The Bible: A Moral book?!

[Violet]

You tell him EvF. I give up trying to reason with him. I dislike spending my time making a brick wall see reason.

[fr0d0]

You tell him EvF. I give up trying to reason with him. I dislike spending my time making a brick wall see reason.

You mean like where I clearly show you that you're making an obvious fallacy and you have no come back? Right, that's very good reasoning.

[Kyuuketsuki]

How can a god that wipes out all the people in the world bar 8 be good ... in context or out?

See here

That didn't answer the question and anyway why don't YOU try answering it instead of acting as if you're the late John Paul's puppy dog?

Kyu

[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.

[Greatest I am]

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

As a Gnostic Christian, I see much moral lessons in scriptures. After all, it is basically a consolidation of many of the older religions and their wisdom sayings.

To get the wisdom though, you have to reverse much of what Christians believe.

Said of Gnostic and Christian reading practices.

“Both read the Bible day and night; but you read black where I read white.”
William Blake.

Regards
DL

[Neo-Scholastic]

Technically, the 'bible' isn't a really book at all. It's a collection of 66 books, certain groups of books within it can be treated as one: the Torah, the Prophets, the Gospels, etc. It's unwise to make broad overly generalizations about the traditional canon.

The bible is incredibly watertight. Those backward goat herders certainly did an amazing job that even our supposed advanced understanding has nothing to add to it.

C'mon. Why do you insist on shoehorning modern science into a deeply symbolic language, language meant to tell us about God's nature and our relationship with Him? You mix the sacred with the profane and you get a chimera, a corruption of science and spirituality.

To say it isn't written clearly enough is to dismiss it. Children can get it, it's that simple, so it isn't a case of obscurity through complexity.

I would say quite the opposite. Every word and phrase carries an inner spiritual meaning.
Anyone can see that the scriptures are filled with complex metaphors and layers of meaning that go well beyond what we see on the surface.

---

How many of us here (mostly theists I'm guessing ) think the bible is somehow a 'moral book'...There's a load of horrible shit in the bible, and the good stuff can be picked out...without all the horrible shit that, I personally would not call moral!

I am still puzzled how satan-worshipping nihilists (joke) can judge anything, whether it's a person or a book, as immoral and at the same time deny the existence of any transcendent power or principle that provides a moral standard or reference point.

[genkaus]

I am still puzzled how satan-worshipping nihilists (joke) can judge anything, whether it's a person or a book, as immoral and at the same time deny the existence of any transcendent power or principle that provides a moral standard or reference point.

Because a transcendent power and principle is not required to judge morality, only an objective one is.

[Minimalist]

This thread was a trip down memory lane.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I am still puzzled how satan-worshipping nihilists (joke) can judge anything, whether it's a person or a book, as immoral and at the same time deny the existence of any transcendent power or principle that provides a moral standard or reference point.

Because a transcendent power and principle is not required to judge morality, only an objective one is.

By transcendent I do not necessarily mean a supernatural one, just one that transcends the individual and has universal application to all moral agents.

Before I can truly respond to the OP, I must have a clear understanding of the moral standard the poster is applying. An example of the type of non-theistic standard I find objectionable is an evolved human moral sense. On the other hand, if the OP means that a superficial reading of some scripture seems to apply moral standards that would condemn other parts, then he has a valid point, but as a general claim I find the OP without foundation.

[genkaus]

By transcendent I do not necessarily mean a supernatural one, just one that transcends the individual and has universal application to all moral agents.

Before I can truly respond to the OP, I must have a clear understanding of the moral standard the poster is applying. An example of the type of non-theistic standard I find objectionable is an evolved human moral sense. On the other hand, if the OP means that a superficial reading of some scripture seems to apply moral standards that would condemn other parts, then he has a valid point, but as a general claim I find the OP without foundation.

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