Refuting Christians with their Own Bible

[Crossless2.0]

Not really. Paul provides the escape hatch for Christians to ignore those parts of the Bible they find embarrassing.

What do you mean?

I mean that his distinction between grace and the law permits Christians to simply ignore vast stretches of the Hebrew scriptures as not applicable to them, especially if it presents embarrassing ethical problems for the believer. According to your divinely inspired book, homosexuals should be killed. But that doesn't apply to Christians . . . that's a Jewish rule. But the 10 Commandments? Nothing too embarrassing there, so you'll adopt it despite its being a law given to the Jews.

Etc., etc.

[SteveII]

Is it moral for humans to decide to commit genocide? No.

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.

[Veritas_Vincit]

Yes, if most of the world hadn't been indoctrinated, brainwashed, duped, conned, deluded, retarded, divided and stultified by religion then I would have no reason to care about Bronze Age mythology and the sayings of some Palestinian hippy carpenter any more than about Zeus, Apollo, Odin or any other ancient mythologies.

Unfortunately, many people are gullible, many people are not good at critical thinking, many people don't question the belief systems they were brought up with.

Unfortunately we do live in a world torn apart by religion, where religion holds back our civilisation at every step.

So yes, in that sense you are correct, I do think it's worth understanding what the Bible says in exactly the same way as it is worth understanding the tactics of a con artist, so that when you are faced with it you aren't duped, and can expose it for what it is: bullshit.

Probably should start by reading John and then the epistles. That should give you the basics so you can better answer the gullible. Read carefully, take notes. If you don't understand it, read a commentary that can help you. You will need to understand it completely if the 'truth is to triumph'.

John I is pretty standard leader-worshipping cultish babble. There's a few sentences that you could say are morally good out of context, but the whole piece is just one big word salad. You're telling me you buy these hysterical ramblings?

---

Plus your last point is BS because you have no way to tell a woman who is crazy apart from one who has genuinely heard the voice of God.

[SteveII]

What do you mean?

I mean that his distinction between grace and the law permits Christians to simply ignore vast stretches of the Hebrew scriptures as not applicable to them, especially if it presents embarrassing ethical problems for the believer. According to your divinely inspired book, homosexuals should be killed. But that doesn't apply to Christians . . . that's a Jewish rule. But the 10 Commandments? Nothing too embarrassing there, so you'll adopt it despite its being a law given to the Jews.

Etc., etc.

When Paul talks about being under grace and not the law, he is not talking about ignoring vast stretches of OT law. He is talking about the law's purpose is to convict you (show that you are hopeless sinner) but grace has removed that feature of the law. Do you have a particular passage in mind? 

You have to distinguish God's moral law from the punishments. Civil punishment for breaking laws is a civil matter of a theocracy. To use your example, practicing homosexuality is still wrong (moral law) but the punishments don't apply to us. Dietary laws are the same--they applied to that group of people in those circumstances.

[SteveII]

Probably should start by reading John and then the epistles. That should give you the basics so you can better answer the gullible. Read carefully, take notes. If you don't understand it, read a commentary that can help you. You will need to understand it completely if the 'truth is to triumph'.

John I is pretty standard leader-worshipping cultish babble. There's a few sentences that you could say are morally good out of context, but the whole piece is just one big word salad. You're telling me you buy these hysterical ramblings?

Sorry you don't understand it. Perhaps you can read a commentary?

[RoadRunner79]

So, for fear of repeating myself, would you consider genocide to be a moral act?

Normally the term genocide is referring to an extreme form of racism, where a certain people are to be eliminated, based strictly on race (although it can refer to political or religious groups as well).  I would agree, that this is not moral.

It seems to me, that in regarding morality, the question is not "what"; as much as "why".  While the magnitude of the transgression plays a role emotionally, logically, I do not see where scale effects an acts moral status.  

So if you are referring to the deaths of a large (and perhaps genocentric) group that tells me what, but not why?   Normally, when the term genocide is used, there is a "why" implied to it, and it is not morally justifiable.

[Veritas_Vincit]

Even if we concede that a few of the teachings in the Bible are good, they are not good because they are in the Bible or because of who said them, they are good because they are good, and would be even if they were said by someone else or in another book. The flip side is that there are countless teachings in the Bible that are decidedly evil, immoral, barbaric and utterly worthless.

Now granted, they don't mean the Bible is all bad. But the point is - the Bible is just a book. Behaviours, morals, and teaching are either good or bad on their own merits, no matter who says them or what book they are printed in.

[GrandizerII]

He never said everyone was your neighbor. Samaritans were, after all, still literally neighbors to the Jews. And again, this could've been interpreted as not including slaves because slaves were their own group according to these interpreters. Perhaps the lesson is that who you perceive as an enemy may be the one to show you mercy, so show mercy and love to them as well. But furthermore, even if this applied to slaves, it doesn't mean Jesus was moving them to stop owning slaves.

Examples of vague commandments are the ones listed in your quotes. What does it mean in full details to love God with all your heart, mind, and soul, in terms of action, and then love your neighbor as yourself? Does it mean "stop owning slaves"? Then why not say so? Does it mean "polygamy is ok or not"? Why not just make it clear if polygamy is strictly not ok? Is pirating Christian movies ok? When does talking about someone in their absence become gossip? Is abortion really wrong? Or is it wrong that we are not loving the women of this world enough to respect their bodily/reproductive rights? Is smoking sinful? etc.

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?

[GrandizerII]

So where do you get your moral handbook from?

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?

[SteveII]

Even if we concede that a few of the teachings in the Bible are good, they are not good because they are in the Bible or because of who said them, they are good because they are good, and would be even if they were said by someone else or in another book. The flip side is that there are countless teachings in the Bible that are decidedly evil, immoral, barbaric and utterly worthless.

Now granted, they don't mean the Bible is all bad. But the point is - the Bible is just a book. Behaviours, morals, and teaching are either good or bad on their own merits, no matter who says them or what book they are printed in.

What "teachings in the Bible that are decidedly evil, immoral, barbaric and utterly worthless."? Let's limit it to the moral discussion earlier and only have examples of what we "ought" personally to do. 

Of course civil penalties for law violations in a theocracy are decidedly not teachings.