The Bible: A Moral book?!

[Edwardo Piet]

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

[jonathanwithaj]

No way is the bible moral.

From the very first punishment given out, the whole system is out of whack. Then the flood; the campaign for the promised land; Elisha sending two "she bears" to maul 42 kids; King David praising Israelites for bashing Babylonian babies' heads upon rocks; the idea of Hell; the idea of black and white or sinfulness; the guilt associated with having "no-no" thoughts (i.e. Jesus claiming that hating is the same as murder. Sorry man, last time I checked they actually have very little in common.)... The list goes on.

The bible is read with a "God is love" filter, so it all gets brushed under the rug. Looking to the bible for moral teaching is like looking to Pete Wentz for tips on being more manly. Ridiculous.

[Violet]

I rather like Jefferson's 'The Life and Moral Teachings of Jesus of Nazareth'... that is a book on morality. But the unaltered bible, from OT Genesis to NT Revelation, is most certainly NOT a moral guide. Anything that calls that good must be evil incarnate and manifest tenfold in the physical realm ;o

[Minimalist]

I can't think of any book less moral..... maybe Mein Kampf but even that doesn't have the overwhelming bloodshed that the fucking bible does.

Bible "morality" of course, is strictly limited to one tribe. The others? Fuck 'em.

[Violet]

Bible 'morality' isn't even moral for its own people. It is limited to a tiny fraction of a small tribe.

[Edwardo Piet]

I couldn't agree more with you guys

I'm looking forward to hearing so more ...

..Oh and..also some opposition perhaps *waits for the theists*.

EvF

[fr0d0]

You're all talking about the bible being read out of context. I'd agree that there are some horrific extremes detailed in there. Superficially, it's a history of extremes, violence, murder etc.. Whole picture: it's a supreme moral guide.

So I'd agree with you if you thought from your POV it was full of immoral acts. Understood as it was meant to be understood, it is as I say.

[Violet]

Your 'god' said it, and if he is meant to be understood differently: he should have said it right in the first place. Superficially, it is a supreme moral guide, with none of those morals appearing in the old testament, and only a few interspaced within Jesus's statements within the new testament.

Supreme moral guide a rats left ankle. But you are right, it is also superficially a history of extremes... because there is little to no history in it.

[fr0d0]

The bible isn't a history book Saerules. It's about God, and our best understanding of his nature, but not exclusively so.
God didn't dictate it. That isn't what 'inspired' means. 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.
There is a point to you not getting it covered in the book itself. It's not a mistake, it's intentional. It's sort of the point. 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. It's clever enough to ridicule nonsensical philosophy in favour of pure simplicity.

[Violet]

Of course it is not a history book... yet most Christians read it as though it is. They seriously think Sodom and Gomorra existed, and were wiped out by their god. They seriously believe that Jerusalem was a fine city, when it barely registers as a town according to it's neighbors. They seriously read all of the accounts as though they actually happened.

The goat herders had their own little god, as every other little tribe of goat herders did back in the day. And these goat herders were not very smart, which is why they were goat herders. You MUST trust a god that a bunch of drunk, hallucinating, ignorant goat herders invented... so that you can be saved from something that doesn't exist?

CHildren can get it? Then why was i always saying 'i don't understand' in Sunday school? They don't understand, they just think that the adults must know better than them, so a lot of them don't even mention it. It is a case of idiocy, identifiable through the nonsense. It is not possible to understand it rationally... because it is nonsense, hypocrisy, rubbish, idiocy, and impossible.