The bible is a poor source for moral guidance

[atpollard]

I know there is some good in the bible, but that is only if you cherry pick, its either you believe in all the bible or you just believe in the parts that you yourself like to read, so in that, the bible isn't a good source.

Could you be specific?
What is a 'bad' part of the Bible that should be ignored?

I simply claim that I enjoy reading things like the creation story more than long lists of Geneologies (although the Prayer of Jabez is pretty cool to read and really dig into.)

 

[Unification]

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 ?

To the literal eye of historical lessons it is how one perceives it.

Now all that stuff going on in the OT is nothing but love and within a human. None is literal.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Resorting to personal insults ...

The fact that you misunderstand and misrepresent the text is not a personal insult. It's a fact.

 

[atpollard]

Once again bible morality is subjective. For a human, bad, for a "God", no problem. In a made up fantasy world, it may be ok for the innocent to be punished for the crimes of the guilty. But in the real world, people are held accountable for their own crimes, the way it should be.

As far as I know, you are not required to accept God's gift of grace ... I think that it has something to do with free will ... so you can go ahead and pay your own sin debt.

IIRC the wages of sin is death, so good luck with that.

On the other hand, I know many parents who would gladly give a kidney to save their child ...
Such morally subjective monsters ... somebody ought to put a stop to this!
END ORGAN DONATION TODAY!
Everyone deserves to die without any outside interference ... because Right Lane says so.

 

[Skwim]

No you don't.

That's quite an ego, believing you know what a complete stranger needs more than he does himself. But hey, stranger things have happened, like putting a man on the Moon, and the guy who swallowed his face.

You are agnostic.

Wow! And here I thought that would remain a mystery for all time. You're quite a Sherlock, atpollard. Give yourself a pat on the back . . . . .or something.

Proof is only required for belief ... and is usually personal and subjective.

And I bet you really believe this ridiculous hogwash, don't you. (No need to answer.)

Are you looking for an endless argument?

No, but a reasonable response would be nice for a change. So if you feel you're up to it, rest a bit and then it give it your best shot. And no need to worry, we grade on a curve here.

 

[Unification]

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 ?

Scripture is not a historical lesson or to be taken literally. The entire NT is the OT.

God doesn't kill "literal" men, women, children, unborn children, animals.

Genesis is the creation of the human, brain, and physical body that the conscious human resides in. Not the first literal man or woman, or the creation of the universe. Adam "knowing" his wife is not what you perceive it to mean.

Polygamy and slavery are also not what you perceive them to mean.

Murder, rape, and eternal torture are also not how one perceives them to mean.

You're thinking rationally and objectively, which is awesome, always the start of coming to truth...but how religions create their own trillions of definitions of God(s) and teach the scriptures shouldn't sway you to automatically exclude scripture or have you perceive God as any different. This would be doing the same thing the vanity of religions do...creating and defining who or what God is however they please. It's rather beyond beautiful, the deep hidden spiritual meaning of the scriptures. The bible is all true, just not literally.

 

[psychoslice]

Could you be specific?
What is a 'bad' part of the Bible that should be ignored?

I simply claim that I enjoy reading things like the creation story more than long lists of Geneologies (although the Prayer of Jabez is pretty cool to read and really dig into.)

There is too much to much bad stuff, why not just Google the bad parts of the bible yourself, honestly, I thought everyone would know some of the bad stuff ?.

 

[Tumah]

Neither is the constitution. It says in the constitution that a person has freedom to practice religion, yet for some reason Congress may declare war on Muslims following their religious obligation of jihad.
Why does America contradict itself like that???

 

[Bunyip]

Neither is the constitution. It says in the constitution that a person has freedom to practice religion, yet for some reason Congress may declare war on Muslims following their religious obligation of jihad.
Why does America contradict itself like that???

What made you think the US would ever wage war on Muslims? Indonesia for example is a US ally and the largest Muslim society on earth.

 

[Tumah]

What made you think the US would ever wage war on Muslims? Indonesia for example is a US ally and the largest Muslim society on earth.

I didn't mean on Muslims in general, I meant Muslims who follow their religious obligation for jihad. My mistake for being unclear.

 

[Bunyip]

I didn't mean on Muslims in general, I meant Muslims who follow their religious obligation for jihad. My mistake for being unclear.

So they may go to war against those who are at war with them?

 

[Tumah]

So they may go to war against those who are at war with them?

So you are saying, even though they are practicing their religion, there are exceptions to when the Constitutional right to practice religion applies?

 

[Right lane]

Scripture is not a historical lesson or to be taken literally. The entire NT is the OT.

God doesn't kill "literal" men, women, children, unborn children, animals.

Genesis is the creation of the human, brain, and physical body that the conscious human resides in. Not the first literal man or woman, or the creation of the universe. Adam "knowing" his wife is not what you perceive it to mean.

Polygamy and slavery are also not what you perceive them to mean.

Murder, rape, and eternal torture are also not how one perceives them to mean.

You're thinking rationally and objectively, which is awesome, always the start of coming to truth...but how religions create their own trillions of definitions of God(s) and teach the scriptures shouldn't sway you to automatically exclude scripture or have you perceive God as any different. This would be doing the same thing the vanity of religions do...creating and defining who or what God is however they please. It's rather beyond beautiful, the deep hidden spiritual meaning of the scriptures. The bible is all true, just not literally.

So, it doesn't matter what the bible actually says, what matters is what I want it to mean. Then the words on the pages are not really carved in stone unwavering truths. They are as subjective as there are people who read them and decide what they "really" mean.

 

[Right lane]

So they may go to war against those who are at war with them?

You don't get to break the law by claiming your religion compels you to.

 

[Right lane]

The fact that you misunderstand and misrepresent the text is not a personal insult. It's a fact.

The fact that you misunderstand and misrepresent the text is not a personal insult. It's a fact.

"A recommendation: you're in the Right lane. Drive slow until you learn the road."

A recommendation, when you are condescending toward people, don't expect a welcome reception.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

"A recommendation: you're in the Right lane. Drive slow until you learn the road."

A recommendation, when you are condescending toward people, don't expect a welcome reception.

Condescension is a reasonably accurate term, not toward you as a person but, rather, toward the naive presumption that motivates you to instruct others on topics about which you display little or no understanding, much less competence.

 

[Right lane]

Condescension is a reasonably accurate term, not toward you as a person but, rather, toward the naive presumption that motivates you to instruct others on topics about which you display little or no understanding, much less competence.

Now come the insults. So, your response to the points and questions I initially posed is that I am incompetent and don't know what I am talking about ? Sorry, that isn't very informative or enlightening regarding the subject matter.

 

[Right lane]

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 ?

I have not yet seen an answer to the question "what morality does the bible provide that cannot be achieved without it" ?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Scripture is not a historical lesson or to be taken literally. The entire NT is the OT.

God doesn't kill "literal" men, women, children, unborn children, animals.

Genesis is the creation of the human, brain, and physical body that the conscious human resides in. Not the first literal man or woman, or the creation of the universe. Adam "knowing" his wife is not what you perceive it to mean.

Polygamy and slavery are also not what you perceive them to mean.

Murder, rape, and eternal torture are also not how one perceives them to mean.

You're thinking rationally and objectively, which is awesome, always the start of coming to truth...but how religions create their own trillions of definitions of God(s) and teach the scriptures shouldn't sway you to automatically exclude scripture or have you perceive God as any different. This would be doing the same thing the vanity of religions do...creating and defining who or what God is however they please. It's rather beyond beautiful, the deep hidden spiritual meaning of the scriptures. The bible is all true, just not literally.

Very interesting take. Can't say I've heard it before. I'd love to see you expound on it.

 

[Right lane]

Very interesting take. Can't say I've heard it before. I'd love to see you expound on it.

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.