Morals, why does it seem that a lot of people don't care to follow them anymore?

[Venetia]

read the last paragraph. he's calling people who don't share his morals "seedy".

He also likened homes for unwed mothers to opium dens, putting them in the same category of substance.

Seriously???

And who is to say what sin is anyway? Why does it even matter what other people do, as long as they're not infringing on your rights? Why categorize people as "moral" or "immoral"? Why do they all think that it's their place to categorize anyone?

If they're truly Christian, I mean--going straight to basics, ignoring all the history and churches--wouldn't they leave the judgments of character fall on God? Wouldn't they accept their neighbor for who they are, and let God sort it out in the end?

Why are these concepts so difficult for some people?

 

[Stardust]

The answer to your question, Venetia, is that we sometimes believe we are gods.  We sometimes think we are infinitely right and that it is our job to create justice.  Without our justice, however, we would surely fall apart.  It is hard to balance control over your own life with control over everyone else's.

It's ironic, really.  The ones who rule Christianity say that God is to judge all people, yet they believed that they are God's hand, and that they had every right to act on behalf of God.  Christianity, by itself, is a good religion.  It's the people that have corrupted it that bother me the most.

 

[FlippyD]

read the last paragraph. he's calling people who don't share his morals "seedy".

He also likened homes for unwed mothers to opium dens, putting them in the same category of substance.

Seriously???

And who is to say what sin is anyway? Why does it even matter what other people do, as long as they're not infringing on your rights? Why categorize people as "moral" or "immoral"? Why do they all think that it's their place to categorize anyone?

If they're truly Christian, I mean--going straight to basics, ignoring all the history and churches--wouldn't they leave the judgments of character fall on God? Wouldn't they accept their neighbor for who they are, and let God sort it out in the end?

Why are these concepts so difficult for some people?

I think you're confusing the first paragraph with the last two. The first one is from the so-called southern baptist, and it's written in 3rd person (mew wrote "According to him.") The second paragraph is mew's beliefs, and is written in 1st person ("What I believe.") I agree that it was most likely not a southern baptist, it reads catholic as best I can say.

If you want to disagree with mew that's fine, and I can't think of many who'd disagree with you. But I think you're misunderstanding who said what, and that that's affecting your position. I don't know if mew is religious or not, but there are good christians who do not judge or care about running other people's lives.

And people want to feel like they're in control of their lives. That's why many people turn to religion anyway, it gives them assurance that things are under control. If something is askew in their lives they get antsy about it, and a lot of them see the actions of others in their periphery as a part of their (the religious person's) life, and thus must control it.

What I got out of the passage by the "southern baptist" is that a chaste life does not mean a celibate life, and that the excuse "I haven't had sex and that makes me more moral than other people" is a lie. In a way it supports your position actually. The reasoning is someone who has not sinned is not someone who wouldn't sin out of piousness, more often than not it's just someone who has not had the opportunity to "sin." Then you throw in the "what is sin" argument and you pretty much have a solid case of why morals are somewhat flawed.

However, I don't agree that the holiest of saints will always come from the darkest of places, but it's a compelling idea.

 

[___]

Morality, in the sense of absolute and infallible social strictures, doesn't exist. It's illusory. It's a control mechanism established by outmoded systems of authority that relied on guilt and fear of supernatural reprisal to keep society obedient and subservient to authority figures possessing absolute power. It stood in for proper law enforcement and military might for small transgressions, that while causing no distinct societal harm, were considered distasteful by the ruling elite. We have deal with vestiges of morality in our legal system today, but the foundation of modern law is not in arbitrary morals but rather in ethics, wherein a person must ask *why* something is wrong to do and come up with a satisfactory rational answer that does not involve the arbitrary dictates of supposed supernatural entities.

Morals are now a matter of personal choice according to ones own philosophical or spiritual beliefs. If a person believes something is bad for his character, his personal development, or his spiritual well-being, he has every right to abstain from it; but according to modern ethical standards he does not have the right to force others to abstain unless he can show factual and perceivable harm resulting from that choice and convince a majority of his peers through the legislative process. This is not a bad thing, and it does not undermine society; in fact, it's the only way in which a pluralistic society can hope to survive. The alternative is a return to dark-age theocracies and religious persecution, the results of which are observable in every modern state that still practices it. Poverty, violence, extremism, civil unrest, and often genocide are the results of theocratic rule, not greater civil harmony. Western society was mired in theocracy for over a thousand years and during that time we weren't just stagnant; we actually reversed hundreds of years of social and technological advancements that didn't resurface until the renaissance. Millions and millions of people suffered and died in poverty, starvation, torture and general misery during that period that would not have in earlier or later eras.

People have not lost their morality at all, they've individualized it. The hippies and other social revolutionaries in the 60s were not amoral people, they had simply adopted an alternative and highly personalized set of moral beliefs. They were distinctly spiritually opposed to and in favor of certain behaviors with the same fervor as any mainstream religious believer, and they behaved within the law of the land to the extent that their spiritual beliefs permitted, in the same fashion as any other believer. Far from being a group of hedonistic revelers with no moral compass, the hippies forced society to face many long-standing evils, from religious oppression to gender and race inequality that the religious institutions of the time, who claimed a monopoly on morality, had patently failed to address.

Like other spiritual believers, the hippies did get many things drastically wrong, proving the rule that no one set of moral beliefs is perfect or infallible. That in turn proves the fact that a multicultural society cannot hope to be governed by morality, but rather must settle for a common ground of rational, ethical laws that everyone can agree upon and agree to submit to in order to promote civil harmony. As individuals we can hold our opinions and beliefs and dislike the choices of others but we cannot be permitted to dictate the behaviors of others simply according to what offends us.

*edited for clarity (hah, not very well)

 

[rey meustrus]

I'm sorry about the list of substance.  Sometimes I try to be ironic, but it's usually subconsciously and fit in among something very serious, and when that happens I've slipped up.  I understand that homes for unwed mothers are a positive influence on society--it's the unwed mothers themselves who are the focus of the statement, pointing out that people had sex out of wedlock before we were made immoral by birth control pills.  And even in this context, I'm not trying to say precisely what I believe; I'm emulating an archetype of "moral" belief.

As for the person who wrote the article I was trying to paraphrase, I may have goofed up; there were articles on the same page written by southern baptists, and I may just have assumed his denomination based on context when he really didn't provide it.  But don't get me wrong--he was entirely of the opinion that our world has been ruined by immorality and that we must all renew our faith.  He just didn't quite believe that the majority of people really understood how to do that, just as I don't believe that the many people who talk about promiscuity and how they are so much better because they're virgins really understand the reasons they haven't had sex.  Like has been said before, they're probably virgins because they haven't had the chance that others have had.  It's not that they've resisted the pull, but that they haven't been pulled.

Ixis, I think you understand what I was trying to say perfectly.  Particularly this statement, which I feel summed up what I said better than anything I could have said:

What I got out of the passage by the "southern baptist" is that a chaste life does not mean a celibate life, and that the excuse "I haven't had sex and that makes me more moral than other people" is a lie. In a way it supports your position actually. The reasoning is someone who has not sinned is not someone who wouldn't sin out of piousness, more often than not it's just someone who has not had the opportunity to "sin." Then you throw in the "what is sin" argument and you pretty much have a solid case of why morals are somewhat flawed.

Mr. N, I read what you said, but since I wrote this post three posts ago I can't properly respond to it.  I agree mostly with what you said, though.

By the way...

If they're truly Christian, I mean--going straight to basics, ignoring all the history and churches--wouldn't they leave the judgments of character fall on God? Wouldn't they accept their neighbor for who they are, and let God sort it out in the end?

If all Christians believed that, there would be a lot less hatred in America.  It's a tough lesson to swallow, though.  One of those things that get taught to us by negative experience, which not everybody learns the importance of.

 

[Diaforetikos]

Quote from: ixis on August 14, 2008, 03:04:54 pm
What I got out of the passage by the "southern baptist" is that a chaste life does not mean a celibate life, and that the excuse "I haven't had sex and that makes me more moral than other people" is a lie. In a way it supports your position actually. The reasoning is someone who has not sinned is not someone who wouldn't sin out of piousness, more often than not it's just someone who has not had the opportunity to "sin." Then you throw in the "what is sin" argument and you pretty much have a solid case of why morals are somewhat flawed.

You gotta stop assuming the idea of "If I'm doing it, then they'll have to eventually do it." Like I said, I have had the chance, but I refused. I don't want to break my beliefs. I'm not saying I'm better than anyone and I'm not saying you are all sinners for it. Forget the what is sin argument. Just take the idea that its wrong, I'm not saying to literally believe the idea, just for this convo, say it is. I chose not to do it. I won't do it until marriage and if thats hard to believe, then I'm sorry that your mind is stuck on such a linear path.

Quote from: Venetia Macgyver on August 14, 2008, 12:05:39 pm
If they're truly Christian, I mean--going straight to basics, ignoring all the history and churches--wouldn't they leave the judgments of character fall on God? Wouldn't they accept their neighbor for who they are, and let God sort it out in the end?
If all Christians believed that, there would be a lot less hatred in America.  It's a tough lesson to swallow, though.  One of those things that get taught to us by negative experience, which not everybody learns the importance of.

Thats called strictly listening to the bible. Thats what my pastor promotes. Never judge, just follow the bible and learn to hear God's voice, simple yet hard to follow. I have more to say but I'm too tired. Haha.

 

[___]

Thats called strictly listening to the bible. Thats what my pastor promotes. Never judge, just follow the bible and learn to hear God's voice, simple yet hard to follow. I have more to say but I'm too tired. Haha.

Especially hard to do when different Bible believers can't even agree on major points about what the Bible says, who hears God's voice, what it sounds like, or how to interpret it. Every religious leader I've met to date first says "just follow the bible and do what God says" then proceeds to say "and this is what the Bible says and this is what God tells us". Charismatics can't agree with the rest of the Christian population (particularly Baptists) about whether modern Christians are entitled to supernatural powers like speaking in tongues and miraculous healing, evangelicals can't agree with anyone, including other evangelicals, about whether to hate Jews (Pat Robertson) or hate catholics (John Hagee), and nobody but the Roman Catholic Church can agree about whether the Pope is the special mouthpiece of God on earth. But they all declare that they've drawn the conclusions they've drawn based on strict Biblical reading and personal revelations from God, and therefore their beliefs are infallible and the only correct interpretation of God's Word.

The church my parents attend just hosted a revival where it was claimed that certain places on earth are spiritual "vortexes" (see hippie-ass new age mysticism) and that they can be cleansed of satanic power and then used as direct conduits for communication with God. After the "cleansing ritual" was completed apparently angels (which by all accounts sounded like fucked-with whale song) started singing and it was suggested that those who gave donations at that time would be triply blessed, and all this supposedly was founded directly in Biblical principles (especially the tri-fold blessing for people who give hucksters money during hoax angelic singing). This was, by the way, supposedly a Baptist church, so I don't know what you want to make of that.

My point though is that you can't possibly hope to determine an absolute set of moral laws based on this or any other religion.

 

[Diaforetikos]

Thats called strictly listening to the bible. Thats what my pastor promotes. Never judge, just follow the bible and learn to hear God's voice, simple yet hard to follow. I have more to say but I'm too tired. Haha.

Especially hard to do when different Bible believers can't even agree on major points about what the Bible says, who hears God's voice, what it sounds like, or how to interpret it. Every religious leader I've met to date first says "just follow the bible and do what God says" then proceeds to say "and this is what the Bible says and this is what God tells us". Charismatics can't agree with the rest of the Christian population (particularly Baptists) about whether modern Christians are entitled to supernatural powers like speaking in tongues and miraculous healing, evangelicals can't agree with anyone, including other evangelicals, about whether to hate Jews (Pat Robertson) or hate catholics (John Hagee), and nobody but the Roman Catholic Church can agree about whether the Pope is the special mouthpiece of God on earth. But they all declare that they've drawn the conclusions they've drawn based on strict Biblical reading and personal revelations from God, and therefore their beliefs are infallible and the only correct interpretation of God's Word.

The church my parents attend just hosted a revival where it was claimed that certain places on earth are spiritual "vortexes" (see hippie-ass new age mysticism) and that they can be cleansed of satanic power and then used as direct conduits for communication with God. After the "cleansing ritual" was completed apparently angels (which by all accounts sounded like fucked-with whale song) started singing and it was suggested that those who gave donations at that time would be triply blessed, and all this supposedly was founded directly in Biblical principles (especially the tri-fold blessing for people who give hucksters money during hoax angelic singing). This was, by the way, supposedly a Baptist church, so I don't know what you want to make of that.

My point though is that you can't possibly hope to determine an absolute set of moral laws based on this or any other religion.

I am not baptist. I don't even know what a baptist church is like. I am non-denominational. I just follow the bible word for word. I'll even look up the original greek and latin roots of the bible and translate them myself. I don't care if you can't take the bible in context. I do. People say there are too many deep meanings in the bible to take into context, but I do. Even the parables can be taken into context. Just read it. You can get morals out of it. Its just based on if your strong enough to let yourself be led another person.

 

[___]

What is biblical context? Can one be objective about it? Does context include understanding of historical facts and the needs and nature of the people it was written by and for? If so, do social contexts that existed during its writing that do not exist today imply that the parts of the bible relative to those contexts are no longer applicable (for a polite example, see Deuteronomy 22:5 - "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God." Is a woman wearing pants or boxer shorts an abomination?).

Are you a revelationist, that is, do you believe that the Bible can only be properly understood with supernatural assistance from the Holy Spirit? Do you believe in the doctrine that the entirety of the Bible is divinely inspired and thus infallable, or do you believe it's a human account written by men and subject to error and interpretation?

What makes your personal version of what the Bible says correct when there is no doubt someone who professes to share your religion out there who disagrees with you on any given specific?

I'm not saying there's nothing good in the book, there's a huge variety of great advice, and a great bit of history and poetry in there as reliable as any other ancient text. That's not a good enough standard for establishing moral law, though; the same could be said of, for instance, Gilgamesh, or the Vedas, or Confucian philosophy. They all contain a mix of positive and horribly reprehensible doctrines, fantastic stories, insightful parables, and divine commandments, and they're all verifiably of ancient origin. But what gives your favorite a special place in the world, or an objective moral standard?

 

[Diaforetikos]

What is biblical context? Can one be objective about it? Does context include understanding of historical facts and the needs and nature of the people it was written by and for? If so, do social contexts that existed during its writing that do not exist today imply that the parts of the bible relative to those contexts are no longer applicable (for a polite example, see Deuteronomy 22:5 - "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God." Is a woman wearing pants or boxer shorts an abomination?).

Are you a revelationist, that is, do you believe that the Bible can only be properly understood with supernatural assistance from the Holy Spirit? Do you believe in the doctrine that the entirety of the Bible is divinely inspired and thus infallable, or do you believe it's a human account written by men and subject to error and interpretation?

What makes your personal version of what the Bible says correct when there is no doubt someone who professes to share your religion out there who disagrees with you on any given specific?

I'm not saying there's nothing good in the book, there's a huge variety of great advice, and a great bit of history and poetry in there as reliable as any other ancient text. That's not a good enough standard for establishing moral law, though; the same could be said of, for instance, Gilgamesh, or the Vedas, or Confucian philosophy. They all contain a mix of positive and horribly reprehensible doctrines, fantastic stories, insightful parables, and divine commandments, and they're all verifiably of ancient origin. But what gives your favorite a special place in the world, or an objective moral standard?

Because unlike other people, I don't twist the words. We can still follow everything in the bible. No matter what it says. Like Deuteronomy 22:5(Random, but pants aren't made just for men anymore, so it would be impossible to follow this. God never made a law against women wearing pants. Humans were the judge of that, not God.) You can follow the bible word for word. My interpretation isn't the absolute answer, but I've seen my pastor get attacked verbally by other pastors asking things and every answer my pastor had was from the bible. They got really mad. Why? Because his morals and beliefs came from a book that we can't trust because were not too sure if it was accurate.

The moral standards in which the bible teaches have nothing wrong with them. People who want to do what they want to do choose not to follow them because either they are too stubborn and too logic based to follow something like that. Or they have so much hate for it that they can't understand it and choose not too. I'm so serious about following it in context. This part is OT but if there is a God, I don't think he would let his own word be misinterpreted. Just my thought.

I'll get arguments left and right on how my morals are based on a book like that. But I've seen people base their morals on nothing and have worse outcomes. There isn't anything in the bible that leads you in a negative way. We only make it that way. If the bible isn't accurate, then our whole history is a lie. Abraham wasn't a great president. He was led secretly by a cloaked man never too be seen. That would be our history if we didn't believe it was accurate. We are putting faith in something that we don't know about. People base their morals on past experiences and off of things they were told by others. I rather take a chance on a book that doesn't lead me down a negative path than my own personal ideas. Don't get me wrong, I think for myself, but I also add, "what did the bible say about this?"

My morals aren't proven and perfect. They can't be followed by everyone and no one should be forced to follow them. I just think as a country we followed a certain moral, and we were respected for it. Now it seems like destruction, depression, and death are more prominent than before. I know the times have changed. There are things people don't want to listen to or follow. This is a free country and no one wants to be told what to do. I don't blame anyone for doing what they want. I can't set moral standards or create morals for people to follow. People will always ask, who put you in charge.

 

[FlippyD]

You gotta stop assuming the idea of "If I'm doing it, then they'll have to eventually do it." Like I said, I have had the chance, but I refused. I don't want to break my beliefs. I'm not saying I'm better than anyone and I'm not saying you are all sinners for it. Forget the what is sin argument. Just take the idea that its wrong, I'm not saying to literally believe the idea, just for this convo, say it is. I chose not to do it. I won't do it until marriage and if thats hard to believe, then I'm sorry that your mind is stuck on such a linear path.

I'm not assuming that idea, but I do believe it to be the case the vast majority of the time. You can't deny the fact that there are people out there who talk and act just as you, but eventually engage in premarital sex. And that, as a human being, I can see and understand someone not having sex simply because they have not had the chance, or are afraid.

Now you might've refused the chance based on belief or you might've refused it out of fear of sex, or fear of God, or a mix of both. I have no way of knowing except from what you've told me, and you can't expect me to believe you outright. Perhaps you have resisted the urge, but there are many others who didn't, and I go by a "you're guilty until proven innocent" way of looking at things sometimes.

My mind isn't stuck down a linear path, it's stuck down a path of logic. The sex drive is not unlike the drive for food, it even involves the same neuropeptides if I'm not mistaken. You can hunger for food and you can hunger for sex, and the devil, presumably, can tempt you with both. However, despite temptation or sin, the drive to engage in sex is a real and natural thing. I believe if one were to obey God in the fullest one wouldn't even think about having sex, not even when married (as it could be construed as lust and rape.) That is an impossibility, and there are many men out there who suffer through the thought of a women in an erotic fashion. I won't for a second believe you don't think about sex, and so it stands to reason that, under the right circumstances, you might sin. Because of this I can't believe anyone is truly pious in this regard until I have solid proof otherwise.

Don't take this as me accusing you of committing such an act, this is just to show you were I am coming from. So you understand it's not as easy as saying "well, all those other folks who committed this sin just weren't trying hard enough."

 

[___]

Because unlike other people, I don't twist the words. We can still follow everything in the bible. No matter what it says. Like Deuteronomy 22:5(Random, but pants aren't made just for men anymore, so it would be impossible to follow this. God never made a law against women wearing pants. Humans were the judge of that, not God.) You can follow the bible word for word. ...

...The moral standards in which the bible teaches have nothing wrong with them. People who want to do what they want to do choose not to follow them because either they are too stubborn

My overall point is not to attack your faith so much as to point out that inconsistencies in religious belief make it impossible for any given person to follow a religiously-based moral law, or for any religion to establish a moral law that is fair, consistent and rational. However since you bring it up, if you claim that there is nothing wrong with the moral standards the Bible and that they can be followed word for word, I challenge you with a few things I'll quote here in a bit...

[or] too logic based to follow something like that.

To say that a person who uses logic, which is a mental toolkit for discovering objective truth and nothing more, cannot be persuaded to follow a faith-based morality is actually proving my point for me. I find most people who are critical or fearful of logic have absolutely no formal acquaintance with logic. Logic is not about proving or denying faith, logic is simply a system for discerning between truth and falsity and most of it relies on picking apart common errors in human thinking. It's the foundation of ethics, as well. Logic cannot tell you whether or not God exists, nor does it attempt to; logic is not about proving negatives, it's about identifying false positives.

Or they have so much hate for it that they can't understand it and choose not too. I'm so serious about following it in context. This part is OT but if there is a God, I don't think he would let his own word be misinterpreted. Just my thought.

You contradict yourself here - you both claim that people who disagree with Biblical teaching hate the Bible (a false assumption, for instance I love the Bible and read it all the time, I daresay I'm more familiar with it than you are, I just don't think it's what it's made out to be by religious institutions) and thus are incapable of properly interpreting it, and then claim that God would not let His Word be misinterpreted. Either the Bible is open to misinterpretation or God exercises supernatural power to ensure that it won't be misinterpreted, you don't get it both ways. I assume you mean that people who believe in God are supernaturally enabled to interpret the Bible correctly (which answers my question about whether you're a revelationist: yes).

I'll get arguments left and right on how my morals are based on a book like that. But I've seen people base their morals on nothing and have worse outcomes.

People who base their morals on something other than the Bible do not base them on nothing. They base them on other religions, or on rational analysis, or gut instinct, or whatever they like and are as personally invested in them as you are in yours; they don't just pull them out of thin air.

There isn't anything in the bible that leads you in a negative way. We only make it that way.

Once again, very arguable. If there's nothing in the Bible that leads a person down a negative path how have so many people in history and in modern times gotten things so terribly wrong based on Biblical foundations? You argue that they interpreted the Bible wrong, of course. I argue that in a practical sense it's easy enough to interpret the Bible poorly, therefore it's possible to believe fervently that you are correct based on well-studied Biblical teaching and be incredibly wrong.

If the bible isn't accurate, then our whole history is a lie. Abraham wasn't a great president. He was led secretly by a cloaked man never too be seen. That would be our history if we didn't believe it was accurate.

You falsely assume that if something good came from a questionable precedent the good thing is invalid. The Greeks believed in an array of Gods I assume you would claim are false, but in their devotion and contemplation of those Gods paved the foundation for modern western society, from engineering and technology to architecture and philosophy. The fact that they discovered these things while in pursuit of favor from a bunch of imaginary beings doesn't lessen their impact on society.

And I could start a whole new thread about why Abraham Lincoln was a terrible president and a bad person but it's OT

My morals aren't proven and perfect. They can't be followed by everyone and no one should be forced to follow them. I just think as a country we followed a certain moral, and we were respected for it. Now it seems like destruction, depression, and death are more prominent than before. I know the times have changed. There are things people don't want to listen to or follow. This is a free country and no one wants to be told what to do. I don't blame anyone for doing what they want. I can't set moral standards or create morals for people to follow. People will always ask, who put you in charge.

Great point but it undermines your belief, and the "Golden Age" of America where we occupied some sort of moral high ground in the world is an utter and complete myth. Following the revolutionary war we were certainly the most free and ethical of all governments, before the rise of democracy that the founding fathers inspired, but we still practiced things that are morally reprehensible. America has been respected in the past for its freedom, its progress, its industriousness, its education, but never for its morality.

Now back to the word-for-word Bible, and I'm not going to give you easy ones:
For strict ethics:

Deuteronomy 22:
22:23  If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

In case you miss the context here (you can derive it from surrounding verses), the scene being described is one where a man rapes a woman in the city, but the woman does not cry out to get help, in which case both are to be put to death. Is it the woman's fault she was raped? Should we, in modern times, follow the Bible word for word (to a practical degree) and punish rapists and their victims equally if they could have theoretically found help?

On misogyny:

14:34  Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Should women be told to shut up in church? Is it shameful for them to speak? According to your word-for-word interpretation of the Bible, yes. Tell that to Joyce Myer (whom I'm sure can provide a good explanation as to how one follows the Bible literally and becomes a female minister, but that's beside the point). That's just my favorite among the misogynistic passages from Paul, he's pretty famous for this stuff. Many of his letters make disparaging remarks about women.

On contradictions, the Skeptic's Annotated Bible does a great job of pointing out some of the glaring inconsistencies in the Bible, which of course aren't a problem at all if, like me, you believe the Bible was written by a large variety of fallible men who made mistakes. If on the other hand you believe it's the infallable Word of God and that he exercises supernatural power to ensure that it's whole and correct, you have a bit of a problem. The rest of the SAB contains a variety of other objectionable Biblical references but many of them can be dispelled with a combination of Christian moral relativism and the fact that Christian morals differ from secular morals.

 

[FlippyD]

Fun times in Israel!

EDIT: N is right about following the Bible literally, because it's nuckin' futs in some places.

 

[___]

*laugh* Thanks for that link, this is hilarious

 

[Diaforetikos]

You made very valid points. I guess I am a revelationist. I believe that if God wanted his word to be heard, he can have it heard. May it be that the bible hasn't been misinterpreted. Hard for some to believe that it wasn't misinterpreted. I'm not saying it wasn't, but there is a possibility.

If the bible isn't accurate, then our whole history is a lie. Abraham wasn't a great president. He was led secretly by a cloaked man never too be seen. That would be our history if we didn't believe it was accurate.

By this, I didn't mean that since the bible has history in it, and its wrong, then everything is wrong. I meant that we can't trust our sources of information. Be it historians, theologists or whatever.

[or] too logic based to follow something like that.

I am open to logic, but I am also open to anything spiritual. Have you seen a man who you know that walked with a limp, but was healed in the church? I have. Some youth from my church went to a Christian conference. One of the youth prayed for a man whose foot was gone. Just a nub. He prayed for him and his foot literally grew back in his hand. My pastor said last year at that same conference, it literally rained inside the building. My pastor has no reason to lie to make anyone believe in God or anything spiritual. He doesn't promote "prayer clothes," or talks about how hes the only special one. So he has no reason to lie.

14:34  Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

You have to remember that he was writing to his friends. Women didn't have rights back then. I may be contradicting myself on this one, but I did anything to stop a women from preaching in the church, I would be kicked out. I have no hate for women in the church. If God didn't want them to preach, they wouldn't. In the bible it says listen to God's voice. My sheep hear my voice. If you read Acts 10:9-16. It talks about how things that God has made aren't unclean. Peter finds out that not only Hebrews can be saved, but everyone. It also states in the bible that every action that Jesus did was through the Holy Spirit. He didn't do anything unless he heard from the Holy Spirit. Romans 10:17 states that, "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. You are supposed to know God's voice. If you don't have his voice, then you follow the bible. If you have his voice, then you follow the voice over the bible.

Deuteronomy 22:
22:23  If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

John 8:3-11 To sum this one up, The pharisees placed a women at Jesus. She was caught committing adultery. The pharisees say according to the law of Moses, she should be stoned. Jesus wrote in the ground and said he who is without sin, let them cast the first stone. Then he wrote some more. People left one by one. The oldest people first. They all left. Jesus ask where are your accusers, does anyone condemn you. Shes says no. Jesus says neither do I, go and sin no more. First of all, Deuteronomy is Old Testament. I follow the bible. It states that the Old Testament is old law. I don't ignore the Old Testament, I just can't base my life off of it. I should have stated that earlier. Second of all, the law of Moses was given to him by God. But Jesus acts only if the Holy Spirit tells him to take action. So instead of letting her get stoned, Jesus is led by the Holy Spirit and prevents it. The Holy Spirit is God's voice.

Once again, very arguable. If there's nothing in the Bible that leads a person down a negative path how have so many people in history and in modern times gotten things so terribly wrong based on Biblical foundations? You argue that they interpreted the Bible wrong, of course. I argue that in a practical sense it's easy enough to interpret the Bible poorly, therefore it's possible to believe fervently that you are correct based on well-studied Biblical teaching and be incredibly wrong.

You be the judge. I am not your interpreter. You show me in the New Testament where it shows any guidance towards negativity. Then I'll come back to you.

People who want to do what they want to do choose not to follow them because either they are too stubborn and too logic based to follow something like that. Or they have so much hate for it that they can't understand it and choose not too.

These two lines are my mistake. Horrible word choice for this debate. You got me there.

 

[___]

By this, I didn't mean that since the bible has history in it, and its wrong, then everything is wrong. I meant that we can't trust our sources of information. Be it historians, theologists or whatever.

It's not hard to use the Bible as a source of historical information the same way you use other history books, if you don't add the additional onerous doctrine that it's all divinely inspired and infallible. If you leave that off, inconsistencies become simple clerical errors, difference of perspective, etc. If on the other hand you have to resolve them in a way that insists on divine infallibility every little error, conflict and oddity requires a crazy and circuitous solution or simple doublethink and denial.

I am open to logic, but I am also open to anything spiritual. Have you seen a man who you know that walked with a limp, but was healed in the church? I have. Some youth from my church went to a Christian conference. One of the youth prayed for a man whose foot was gone. Just a nub. He prayed for him and his foot literally grew back in his hand. My pastor said last year at that same conference, it literally rained inside the building. My pastor has no reason to lie to make anyone believe in God or anything spiritual. He doesn't promote "prayer clothes," or talks about how hes the only special one. So he has no reason to lie.

I have heard many stories like this, some almost identical (regrowing foot - did this happen to be an elderly black fellow?). Unfortunately I've also seen many, many of them revealed as hoaxes. People who want to believe in something or need their faith affirmed find it easy to overlook or simply not look for the signs that they are being conned - see my earlier anecdote about the "revival" here recently.
My wife attended so I have her first-hand account. Fortunately despite being faithful and religious she has a fair amount of skepticism and when she heard supposed angel song, followed by a request for donations, she didn't jump on the bandwagon like everyone else and start handing out our money. The sound emanated from the speakers and was clearly modified whalesong - she brought home a recording on a camera but it was too hard for me to make out over the noise of the crowd or I'd post it and link it for you. The claim that they "never ask for donations, but in the presence of angels it seems like 'a good time'" (paraphrased) was easily falsified by the fact that they had requested donations just the day before from a different crowd, where my brother in law attended.
The particularly faithful among my family refused to consider these points or examine the possibility that this huckster was anything but a miracle worker with a special gift from God; they wanted to believe so bad they were driven to anger by the suggestion that it was a con job. That's not to mention some of the things they were teaching, which clearly had no biblical or christian foundation and in fact were inspired by common New Age mysticism that I, as a skeptic with a penchant for mythology, am much more familiar with than the target audience. The sad fact is it's not difficult to do simple magic tricks and put on a show, and it's not hard to make people believe things they want to believe. If these guys were advertising as simple performers I'd have no problem with it.
The general rule is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Simple word of mouth and shady circumstances doesn't make a claim true just because you'd like it to be. If a miracle worker could reproduce his magic in a controlled environment with all circumstances accounted for he has a legitimate claim to fame, and we'd all be fascinated. Unsurprisingly, never in all of history has this ever happened, and faith healers, psychics, and other miracle workers are constantly revealed as hucksters. We'd all like to believe that supposed religious leaders have a higher moral standard than bigfoot hunters and UFO nuts, but con men like an easy crowd and there's none easier than one that's already dedicated to believing everything you have to say.

14:34  Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

You have to remember that he was writing to his friends. Women didn't have rights back then. I may be contradicting myself on this one, but I did anything to stop a women from preaching in the church, I would be kicked out. (...)

I figured this would be your response, and I have no argument with it; however it does go against the doctrine that everything in the Bible is infallible and divinely inspired. Was Paul simply writing a letter of opinion to his friends in Corinth providing his opinions about their church, or was he transcribing the infallible Word of God as spoken to him? If the former, how does one discern which portions of the Bible (besides actual quotes from the mouth of God or Jesus) are the Word of God and which parts are human accounts of ancient times, full of opinion and error? If the latter, one must accept that allowing women to speak in church is a Sin, since the text is the divine Word of God only being delivered through Paul's hands to the church in Corinth and thus God's commandment to the Corinthians.

John 8:3-11 To sum this one up, The pharisees placed a women at Jesus. She was caught committing adultery. The pharisees say according to the law of Moses, she should be stoned. Jesus wrote in the ground and said he who is without sin, let them cast the first stone. Then he wrote some more. People left one by one. The oldest people first. They all left. Jesus ask where are your accusers, does anyone condemn you. Shes says no. Jesus says neither do I, go and sin no more. First of all, Deuteronomy is Old Testament. I follow the bible. (...)

This is also a perfectly valid response, however it leads to a sort of doublethink in your common Christian where they get to pick and choose what old testament laws are valid based on church doctrine or personal preference. Many prominent religious figures teach that eating unclean foods is still a sin (I think this is a harp of John Hagee), others that homosexuality is still a sin (I mean, which ones don't?) even though both things fall under old testament law, which was supposedly fulfilled by Jesus and thus no longer subject to man's judgement (this theory is called "dispensationalism" and is popular in conservative protestant churches). Is eating pork a sin or a personal choice? Likewise, homosexuality. Who gets to choose which laws don't apply anymore and which ones do?

You be the judge. I am not your interpreter. You show me in the New Testament where it shows any guidance towards negativity. Then I'll come back to you.

I don't have a lot of specific complaints against the new testament personally because, frankly, I find the Old Testament much more interesting on the whole and spend much more time with it. Besides Paul's flagrant misogyny and the inconsistencies between the gospels (not to mention the apocryphal gospels which I haven't had much time with). On the whole the teachings of Jesus are great - like many philosophers of his age he taught ethics rather than morals. The questions regarding the new testament are largely philosophical and theological in nature, beyond the question of fallibility. That's not to say there aren't some oddities though. If you would like to challenge yourself I highly recommend the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, just pick a topic, pick a random highlighted verse and see how you feel about it. You may find it enriching.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

You show me in the New Testament where it shows any guidance towards negativity. Then I'll come back to you.

Mark 7:10 -For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death
Don't curse at your parents or you die.  Very Leviticus ain't it?

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.  If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful.  You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts.  Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.  (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
Respect Christian slave owners, and do nothing against them because your helping another Christian by being a work horse.
Not only is Slavery okay, but it's wrong to stop it if Christianity is involved.  Word play?  Sure, but what isn't.

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it.  "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly.  Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given."  (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)
Speaking of Slavery, here's a quote from Jesus directly.  This one totally allows you or me, or any of us, to beat a servant or slave.  Even if they know not that they screwed something up.  Sure "punished only lightly" is there, but that's not a slap on the wrist.  That means through most likely translations, that the servant and or possible slave would not be maimed.  "Beaten lightly" would still be harsh, but that wouldn't stop them from working.  Sure it's not Kunta Kenta, but it's certainly negative.

So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired.  As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other's bodies.  Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies.  So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever.  Amen.  That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires.  Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.  And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other.  Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.  When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done.  Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, fighting, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip.  They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful.  They are forever inventing new ways of sinning and are disobedient to their parents.  They refuse to understand, break their promises, and are heartless and unforgiving.  They are fully aware of God's death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway.  And, worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.  (Romans 1:24-32 NLT)
All infidels (believers in other religions), all homosexuals, all adulterers, and again those who disobey - not just curse but are simply disobedient - to parents have a "death penalty".  That means kill them.
So if you've ever been called disobedient, ever had sex with another's spouse, or someone of your own sex, or believe in anything but this truth - it's okay to be put to death.  That's pretty god damn negative, and again - very Leviticus ain't it?
God I love the book of Leviticus, I could just sit here and quote from that, but instead you have me doing the New Testament.  But here's the best part of the New Testament's "negativity"...

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished.  Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.â€

 

[FlippyD]

It seems, running out of actual topic, this thread has devolved into the tired old "look, the Bible has obtuse and skeptical wording." (Which I am partly to blame for.) Aside from N's and Dia's discourse, is there any more to be said about the topic?

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

I actually intended my closing parts to actually be on topic.
Most morales people push to say have been lost or should be picked up are from a religious standing, let's be honest.  Yet no one wants to actually follow most of these things, they just want to push what they agree with because it's right - for the wrong reasons, is my intent.

 

[FlippyD]

Actually I've found most to be of the late victorian variety. If Penn and Teller's show about it is to be believed.