Bible Fails

[sojourner]

The Nazis were a result of economic repression and social turmoils Germanic people. And, yeah, the Volkswagen was a good idea with good intentions, but we don't praise the Nazis for those vehicles or the idea that transportation should be more readily available.
It's really not much different when we read the OT and read of the genocide, rape, slavery, infanticide, and so many other atrocities found therein. Sure, it's mostly Mesopotamian and Babylonian anyways, and times were very different then, but we have no problems calling someone like Vlad The Impaler cruel and wicked because of his methods despite the circumstances surrounding his life (childhood to grave) and the bullies and invaders he was fighting against. There are times when it's kill or be killed. However, the Bible takes it so far as to even slaughter livestock, scorth the earth, and rape, pillage and plunder. It reads very much like ISIS storming through Iraq and Syria.
And that's only the beginning of moral objections towards the Bible. The ancient Hebrews did live in a very different world, but anything that has a law commanding rebellious children be killed is just not suitable for morality, especially to the degree that people take it literally. There is a reason some of the Abrahamic teachings and traditions are considered dangerous by some, and that is because some of them, when followed through, do pose bodily and mortal threats to others.
The subjugation of women is another very problematic thing. Especially in Christianity and Islam. But, according to the Bible, the OT permits fathers to sell their daughters into slavery. But Christianity has an enforced code of misogyny that heavily revolves around Paul. And Islam tends to have some appalling relationships with women, especially when we look upon Conservative and further denominations (though technically Christianity also has the command of women being very covered and sexless).

I don’t think the Bible is very useful in a lot of respects as a moral guide, at least until we get to the NT. But, again, the Bible isn’t the be-all-end-all of the religion. We mainly derive our moral guidance from our relationships with each other — not from what we read in the texts. The texts are useful n that they teach us where we’ve been and how we’ve reacted to life’s traumas in the past, but that doesn’t mean that we still have to react in the same ways.

 

[halbhh]

That's only a belief and superstition. There is no evidence, and thus not suitable for things like social policy and relationships towards others because they probably have a different idea of what the after life is. And because no one can actually prove themselves right, we just have to go with not considering it for such things. We should assume that death is death when it comes to such things. And that is a savage justification for murder. They didn't really kill them because "death isn't really 'true death?" That is inexcusable.

Regardless, it's savage, brutal, and cruel. A different time and culture and so on, but that doesn't excuse things like rape and slavery in other times in cultures because we generally view them as bad today.

I can see we'd agree about "social policy" meaning things like education and law. Of course you addressed more than only social policy.

About whether a nation can fight a war, legitimately, it can be a deep question, for many.

Consider: in WWII, which the great majority of people (non believers as much or more) would agree was a rightful or just war, that America was right to fight....

....well, the fact is that American crews and bombers intentionally dropped carpet firebombs in vast numbers on German and Japanese cities to cause general fire....

...resulting in massive firestorms, just as intended, killing vast numbers of families, little children....

Babies. Infants. 3 yr olds. 6 yr olds.

Vast numbers.

Just fact.

The bombs worked as intended.

Was it right?

I think No. But, most people would say that was a just war.

Wouldn't they?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Wouldn't they?

They could say that, but it doesn't justify indiscriminate mass slaughtering.

 

[halbhh]

They could say that, but it doesn't justify indiscriminate mass slaughtering.

We agree perfectly there.

Of course, a problem atheists have talking about God is that they assume God doesn't exist as a basis for reasoning about something in the bible, and that is going to produce nonsense outcomes of that reasoning of course (see just below).

Example: if a person thinks death of this body is the final death, then it follows with easy, basic logic everyone has that God is a huge mass murderer, doing genocide not only to some places, but instead to all humans that have ever lived.

That's only the easy logical outcome of that assumption that death is final. Obvious even.

But of course, assuming that death of this body is final is precisely assuming God does not exist. By definition God is already that by which this body is only a superficial shell, and there is something after this body is dust.

So, it is only a circular reasoning (many do for a time, maybe everyone for a while) to say that God has done any (actual, real) genocide, ever, though every last person has died or will die.

But we definitely see in the scripture God at times wiping out a region ("all the world") or a city or little kingdom or having one wiped out, including in time even Israel largely (though for Israel each time a remnant is allowed to survive).

But...death is only a transition. To what is next, which we learn is perfect Justice tempered by Mercy. Which is what many people say is their ideal, actually.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

if a person thinks death of this body is the final death, then it follows with easy, basic logic everyone has that God is a huge mass murderer, doing genocide not only to some places, but instead to all humans that have ever lived.

Why would someone who doesn't believe in the afterlife or god think that?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But...death is only a transition. To what is next, which we learn is perfect Justice tempered by Mercy. Which is what many people say is their ideal, actually.

Again, we prove none of that so it is unsuitable for the basis of our dealings with each other and social policy.

 

[halbhh]

Again, we prove none of that so it is unsuitable for the basis of our dealings with each other and social policy.

Fortunately we have separation of church and state, or at least the establishment clause outcomes. It protects more than only atheists and various religions, but also protects Christianity too.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Fortunately we have separation of church and state, or at least the establishment clause outcomes. It protects more than only atheists and various religions, but also protects Christianity too.

It's such a shame that fundamentalists have became so set against it because Baptists especially supported it because it protected their beliefs.