Refuting Christians with their Own Bible

[Angrboda]

Because they're often vague and unclear, and don't sufficiently cover everything to do with morals.

I disagree. He summed up the law and the prophets with two commandments: 1) love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and soul and 2) your neighbor as yourself. He explained that everyone was your neighbor. Further instruction and detailed examples were given in the other dozens and dozens of chapters. 

The commandments here are to have agape for God and your neighbor, both. Insofar as agape for God does not require treatment as equals, neither does having agape for one's neighbor imply fairness and justice.

Modeling our relationship with our neighbor on our relationship with God leaves many questions of just what this agape is to consist of.

[Crossless2.0]

Is it moral for God to order genocide? And is it immoral for his followers to disobey the order?

Divine Command Theory deals with this question. Our moral duties are determined by God's commands. It would be immoral to disobey. If these events happened as described, we have God clearly stating reasons for his judgement and then orders Joshua/Samuel to carry out the judgement. 

Before you start with the lady drowning her kids in the bathtub, don't. You are comparing a theocracy to a confused woman. IMO God does not issue commands like that anymore because the NT was the culmination of his revelation and such a command would be contrary to the whole purpose of Jesus' death.

Divine command 'theory', put into practice, has never been anything other than the justification those who seek power use to push their agendas, while it has provided moral cover to their minions who end up doing the dirty work. Were the run-of-the-mill Jews (those not in the upper reaches of power) privy to their god's command or did they simply take the word of their leaders?

Are you seriously claiming that you know for a fact that 'Joshua/Samuel' weren't "confused"? Can you say for certain that the order for genocide wasn't part of a propaganda campaign, as opposed to a "real" divine command?

Oh, and I can think of another reason, other than NT fulfillment of his revelation, that "God" doesn't issue such commands "anymore". Care to take a guess?

[SteveII]

You need to read everything together and you'll understand the message of Jesus was decidedly not conducive to slavery. Paul expounded on a lot of things (that was kind of his job).

Galatians 3:27 "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

I would argue that "love your neighbor as yourself" is incompatible with owning a slave so therefore teaches slavery is wrong. Polygamy not clear except that church leaders should be the "husband of one wife". Pirating movies is stealing. Proverbs deals harshly with gossip. Abortion falls under the murder prohibition so it trumps anyone's 'rights'. Smoking is harmful to the body and harming the body is sinful -- gray area. 

As I said above to Veritas-Vincit, we encounter many situations that are not found in the Bible, so basic principles of morality are extracted and used to apply to the new situation. Is that process flawless, no.

Again, you're still using your personal standards as you interpret the relevant Bible passages according to those standards. Just because some book tells you to, for example, respect one's parents doesn't mean that the author is explicitly saying that one should therefore be ok with them verbally or physically abusing him.

I mean, look at the words "I would argue". Those words indicate subjective belief about what it means to love one's neighbor as oneself. You believe it means loving all people as yourself. But it's not explicit that neighbor in this context means all people unconditional (therefore, including slaves). And it's not like you're the ultimate interpreter of the scriptures, and everyone else who interprets it differently is wrong.

Regarding polygamy, what about those who aren't church leaders? Ah, see, personal interpretation and moral standards once again.

Pirating movies: Is pirating really stealing? I know many Christians who believe it's not, and that it's rather about sharing resources with other Christians, in the case of Christians movies.

Gossip: But what is gossip exactly? You didn't address this question properly. I asked you something along the lines of what constitutes gossip? Did Paul gossip about people in his epistles? Was that bad gossip, or just righteous talk?

Abortion: Where does it say abortion is murder in the Bible? Again, interpretation.

Same for smoking.

So it all boils down to interpretation rather than just extracting clear and explicit information from the Bible about every moral matter. And interpretation will vary, partly depending on what kind of person you are morally and what moral standards and attitudes you hold about moral matters.

At the end, you admit the process is not flawless. Shouldn't this nullify everything you confidently said before that?

I understand your point. Just one more thing about loving your neighbor: Luke 6:27ff: “But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them." There are many other places in the gospels and then the epistles pick up the theme too. And this is my point: this principle gives us very good grounds on which to make judgments on moral actions, like slavery.

The polygamy thing is referenced several times in the epistles that church leaders are to be the "husband of one wife" which is instruction for practical reasons and not moral reasons. Other than that, it is a cultural thing and not a moral issue.

The Christians you know are stealing intellectual property that was intended for sale by those that took the time to produce it. I don't know of any other way to look at that. 

Gossip has, as part of its definition, motive (ranging from merely wanting attention to spiteful--or worse). Paul did not gossip because anything he said also came with the motive for saying it.

Yes, abortion is an interpretation of the "do not kill". I do not think it an unreasonable interpretation and because of the high stakes, not one you can really sit on the fence on--like smoking, which I don't think is immoral--just unwise. 

I believe you are entirely correct when you said: "So it all boils down to interpretation rather than just extracting clear and explicit information from the Bible about every moral matter. "

I do not think because the Bible did not anticipate every possible situation that we cannot derive core values that help in determining moral choices. Can we be 100% correct? No. So we are left with a good body of objective moral information and left to determine, subjectively, the balance for everyday, constantly changing life and culture.

[SteveII]

I disagree. He summed up the law and the prophets with two commandments: 1) love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and soul and 2) your neighbor as yourself. He explained that everyone was your neighbor. Further instruction and detailed examples were given in the other dozens and dozens of chapters. 

The commandments here are to have agape for God and your neighbor, both.  Insofar as agape for God does not require treatment as equals, neither does having agape for one's neighbor imply fairness and justice.  

Modeling our relationship with our neighbor on our relationship with God leaves many questions of just what this agape is to consist of.

I'm not sure the fact that we are commanded to agape both God and man carries with it a distinction between the two types of relationships. 

I found in Strong's Concordance:

Strong's Concordance
agapaó: to love
Original Word: ἀγαπάω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: agapaó
Phonetic Spelling: (ag-ap-ah'-o)
Short Definition: I love
Definition: I love, wish well to, take pleasure in, long for; denotes the love of reason, esteem.

[SteveII]

Divine Command Theory deals with this question. Our moral duties are determined by God's commands. It would be immoral to disobey. If these events happened as described, we have God clearly stating reasons for his judgement and then orders Joshua/Samuel to carry out the judgement. 

Before you start with the lady drowning her kids in the bathtub, don't. You are comparing a theocracy to a confused woman. IMO God does not issue commands like that anymore because the NT was the culmination of his revelation and such a command would be contrary to the whole purpose of Jesus' death.

Divine command 'theory', put into practice, has never been anything other than the justification those who seek power use to push their agendas, while it has provided moral cover to their minions who end up doing the dirty work. Were the run-of-the-mill Jews (those not in the upper reaches of power) privy to their god's command or did they simply take the word of their leaders?

Are you seriously claiming that you know for a fact that 'Joshua/Samuel' weren't "confused"? Can you say for certain that the order for genocide wasn't part of a propaganda campaign, as opposed to a "real" divine command?

I cannot say for certain that the events of Joshua/Samuel happened with or without God's command or did indeed happen at all. So, hypothetically if God instructed...Divine Command Theory would apply.

[Crossless2.0]

Divine command 'theory', put into practice, has never been anything other than the justification those who seek power use to push their agendas, while it has provided moral cover to their minions who end up doing the dirty work. Were the run-of-the-mill Jews (those not in the upper reaches of power) privy to their god's command or did they simply take the word of their leaders?

Are you seriously claiming that you know for a fact that 'Joshua/Samuel' weren't "confused"? Can you say for certain that the order for genocide wasn't part of a propaganda campaign, as opposed to a "real" divine command?

I cannot say for certain that the events of Joshua/Samuel happened with or without God's command or did indeed happen at all. So, hypothetically if God instructed...Divine Command Theory would apply.

Kudos for a refreshingly honest answer to my question. Few of our resident Christians would have answered thus.

[Rhondazvous]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyath...so-can-we/

I just love that when they quote Bible passages, they are all so righteous. When we quote the bullshit parts of the Bible to them, they call us dickheads.

Christians LOVE to Cherry Pick the Bible

What else can you do with a cherry tree?

---

Chop it down.

---

[Crossless2.0]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyath...so-can-we/

I just love that when they quote Bible passages, they are all so righteous. When we quote the bullshit parts of the Bible to them, they call us dickheads.

Christians LOVE to Cherry Pick the Bible

What else can you do with a cherry tree?

Chop it down.

Speaking of carefully selected legends . . . .

[RoadRunner79]

I don't know that I have a handbook.... you?

As for what I base my view of morality on, it is going to be a number of things, but the guidance of Scripture is going to be of first consult.

Therefore, subjective morality by your argument with other posters here. Tell me how this is objective the way you define objective?

No... it is still objective, as I have mentioned in other threads.  My knowledge or opinion of what is moral does not affect if it is moral or not (because it is based outside of myself).  I have been wrong on things once or twice in the past, there could be a third  .    I think what you are confusing is epistemology (how we know) with ontology (the nature of) morality.  Subjective morality is dependent on and relative to the subject.  Whereas; objective morality is independent and the same regardless of the subject.

[Rhondazvous]

I disagree. He summed up the law and the prophets with two commandments: 1) love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and soul and 2) your neighbor as yourself. He explained that everyone was your neighbor. Further instruction and detailed examples were given in the other dozens and dozens of chapters. 

Mosaic Law: If children are disobedient, stone them. If a woman is raped in the city where she failed to call for help, stone her. If a man picks up sticks on the sabbath, stone him. If a man suspects his wife was unfaithful, let the priest give her a drink that will force abortion. Thou shalt not kill unless I command you to.

Jesus: Love the lord and your neighbor.

Yes, I see the connection. A clear summary if you look at it spiritually.