Should we be disrespectful towards the Bible?

[Brickjectivity]

At work this week, I was telling a fellow dishwasher I'm not a Christian because the God of the Bible is "crazy psycho" in my opinion. This guy caught me off guard by getting a bit offended and defensive. This chap is the most disrespectful *Staff Edit* I have ever met, a real sore to work with because he is so negative. But he came to the Bible's defense, saying he "would never disrespect the Bible". Said his family was Christian/Catholic. I said "that's cool" and apologized if I offended him and we went on with our work.

First of all, this exchange between yourself and him should be forgotten as it is no big deal. Its just how men talk sometimes. I would avoid bringing it up, and if he tries to bring it up say its not a good idea to return to the subject. There's no point in either him or you getting angry when you work together, and it doesn't mean you can't discuss other things that aren't so irritating. I hope you both can just ignore it and not talk about it. Its just like washing a dish.

That was just a habitual, taught, reaction. You are taught to "respect" someone's religion. And I was a Christian for the longest time, I expected that people don't clown on me for my Christianity.

There are lots of religions I don't respect. I treat people with respect. Sometimes I avoid sensitive topics but not always. If its important then I don't. The really tough thing is that very often people don't listen to disagreement. Sometimes they also have a psychological barrier to listening to disagreement, and then its like....nothing you can do or say is going to change what they think.

 

[joe1776]

Their beliefs or their scripture?

I am a Jew. I have participated in weekly Torah study for many years and with many, many fellow Jews. I do not know of a single one who would think that you should be stoned. On the contrary, many of these fellow Jews belong to one of many, many LGBTQ+ friendly synagogues.

Your statement reflects an ignorance infused disrespect that manages to manifest itself as little more than crude bigotry.

Since the scripture, written so long ago, reflects the immoral attitudes of the writers who lived in ancient cultures, doesn't that lead to the conclusion that human morality has been trending upward? And, can't we also conclude that the upward trend was certainly not caused by the sacred texts written by men who claimed to be divinely-inspired?

How did your synagogue decide it should be LGBTQ+ friendly? I think you ignored scripture and instead listened to your intuitive conscience -- which some have called the Voice of God. But if you have another explanation I'd like to hear it.

 

[soulsurvivor]

I was telling a fellow dishwasher I'm not a Christian because the God of the Bible is "crazy psycho" in my opinion.

You should be more specific. The God of the New Testament is definitely not a 'crazy psycho'. In the NT, God is mostly a loving, forgiving, kind person. If you need to make such statements; you need to qualify it by saying God of the Old Testament.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Friendly amicus brief to homosexuals: When it comes to scripture I suggest you pick and choose your objections that you bring up. Homosexuals have one proven winning course to take, which they have already been doing successfully: "We're here." "We exist." "We didn't choose it." Simply knowing you exist and that sometimes people are homosexual that is enough to counter Paul's 'Unnatural' claim. Stay away from trying to argue that the bible supports a death penalty, because this is not at all clear. Also its distracting from the very potent problem that people don't believe homosexuals are real. Yes. They don't believe you are real, because Apostle Paul says you are unnatural.

You should focus upon countering Paul's claim about nature: a claim for which he makes no argument at all. I wish he was always right. It would be very convenient if he were, but he isn't. "We're here" is good enough, but of course its also good to argue that its natural. Since it plainly is. In USA you won't see anyone stoned or killed for homosexuality, however a homosexual will encounter many people who believe it to be unnatural. This often means existing as a tolerated but somewhat misunderstood person.

That 'Unnatural' claim underlies any other dangers, and since there is currently no death penalty its smart to work on the more dangerous and difficult claim; but this does put you into the position of questioning Paul. He is to many an authority. This belief in Paul is offended by the existence of natural homosexuality. It embarrasses him, but that's good. People shouldn't believe him blindly like they do.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Since the scripture, written so long ago, reflects the immoral attitudes of the writers who lived in ancient cultures, doesn't that lead to the conclusion that human morality has been trending upward?

In Preface to A critique of Political Economy, Marx wrote:

"It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but on the contrary their social existence determines their consciousness."​

Morality is a social construct. It is conceived in a society, gestated in a society, birthed in a society, and evolved in and by a society. Talk about "the immoral attitudes of the writers" borders is intellectually vapid at best.

As for your suggested "conclusion that human morality has been trending upward," I would substitute the observation of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.:

We shall overcome because the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.​

The questions of worth are those which investigate when, how, and why, religion has facilitated or obstructed this trajectory.

How did your synagogue decide it should be LGBTQ+ friendly? I think you ignored scripture and instead listened to your intuitive conscience -- which some have called the Voice of God.

We ignored nothing; mostly we listened. But, then again, the Reform Movement tends to view the Tanakh as being more inspired human endeavor than holy writ.

 

[MonkeyFire]

You should only disrespect the vesrses of torment, but not the parts about Adam and Eve, or the testimony of Jesus dying for our sins.

 

[joe1776]

In Preface to A critique of Political Economy, Marx wrote:

"It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but on the contrary their social existence determines their consciousness."​

I wrote of conscience (the intuitive ability to discern right from wrong) not consciousness.

Morality is a social construct. It is conceived in a society, gestated in a society, birthed in a society, and evolved in and by a society. Talk about "the immoral attitudes of the writers" borders is intellectually vapid at best.

We don't agree on this. If we learned right and wrong from our society, moral attitudes would not change. We would still have world-wide acceptance for slavery. The intuitive sense that we call conscience is the mechanism for change. It's moving human societies to make moral progress, like the abolition of slavery.

As for your suggested "conclusion that human morality has been trending upward," I would substitute the observation of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.:

We shall overcome because the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.​

Close enough.

The questions of worth are those which investigate when, how, and why, religion has facilitated or obstructed this trajectory.

As I see it, religion might have slowed the abolition of slavery somewhat but it was powerless to stop it. If my online source is accurate, the movement began to take hold about 1700. The Catholic Church didn't come on board until the 1960's.

We ignored nothing; mostly we listened. But, then again, the Reform Movement tends to view the Tanakh as being more inspired human endeavor than holy writ.

If you didn't ignore the scripture, you read it and rejected it. If your group views the Tanakh as morally superior to holy writ, how did that judgment come about if not for the intuitive moral sense that we call "conscience?"

"Humans are born with a hard-wired morality: a sense of good and evil is bred in the bone. I know this claim might sound outlandish, but it's supported now by research in several laboratories." Paul Bloom, Yale Psychologist

 

[1213]

- for believing that gay people should be killed.

So, you think evil people should live forever?

 

[Twilight Hue]

At work this week, I was telling a fellow dishwasher I'm not a Christian because the God of the Bible is "crazy psycho" in my opinion. This guy caught me off guard by getting a bit offended and defensive. This chap is the most disrespectful *Staff Edit* I have ever met, a real sore to work with because he is so negative. But he came to the Bible's defense, saying he "would never disrespect the Bible". Said his family was Christian/Catholic. I said "that's cool" and apologized if I offended him and we went on with our work.

That was just a habitual, taught, reaction. You are taught to "respect" someone's religion. And I was a Christian for the longest time, I expected that people don't clown on me for my Christianity.

But I thought about it later that day, how I apologized and stuff. *Staff Edit* And people believe it literally came from God Himself.

I am a gay man with a boyfriend. I have to keep the most important part of my life a secret from my family and the public in general because of the BIBLE. *Staff Edit* Leviticus 20:13 literally says I should be STONED to DEATH!

That's just one teensy eensy aspect of the Bible that is messed up. And people think we should "respect" it?

I have become determined to be unabashed in my distaste for Christianity and the Bible in my conversations. Screw that respect crap. Your book says I should be killed. At the very least, you think I'm wrong for being gay because of your holy book. *Staff Edit*

Next time Mr. *Staff Edit* is annoying me with his negativity I am going to bring him to town and disrespect the Bible hella. He hasn't read it. He respects it because his mama and pastor told him to? What a baby. Give me a break... I'm gonna clown on him so hard for being a Bible believer. Trust me, this chap has it coming, I hate working with him. Now I know how I can get to him hee hee.

What do you guys think about "respecting" other people's beliefs when their beliefs say you should be stoned to death? Isn't that asking a lot of me?

I'd just stay honest.

The Bible might means something to one person but means absolutely squat to another.

It's not disrespectful to give an honest take on things, and respect is givin in a measure that it is received.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, you think evil people should live forever?

Do you think that people live forever unless a Christian murders them?

 

[Kenny]

- for believing that gay people should be killed.

- for propagating a religion that teaches that gay people should be hated and killed.

Hmm… I don’t remember Jesus ever saying that. Is that your adaptation to “love your neighbor”?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hmm… I don’t remember Jesus ever saying that. Is that your adaptation to “love your neighbor”?

@1213 is the one advocating a religion that hates, and sometimes kills, gay people. I'm calling him out for its moral implications. If you want to call him out for being inauthentic to his religion's source material, you go right ahead... but take it up with him.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I once rested a mug of tea on a leather bound volume of Shakespeare belonging to my son; it left a slight mark, for which he still hasn’t completely forgiven me. That was quite disrespectful of me. I’d never place a mug on the text of an open page though; not to Shakespeare, nor the Bible, nor Keats or Shelley, nor Neil Gaiman.

 

[Soandso]

I’m curious… why do you talk about Christianity in relationship with the TaNaKh when the New Testament invalidated it? Christianity isn’t based on the Old Testament.

That's not true, though

Mat 5:17 - “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Jesus was a Jew who constantly referenced the tanakh. His teachings, while radical, were still very rooted in the old testament

Jesus said, “He who is without sin cast the first stone” - which means we are all in the same boat and the one who had every right to throw the stone… didn’t.

Eh... I want to initially respect the idea, but the problem I have personally with the quote is the inclusion of the concept of sin itself. We are talking about the breaking of God's law that he made, and "the wages of sin is death." It adds a whole other layer of baggage that detracts from the main point of the action, imo

It's god's law that Jesus is rebelling against. God himself has called for the stoning of people through Moses and the like many times in the past... So Jesus is saving this woman from himself, since he himself is god? Why the change of heart? Surely what she's done can't be any worse than the man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath and who god wanted to be stoned to death then

Why the act of "mercy" now but not in the past? Just kind of leaves a bad taste in my mouth

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

At work this week, I was telling a fellow dishwasher I'm not a Christian because the God of the Bible is "crazy psycho" in my opinion. This guy caught me off guard by getting a bit offended and defensive. This chap is the most disrespectful *Staff Edit* I have ever met, a real sore to work with because he is so negative. But he came to the Bible's defense, saying he "would never disrespect the Bible". Said his family was Christian/Catholic. I said "that's cool" and apologized if I offended him and we went on with our work.

That was just a habitual, taught, reaction. You are taught to "respect" someone's religion. And I was a Christian for the longest time, I expected that people don't clown on me for my Christianity.

But I thought about it later that day, how I apologized and stuff. *Staff Edit* And people believe it literally came from God Himself.

I am a gay man with a boyfriend. I have to keep the most important part of my life a secret from my family and the public in general because of the BIBLE. *Staff Edit* Leviticus 20:13 literally says I should be STONED to DEATH!

That's just one teensy eensy aspect of the Bible that is messed up. And people think we should "respect" it?

I have become determined to be unabashed in my distaste for Christianity and the Bible in my conversations. Screw that respect crap. Your book says I should be killed. At the very least, you think I'm wrong for being gay because of your holy book. *Staff Edit*

Next time Mr. *Staff Edit* is annoying me with his negativity I am going to bring him to town and disrespect the Bible hella. He hasn't read it. He respects it because his mama and pastor told him to? What a baby. Give me a break... I'm gonna clown on him so hard for being a Bible believer. Trust me, this chap has it coming, I hate working with him. Now I know how I can get to him hee hee.

What do you guys think about "respecting" other people's beliefs when their beliefs say you should be stoned to death? Isn't that asking a lot of me?

Is there some reason why anyone else should know how you feel about the Bible or religion? I mean if the didn't specifically ask.

Well, here we are on an internet forum whose purpose is (at least in large part) the discussion of all things religion. So I suppose that if someone has come to the forum, then they are -- at least tacitly -- asking.

Outside of the forum, in the real world, as it were, I refrain from any comments about religion unless I am specifically asked -- or being preached at. In general, my responses come down to not much more than "I don't believe in gods, any gods, thank you." If pressed, I may say more.

However, @an anarchist makes a fair point when it comes to people who throw Bible verses around with the intention of bullying or pressuring others, or inciting groups to take sides against one another (Christians against gays, for example). At those times, I am perfectly happy, and well within my rights, to go through the Bible lock, stock and barrel and point out all the cruelties, all the savagery, all the errors and stupidities contained therein. It's kind of like, "you get in my face, and I'm coming back at you with more than you can handle!"

The simple truth is that much of the "instruction" in the Bible about caning your children, homosexuality, mental illness and science is the result of the simple ignorance at the time about those things -- and need I point out that is the ignorant today is still quote those, not well-informed people. The simple fact that much of the OT, for example, is hell-bent on beating your children while the NT takes a kinder approach. And that contradiction in itself says that "the Bible" as a whole is not really such a good source of advice at all.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I once rested a mug of tea on a leather bound volume of Shakespeare belonging to my son; it left a slight mark, for which he still hasn’t completely forgiven me. That was quite disrespectful of me. I’d never place a mug on the text of an open page though; not to Shakespeare, nor the Bible, nor Keats or Shelley, nor Neil Gaiman.

Ooohh! I have a beautiful leather bound Globe Complete Works of Shakespeare from 1900. I'd never forgive you, either!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I once rested a mug of tea on a leather bound volume of Shakespeare belonging to my son; it left a slight mark, for which he still hasn’t completely forgiven me. That was quite disrespectful of me. I’d never place a mug on the text of an open page though; not to Shakespeare, nor the Bible, nor Keats or Shelley, nor Neil Gaiman.

That's definitely an interesting angle on respect for a book.

By the same token, it can be seen as disrespectful to a book to give it to someone who doesn't care about it or won't treat it properly.

... so is it disrespect for the Bible when missionary groups hand out Bibles to non-Christians as part of their proselytizing?

 

[Kenny]

@1213 is the one advocating a religion that hates, and sometimes kills, gay people. I'm calling him out for its moral implications. If you want to call him out for being inauthentic to his religion's source material, you go right ahead... but take it up with him.

I’d have to find that post and will be happy to address. Not sure how that makes your statement OK.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I’d have to find that post and will be happy to address.

Post 22 is the one where @1213 said that the Bible says that gay people should be killed.

Not sure how that makes your statement OK.

Which statement?

 

[Koldo]

I once rested a mug of tea on a leather bound volume of Shakespeare belonging to my son; it left a slight mark, for which he still hasn’t completely forgiven me. That was quite disrespectful of me. I’d never place a mug on the text of an open page though; not to Shakespeare, nor the Bible, nor Keats or Shelley, nor Neil Gaiman.

I find it quite odd when people respect books more than other people.