Because the bible tells you so?

[Comprehend]

Theists have no corner of morality, which comes from within, not without.

*whispers*

BTW - Regarding your quote, bertrand Russell should have read LDS scriptures. Ours praise intelligence quite frequently.

ok, on with the discussion...

 

[sojourner]

The Bible says many contradictory things. It says that you should love your neighbour, but it also says an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. You can make your own morality from it, be it good or bad.

And people have done that. The "eye for an eye" clause was originally meant to be mitigatory. What it means in today's lingo is: "Let the punishment fit the crime." People were being killed for what we would consider to be minor offenses. "Let the punishment fit the crime" mitigates this excessive punishment.

Jesus takes the mitigation even further. When citing that law, he says, "You have heard it said, 'an eye for an eye.' But I tell you to love your enemies and to pray for those who persecute you."

There is no contradiction present here. There is a slight reversal, but the general thrust is to admonish us to do what it hospitable and loving.

It is our own hermeneutical problem that is to blame -- not the Bible.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

And how did it originally become a matter of law? Because people believed it to be true.

I believe it was given by God to Moses on Mt. Sinai. It's part of the Mosaic law.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I am not sure if you can explain the Bible to those who read it and don't believe in it. They understand the words, anyone who reads a bible must have a degree of intelligence. They just don't see it the same way a person who does believe in it will.

I might go so far as to say that without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and a spiritual view, the Bible is almost incomprehensible.

 

[Ever learning]

Silly. An eye for an eye is a matter of law. Love thy neighbor pertains to people in need. Again, incomplete understanding.

Love thy neighbor only pertains to people in need?

 

[sojourner]

Love thy neighbor only pertains to people in need?

All people are in need of love, are they not? Isn't that the point Jesus was pushing in the good Samaritan pericope? The lawyer tried to narrow the field of love by asking, "Who is my neighbor?" Jesus had to broaden that field by including those who were not "lovable" -- all of humanity.

 

[Ever learning]

All people are in need of love, are they not? Isn't that the point Jesus was pushing in the good Samaritan pericope? The lawyer tried to narrow the field of love by asking, "Who is my neighbor?" Jesus had to broaden that field by including those who were not "lovable" -- all of humanity.

Thank´s for the clarification.
I dont know if all people are in need of love though. I can honestly say though that there are people I do not feel love for.( I do not hate them)

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Love thy neighbor only pertains to people in need?

When Jesus was asked to explain who one's neigbor was in relation to loving their neighbor He gave the parable of the Good Samaritan. Do you have futher scripture to clarify the point?

 

[Bathsheba]

I dont know if all people are in need of love though.

Do I need to start singing a Beatles song to you - d'oh! :areyoucra

There's nothing you can do that can't be done
Nothing you can sing that can't be sung
Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game
It's easy

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

We have inherited morals as an evolutionary trait.

 

[MoonWater]

I might go so far as to say that without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and a spiritual view, the Bible is almost incomprehensible.

So we need the holy spirit to understand scripture but is it not also true that it was scripture that taught people about the holy spirit to begin with? Many people who don't understand or don't follow scripture also don't believe in the holy spirit. Are you saying it would be impossible for them to ever understand scripture because of this?

 

[sojourner]

One's belief or unbelief has no bearing upon either the reality or efficacy of the Holy Spirit. The Christian POV is that the Holy Spirit wan not introduced by scripture, but by God. To understand scripture within the theological framework in which they were written requires the help of the Holy Spirit.

 

[doppelganger]

I might go so far as to say that without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and a spiritual view, the Bible is almost incomprehensible.

Do I have the "indwelling of the Holy Spirit"? Because I find the Bible pretty comprehensible. Or do you mean by "incomprehensible" that people won't interpret its contents the way you think they should?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Ah jeez

 

[doppelganger]

Ah jeez

What's troubling you? Need a shoulder to cry on?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What's troubling you? Need a shoulder to cry on?

Yep.

That statement by Sandy reminded me of a time in seminary where a very prominent scholar suggested that most of his colleauges were demon-possessed and therefore produced interpretations that were contrary to his.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'll self-actualize my own shoulder, thank you.

 

[rojse]

I am not sure if you can explain the Bible to those who read it and don't believe in it. They understand the words, anyone who reads a bible must have a degree of intelligence. They just don't see it the same way a person who does believe in it will.

In a simplistic way I can use Harry Potter. When I read Harry Potter, I am reading a modern fairy tale. Some people understand it like it is the Occult. While a third person, who believes in magic (usually a child) will see it as something that can happen. It is a point of view. Everyone sees everything from a different point of view.

Seeing things from a different point of view is alright when reading a fictional novel, in fact, some novels are designed for personal interpretation. But it is not alright that people can have their own interpretation of the most important religious book in the world, (the Bible) which has the biggest religion in the world based on it (Christianity).

And the problem is not that people do not believe it, they do. They just believe in it a different way to you. What is worse is that their interpretation is just as good as anyone else's, no matter what credentials that other reader has, or what assertations anyone else makes.

 

[Darkness]

This view comes from an incomplete understanding of scripture.

Which effectively translates to "I am right, and you are wrong, because I said so."

God has a body:
And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

God is a Spirit:
"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."

 

[Comprehend]

What about those of us who claim our source of morality is God?

Logdog?

Any response?