The bible is a poor source for moral guidance

[rusra02]

If jesus readily accepted being tortured and killed, why did he ask "father, why have you forsaken me" in his final words before death ?

So god required HIS own death as ransom to end the condemnation HE imposed on all future generations of humanity because two people, in the beginning displeased him. That sounds both unnecessarily dramatic and bloody. Couldn't God have just snapped his fingers to lift his curse ? But it is also unfair to punish future generations of mankind and to kill jesus for the "sins" of two people. Once again, the bible teaches the innocent are to be punished for the acts of the guilty. That is not moral.

I appreciate your sense of justice and morality. I think it's important to remember that our sense of what is just came from our Creator. The Bible says of the true God; "It is unthinkable for the true God to act wickedly, For the Almighty to do wrong! " (Job 34:10) I think it is also true that "my thoughts are not your thoughts, And your ways are not my ways,” declares Jehovah. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So my ways are higher than your ways And my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:8,9) Rather than find fault with God, a wiser course may be to learn why Jehovah provided the ransom, and why it was really the only way to save mankind while maintaining God's standards of righteousness and justice.

 

[atpollard]

So, if you think you have something to contribute to the discussion beyond "you are wrong and bad", please do.

Show me where the points I make are not valid.

To what end?
You haven't really listened to what others before me have said, why should I expect an honest conversation?

(I have responded to other posts more directly ... and they have raised legitimate points of disagreement in return.
I come for dialog rather than just shouting past one another.)

However, I have some time to waste, so here goes ... from your post #1.

According to Christianity, there is only one god, he is perfect, and bible morality is absolute. In fact, it is literally carved in stone. The problem with this is that we have one god setting out laws in the Old Testament for one group of people in one time, yet the same god setting out a different set of laws in the New Testament for a different people in a different time.

Which is true and correct ? It seems gods laws are relative, and change with the times.

God says "thou shalt not kill", yet he sets out to kill men, women, children, unborn babies, and even animals. Also, he commands us to kill our family if they worship other gods. Well, ? What is it ? Is killing bad or is it sometimes justified ? Is killing's sinful nature absolute or does it depend on the circumstances ?

According to genesis, the entire world was populated by just one man and one woman. How could that possibly happen without some serious incest going on and "god only knows" what other sexual situations must have happened.

A casual read of the bible leaves one with the impression that god has no problem with polygamy or slavery. Neither made his top ten list of thou shalt not's.

In the bible, god resorts to murder, rape, and eternal torture to punish those who have displeased him for various reasons. In the 2 Samuel story, god has a woman raped in public to punish her husband who has angered him. Is it moral to punish someone for the actions of another person ?

Likewise, The Adam and Eve story tells us that all future generations who did not commit the original "sin" must be punished for the "sin" of two people from the distant past. Is that just ?

On the other hand, the Jesus story tells us that the sins of the guilty may be absolved by punishing the innocent. So the message is, "you are guilty of a sin ?, no problem, we will punish someone else and that will take care of it". Are these really the lessons of morality to teach our children?

The fact is, there is more moral relativism in the bible than in secular society.

So, what morality does the bible provide that cannot be achieved without it ?

You reference "and bible morality is absolute. In fact, it is literally carved in stone."
Taking that at face value, which of the 'carved in stone' moral absolutes are contradicted by later moral teachings in the OT or NT?

Where does worshiping other gods suddenly become acceptable to God?
Where does committing murder suddenly become acceptable to God?
Where does stealing suddenly become acceptable to God?
Where does lying suddenly become acceptable to God?

You then follow up with two false statements:
1. "The problem with this is that we have one god setting out laws in the Old Testament for one group of people in one time, yet the same god setting out a different set of laws in the New Testament for a different people in a different time."
2."Which is true and correct ? It seems gods laws are relative, and change with the times."

As I asked, where do the Laws "literally carved in stone" change?
If they do not change, as I propose, then everything you build upon this unproven foundation is a straw-man.
How can I really discuss whether or not God meant something that he never said?

Is that on topic enough for you?

I actually made this point before ...

Actually reading it might clear up most of the confusion.
OT Exo 20:3 “You shall have no other gods before me."
OT Deut 6:5 "Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength."
NT Mark 12:30 "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’"

OT Exo 20:13-17 "“You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”
NT Mark 12:31 "The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

[sarcasm] I guess that there is no way to reconcile those OT laws with the NT commands. [/sarcasm]

... but you didn't care to respond then either.

 

[atpollard]

Unless finding the easiest way to accomplish the goal was not God's highest priority.
A fence around the tree would have been easier.
A guard dog to chase away the serpent would have been easier.

What if the most important thing, to God, was something else ... like His Glory.
How does Jesus help God's Glory?
Ask Him (I am not the keeper of God's motives.)

But, do you really think God is that petty? I mean, why would he care about his own "glory?"

I just find it hard to believe that God would care about his own Glory. Wouldn't he be more interested with our own well-being more so than his?

Why does a painter paint?
Why does a poet write?
Why does a composer create music?

Creation in men fills some inner drive ... some inner joy and pleasure.

Q. Why was man created?
A. For his good and God's Glory.
(from some catechism I read once)

I REALLY cannot answer for God's motives with anything beyond a 'wild *** guess', but as a WAG ...
Creating man somehow makes God happy.
Saving man from himself somehow makes God happy.
"Showing up and showing off" as my Pentecostal friends like to say, somehow makes God happy.

Revealing to all of his creation, that God is more than just Holy and Just, that God is capable of offering sacrificial Love on an unimaginable scale, reveals the Glory of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit ... creating in many of his creations a sense of wonder, awe and appreciation beyond that of a God who was merely Holy and Just. It makes some of us want to strive even harder to obtain just a little of his character. To be a little more Holy. To Love a little more 'agape' and a little less selfishly.
Somehow, that seems to matter to God enough that he was willing to set aside his Glory, 'git-er-done', and return to an even greater Glory. The firstborn of many, leading a trail of captives made free behind him.

So that's my best WAG.
If you want better than a WAG, ask Him, not me ... that's all that I have to offer.
It really doesn't seem so 'petty' from my perspective ... it actually seems kind of awesome.
YMMV

 

[Stevicus]

Murder today is killing that's against the law; such laws having been established by the governing body of a society. In ancient times murder wasn't so narrowly defined, but simply the killing of another person without justification or a valid excuse. Of course this is far more subjective, leaving the justification or excuse open to question: therefore, it might not be accepted by everyone.

I suppose I was thinking of it more in terms of the context of the OP and whether the Bible can be seen as a true source of moral guidance. The distinction was made that the Commandment in question does not say "Thou shalt not kill" but "Thou shalt not murder." This would imply that, as a moral consideration based on the teachings of the Bible, some forms of killing are okay, as long as they're not "unlawful" killings (aka "murder"). So, if someone kills another human being in service to the State, they could say they were just following the law (or "just following orders"). That's a pretty gaping yet convenient loophole and would call into question the moral authority of the Bible. Even the Bible itself seems to be deferring to whatever temporary secular definition of "murder" happens to exist at any given time and place.

 

[leibowde84]

Why does a painter paint?
Why does a poet write?
Why does a composer create music?

Creation in men fills some inner drive ... some inner joy and pleasure.

Q. Why was man created?
A. For his good and God's Glory.
(from some catechism I read once)

I REALLY cannot answer for God's motives with anything beyond a 'wild *** guess', but as a WAG ...
Creating man somehow makes God happy.
Saving man from himself somehow makes God happy.
"Showing up and showing off" as my Pentecostal friends like to say, somehow makes God happy.

Revealing to all of his creation, that God is more than just Holy and Just, that God is capable of offering sacrificial Love on an unimaginable scale, reveals the Glory of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit ... creating in many of his creations a sense of wonder, awe and appreciation beyond that of a God who was merely Holy and Just. It makes some of us want to strive even harder to obtain just a little of his character. To be a little more Holy. To Love a little more 'agape' and a little less selfishly.
Somehow, that seems to matter to God enough that he was willing to set aside his Glory, 'git-er-done', and return to an even greater Glory. The firstborn of many, leading a trail of captives made free behind him.

So that's my best WAG.
If you want better than a WAG, ask Him, not me ... that's all that I have to offer.
It really doesn't seem so 'petty' from my perspective ... it actually seems kind of awesome.
YMMV

All of this could be explained by the commonly understood principle that "giving is better than recieving." That's what I don't get though. I cannot imagine that God would not understand this, and would need us to give him something for his Glory to be fulfilled. His Glory does not rest on our grattitude, it rests on what we do with the lives we were given ... what we do to make THIS WORLD a better place.

 

[Hawkins]

So, what morality does the bible provide that cannot be achieved without it ?

You mistakenly recognize history as moral code. History is history while moral code is reflected in the contexts of God's Law. To put it another way, Law is for humans to obey to establish a moral standard. God on the other hand doesn't bear the same responsibility as man does.

God's sole responsibility on earth with a priority is to save souls, not bodies. As only God knows the future to tell in the end who is the saved and who's not. He can decide to eradicate whatever human branches (God knows that they belong to hell) in order to give way for more human souls to be saved. God gave command to kill those who choose to be against Israel, such that the Jews can survive their cruel enemies around for God's salvation to be brought forward to save later (including today's humans) humans. To put it another way, if God didn't make such a decision, the Jews might have the been the first to be wiped out by the already dead Canaanites, which would have put God's salvation plan to an end. No humans, including today's humans, can thus be saved.

 

[leibowde84]

You mistakenly recognize history as moral code. History is history while moral code is reflected in the contexts of God's Law. To put it another way, Law is for humans to obey to establish a moral standard. God on the other hand doesn't bear the same responsibility as man does.

God's sole responsibility on earth with a priority is to save souls, not bodies. As only God knows the future to tell in the end who is the saved and who's not. He can decide to eradicate whatever human branches (God knows that they belong to hell) in order to give way for more human souls to be saved. God gave command to kill those who choose to be against Israel, such that the Jews can survive their cruel enemies around for God's salvation to be brought forward to save later (including today's humans) humans. To put it another way, if God didn't make such a decision, the Jews might have the been the first to be wiped out by the already dead Canaanites, which would have put God's salvation plan to an end. No humans, including today's humans, can thus be saved.

Wow ... that is one depressing opinion of the nature and purpose of God. Good thing no one is in a position more than any other person to claim knowledge of God's will.

 

[Hawkins]

Wow ... that is one depressing opinion of the nature and purpose of God. Good thing no one is in a position more than any other person to claim knowledge of God's will.

You wow is a statement without any argument. Present something you think the Bible is contradicted by what I said. You can't, can you!

 

[leibowde84]

You wow is a statement without any argument. Present something you think the Bible is contradicted by what I said. You can't, can you!

The Bible is not proof or evidence for anything. I think that the spirit of Jesus' teachings were pretty much accurately portrayed in the Gospels, but there is a lot that I feel is a misguided attempt at explaining God's will for us. Further, you are using circular logic. You cannot use the Bible to prove that things said in the Bible are accurate. It is using your claim as your argument.

All in all, I don't think it is ever a good idea to rely completely on the Bible to understand the will of God. But, you are welcome to do so for yourself. Just understand that not everyone gives the Bible much credence, so it is inappropriate as source of evidence, apart from, like you have shown, proving what the Bible says.

 

[atpollard]

All of this could be explained by the commonly understood principle that "giving is better than receiving." That's what I don't get though. I cannot imagine that God would not understand this, and would need us to give him something for his Glory to be fulfilled. His Glory does not rest on our gratitude, it rests on what we do with the lives we were given ... what we do to make THIS WORLD a better place.

God's glory is completely independent of us.
What we do in this world adds or subtracts from our glory, but doesn't really add or subtract anything from who and what God is.
I was told that God's Love for us is what compels his sacrifice for us.
His willingness to set aside his "I am all that and a bag of chips" character (in which he, unlike us, really IS 'all that and a bag of chips') and become a man and redeem what was lost ... reveals even more of his innate Glory.
God is not Great because of what He does; God does what he does because He IS Great.

Does that make any sense?

 

[Skwim]

I suppose I was thinking of it more in terms of the context of the OP and whether the Bible can be seen as a true source of moral guidance. The distinction was made that the Commandment in question does not say "Thou shalt not kill" but "Thou shalt not murder." This would imply that, as a moral consideration based on the teachings of the Bible, some forms of killing are okay, as long as they're not "unlawful" killings (aka "murder"). So, if someone kills another human being in service to the State, they could say they were just following the law (or "just following orders"). That's a pretty gaping yet convenient loophole and would call into question the moral authority of the Bible. Even the Bible itself seems to be deferring to whatever temporary secular definition of "murder" happens to exist at any given time and place.

Depends on which Bible you read. Some say "murder" others say "kill." The King James and Revised Standard Version say "kill," whereas the New Living Translation and Young's Literal Translation say "murder." But this has been the beauty of the Bible; one can shop around and find the version of a bible verse that best suits their needs. Don't like "kill" in the KJV? Then look for a bible that uses something else, such as "murder" or "slay" (Wycliffe Bible)

 

[leibowde84]

Depends on which Bible you read. Some say "murder" others say "kill." The King James and Revised Standard Version say "kill," whereas the New Living Translation and Young's Literal Translation say "murder." But this has been the beauty of the Bible; one can shop around and find the version of a bible verse that best suits their needs. Don't like "kill" in the KJV? Then look for a bible that uses something else like "murder" or "slay" (Wycliffe Bible)

That actually is a pretty striking distance, as "kill" and "murder" have very different meanings. One is can be justifiable under the law, and the other cannot be.

 

[Skwim]

That actually is a pretty striking distance, as "kill" and "murder" have very different meanings. One is can be justifiable under the law, and the other cannot be.

It sure is.

 

[Right lane]

I suppose I was thinking of it more in terms of the context of the OP and whether the Bible can be seen as a true source of moral guidance. The distinction was made that the Commandment in question does not say "Thou shalt not kill" but "Thou shalt not murder." This would imply that, as a moral consideration based on the teachings of the Bible, some forms of killing are okay, as long as they're not "unlawful" killings (aka "murder"). So, if someone kills another human being in service to the State, they could say they were just following the law (or "just following orders"). That's a pretty gaping yet convenient loophole and would call into question the moral authority of the Bible. Even the Bible itself seems to be deferring to whatever temporary secular definition of "murder" happens to exist at any given time and place.

Exactly ! Even the bible acknowledges that morals are not absolute, but instead, relative, depending on the circumstances associated with the act.

 

[Right lane]

To what end?
You haven't really listened to what others before me have said, why should I expect an honest conversation?

(I have responded to other posts more directly ... and they have raised legitimate points of disagreement in return.
I come for dialog rather than just shouting past one another.)

However, I have some time to waste, so here goes ... from your post #1.


You reference "and bible morality is absolute. In fact, it is literally carved in stone."
Taking that at face value, which of the 'carved in stone' moral absolutes are contradicted by later moral teachings in the OT or NT?

Where does worshiping other gods suddenly become acceptable to God?
Where does committing murder suddenly become acceptable to God?
Where does stealing suddenly become acceptable to God?
Where does lying suddenly become acceptable to God?

You then follow up with two false statements:
1. "The problem with this is that we have one god setting out laws in the Old Testament for one group of people in one time, yet the same god setting out a different set of laws in the New Testament for a different people in a different time."
2."Which is true and correct ? It seems gods laws are relative, and change with the times."

As I asked, where do the Laws "literally carved in stone" change?
If they do not change, as I propose, then everything you build upon this unproven foundation is a straw-man.
How can I really discuss whether or not God meant something that he never said?

Is that on topic enough for you?

I actually made this point before ...

... but you didn't care to respond then either.

If you don't see a contradiction in moral behavior here, there is no point in discussing this further;

Exodus 20:13American Standard Version (ASV)
13 Thou shalt not kill.

Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”

 

[leibowde84]

As I commented above, this view Seems to suggest it doesn't matter what the bible actually says. Instead, what matters is what I want it to mean. Then the words on the pages are not really the word of God, carved in stone, unwavering truths. Rather, They are as subjective and maliabe as there are people who read them and decide what they "really" mean...for them, ... to suit their personal needs.

You are putting words into his mouth on this one. I always get irritated with this misleading faulty logic, creating a straw man in that using reason and progress in societal moral understanding with good intentions is automatically somehow just changing the text "to suit their personal needs." If interpretation of scripture is done with pure intent, your statement is completely false. And without progress in scriptural interpretations, we are all doomed.

 

[atpollard]

If you don't see a contradiction in moral behavior here, there is no point in discussing this further;

Exodus 20:13American Standard Version (ASV)
13 Thou shalt not kill.

Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”

(ASV, DBY, KJV, RSV, WEB) Exo 20:13 "kill"
(ESV, HCSB, HNV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, YLT) Exo 20:13 "murder"

If we are going to impune the character of God and declare him an immoral monster, we may want a clearer example to hang our hat on.
On the off chance that you had not noticed the horse shaped smudge on the ground , there is a widely held opinion that "murder" and "kill" are not synonymous.

However, I do not want to seem excessively difficult, so I will concede that if one lives in a nation under the direct governance of a God and wishes to convert others to "false gods", the penalties SUCK.
However, within the context of Deuteronomy as official national law, Deut 20:13 is more like a capital offense law ... making it a government execution.

 

[Right lane]

You are putting words into his mouth on this one. I always get irritated with this misleading faulty logic, creating a straw man in that using reason and progress in societal moral understanding with good intentions is automatically somehow just changing the text "to suit their personal needs." If interpretation of scripture is done with pure intent, your statement is completely false. And without progress in scriptural interpretations, we are all doomed.

"without progress in scriptural interpretations, we are all doomed."

Why ? How so ?

 

[Right lane]

You are putting words into his mouth on this one. I always get irritated with this misleading faulty logic, creating a straw man in that using reason and progress in societal moral understanding with good intentions is automatically somehow just changing the text "to suit their personal needs." If interpretation of scripture is done with pure intent, your statement is completely false. And without progress in scriptural interpretations, we are all doomed.

It seems odd that a god would communicate his message in a way that is so equivocal that there are as many seemingly legitimate ways to interpret it as there are people. This is how we end up with over 35,000 sects of christianity alone. In this scenario, one can never be certain about which interpretation of gods word is real or false. Why would a god do that if he is able to make his presence and message known to everyone in a way that is as unequivocal as the rising of the sun ?

 

[leibowde84]

"without progress in scriptural interpretations, we are all doomed."

Why ? How so ?

Because, we would be left only with the interpretations of men thousands of years ago with far less understanding of the physical world we live in and our modern global community where isolation is not an option.