that purposefully rebels against the Torah system in a Torah society.
I agree with you that it is immoral to execute someone for having different beliefs. The Torah does not teach that. The Torah teaches that we execute someone who rebels
purposefully against the social structure of Torah while in a Torah society
after being warned of the consequences of doing so.
I fail to see how that is immoral.
"Best means" - what's that? What does that mean in the context of an all-powerful god, a god without restrictions?
The means that produce the result He desires. In essence, He considers the outcome, considers how to get there, and obviously He believes that this means of getting there is the best way to do it. Otherwise He would have chosen something else. This system that He set up, accomplishes what He wants. Hence, we have this system.
But not in "which situations" one should obey a particular law, but which law should be obeyed - what kind of a law should be obeyed and what kind should be objected to - the kind which is completely unresonable - like owning slaves or running over motorists. Yet you claim that does not matter.
That is a discussion that should be had when the law is being created. Once the law is in effect it is too late to consider that the law is unreasonable. One should obey the law at that point. (And when I say this I refer to God's law which, if God really did design it, would be perfect).
Well, of course - you could not consider it a "moral situation" unless it was addressed.
Is there a problem with that?
Judging - yes, proving - no. We are not trying to establish guilt in that sense - of "proof beyond a resonable doubt". That is besides the point in establishing the nature of an action in a hypothetical situation. Whether or not it could be demonstrated with any degree of cerainty is not what we're after here.
The nature of the action, as in whether or not it is immoral, is a matter of judging it. When courts prosecute people, they set out to judge the nature of the person's action as either legal or illegal. To try and judge the nature of an action in a way that a court would not is not judging the nature of an action. It's speculation of fantasy.
How can you establish the nature of an action in a hypothetical situation without judging the action? You can't, unless the judgment is pre-determined.
Well, it's nothing to do with feelings of guilt. I mean that I would hold myself objectively responsible for murder. And the question is not what you would cosider me to be, the question is what you would consider yourself to be, if your were in that situation.
I would consider both you and myself as reckless. Neither of us would be murderers because we did not commit murder.
Yet you claim it with certainty. That's the most nonsensical thing I think I've ever heard. If you can't even tell if god exists, how the hell can you say anything at all about anything regarding god? That's a real fancy red harring, I'd say. Sure, he's the source of morality, he's the divine inspiration behind this book, he's the creator of the universe, yet - I can't really say it exists. That's just mind-bogglingly self-contradictory.
We can't describe Him as existing. But we can acknowledge that there is a force that we identify as God who has done things in a way that leads us to believe certain things about His nature.
Also, I did mispeak in that we are unable to describe God insofar as God does not reveal Himself to us. If God makes Himself understood, then obviously we could understand Him in that situation.
He does and intends good things for us? Who is "us"?
Humanity.
