The Bible: A Moral book?!

[Neo-Scholastic]

I guess the OP is using "evolved moral sense" as the standard. Why do you find it objectionable?

As I see it, if we say our moral standard is based on human nature, then the next question is 'What is the basis of human nature?' If we then say, human nature is a product of evolution, then how does the amoral process of evolution produce a moral standard? The response is usually that the resulting 'moral sense' has helped us survive. But ultimately survival is an on-going struggle for procreative dominance, both between different species and between individuals of the same species. Right and wrong have no place in that process, only power does. One could take a different approach and say that humans evolved to become rational creatures and as a result are able to reason about morality. True enough, except that implies something about which we can reason that is not part of the evolutionary process.

[Violet]

I have plenty of comebacks Fr0do, i just don't have the patience for you. You are like a constantly shrieking child, and i cannot stand the pitch or loudness of such a thing for more than a few moments. I have very little tolerance to things i find annoying, and i find you are often among those things.

It is bad enough to teach reason to a brick wall... it is worse when that unreasonable brick wall starts talking back.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDwQJ64UpFQ

* Violet bitchslaps her past self. That'll teach her!

No it won't

[Paul the Human]

What is commonly known as Morality is a direct result of civilization and culture. We are pack animals and all packs must have rules and structure. Most important among them is the protection of the pack itself, as a whole. Add individual goals and mating rituals and you've got the making of a moral code waiting to happen.

No gods required.

[Drich]

I was reading in another thread, where fr0d0 said that he believed the bible is 'the manual for morality'...now I can't believe I'd never thought to ask him if he thought the bible was moral or not before, but now I've come to the topic....

Anyway, nevermind about specifically fr0d0...

How many of us here (mostly theists I'm guessing ) think the bible is somehow a 'moral book'.

Now, I would say that it may have some good parables in it, but it's got a fuckload of immoral bullshit in it too. Mostly from in the Old Testament, but the New Testament isn't perfect.

So to say the bible is a 'moral book' somehow...is to cherry-pick out the good stuff and ignore the horrors...and the picking and choosing we do without the bible. How can one say the bible is a 'moral book'....as mentioned in The God Delusion, someone says to Richard Dawkins something like 'Do you honestly think that if we call looked to The God Delusion instead of the Bible, then the world would be a more humane place?" And I think he rightly responds with 'Yes I do, since you mention 'humane''.

There's a load of horrible shit in the bible, and the good stuff can be picked out. Even with books not about morality, at least there's not horror in there, and there are also other books that are for moral guidence, without all the horrible shit that, I personally would not call moral!

So, the topic is: The Bible, is it really a moral book or 'manual'?

And as I said, I'd personally say "no" and whoever says it is, is just doing some serious cherry-picking.

EvF

Some definitions first.

Sin is anything not in the expressed will of God.

Morality is the standard of man. or man's effort to meet the righteousness of God with the sin he is willing to live with, incorporated into that standard.

Righteousness is the sinless standard of God.

Righteousness says it is never OK to lie.

Morality says it is OK to lie to save the life of your friends.

We can not live a perfect life (without sin) so that means our best efforts will result in a moral life. Because the Righteous standard of God is found in the bible it is best to derive one's morality from God's perfect standard.

[Neo-Scholastic]

What is commonly known as Morality is a direct result of civilization and culture. We are pack animals and all packs must have rules and structure. Most important among them is the protection of the pack itself, as a whole. Add individual goals and mating rituals and you've got the making of a moral code waiting to happen. No gods required.

As per my post #41, this position is "might makes right." Suppose my 'pack' is a white-supremacy group. Now suppose we have at our disposal a biological weapon capable of killing all non-Caucasians. According to you, my white supremacy 'pack' could claim to be morally obligated to insure its genetic dominance. No morality required.

[Paul the Human]

Yes! Only if they become the majority. I think you're beginning to understand. Good for you.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Yes! Only if they become the majority. I think you're beginning to understand. Good for you.

Congratulations, you have the intellectual honesty to admit you're a nihilist.

[Paul the Human]

Yes! Only if they become the majority. I think you're beginning to understand. Good for you.

Congratulations, you have the intellectual honesty to admit you're a *realist.

Fixed that for you.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Yes! Only if they become the majority. I think you're beginning to understand. Good for you.

Congratulations, you have the intellectual honesty to admit you're a *realist.

Fixed that for you.

So since according to you morality is determined by culture and civilization, then you would agree with the following. In a majority Christian culture, the bible is a moral book.

[Paul the Human]

The character "Jesus", for the most part, taught goodness. I agree with that. The book itself is full of retchedness and wickedness and downright evil, mostly perpetrated by the character called "God". That's how I see it.

Most of the 'goodness' taught by the Jesus character, however, is common to nearly all cultures. The Golden Rule is not of biblical origins.