The role of the Bibe as a moral guide

[DeletedUser]

Okay back from Africa and lurking .co.uk again.


Now, I received a Humanist pamphlet written by one Jason Curry, a few days ago, and it seems to me that it holds a lot of truth.

I'll upload it here for you :

Spoiler: Pamphlet

My initial reaction was to cross check the references and quotations, etc in that pamphlet, I found them to be accurate.


So which begs the question, should the Bible be considered a moral or lifestyle guide ?
And thats the question, along with discussion of the pamphlet, I would encourage here.

To take some extracts from that :

Spoiler: So what does the Bible tell us?

Who should we kill? ?
Homosexuals (Lev.20:13, Rom.1:26-32)
Adulterers (Lev.20:10, Deut.22:22)
Disobedient children (Deut.21:20-21, Lev.20:9, Exod.21:15)
Women who are not virgins on their wedding night (Deut.22:13-21)
All non-Christians (parable told by Christ - Luke.19:27)
Those accused of wickedness by at least two people (Deut.17:2-7)
Anyone who works on the Sabbath (Exod.35:2-3, Num.15:32-6) (not even to kindle a fire, and no exclusion for ambulance drivers)



Women
It is shameful for a woman to speak in church (1Cor.14:34-5)
A man must OK his wife´s words if they are to have force (Num.30:8)
A woman must not teach or hold authority over a man (1Tim.2:12)
Lot saves the messengers from the men of Sodom by offering up his virgin daughters to ´do to them as you please´ (Gen.19:8) Kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourself every girl who has never slept with a man (Moses - Num.31:17-8)



Slavery
God supports slavery (Lev.25:44-6, Exod.21:2-8, Eph.6:5, Col.3:22)
Instructions on how to sell your daughter as a slave (Exod.21:7-8)
When to give your slaves severe or light beatings (Luke.12:42-8)
OK to beat slaves only if they don´t die within 2 days (Exod.21:20-1)
How to mark your slave: drive an awl through its ear (Deut.15:17)



Marriage
It´s best if all people remain unmarried. Marriage is a lesser-of-two-evils compromise for Christians too weak to resist their sexual urges, for it is better to marry than to burn. (Paul - 1Cor.7:1-2, 8-9, 25-6, 38)
The rapist of an unwed woman must buy her and make her his wife (apparently a far more 'holy' union than a genuine, loving same-sex relationship) - Deut.22:28-9



Justice
If a man suspects his wife of cheating he can serve her a cursed drink; if she becomes deformed, then that proves her guilt (Num.5:12-31)
42 children killed by bears for calling a prophet baldy (2King.2:23-4)
OK to beat your children with a rod - it won't kill them (Prov.23:13-4)
God commits, orders, or endorses every form of atrocity known to man (pretty much pick a page of the Old Testament at random)

Do the Old Testament laws still apply?
Every jot and tittle (Christ Matt.5:17-9)



Christ, what a role model!

Christ tells us we must hate our entire family, and even our own life, if we want to be one of His disciples (Luke.14:26)
Those who abandon their families will be rewarded (Matt.19:29)
´For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother... And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.´ (Christ - Matt.10:35-6)
I came not to send peace, but a sword (Christ - Matt.10:34)
If you don´t have a sword, sell your clothes to buy one (Luke.22:36)
Curses fig tree for not bearing fruit in off-season (Mark.11:12-4, 20-1)
Didn´t want to help girl because she was a ´dog´ gentile (Matt.15:22-8)

Of course there are several good passages in the Bible, the ones that are carefully selected by your minister for Sunday readings. But (and pardon the analogy) if you find some chocolate in a pile of dung you don´t eat it, right? No. The good is tainted by the bad that surrounds it.

Now the buzzword that I keep hearing from Christians upon being faced with the ugly preachings of their Holy Book is "context". We need to take it into "context".

I'm sorry, there's no context in which most of the above and much of the Bible can be taken into that makes it socially acceptable, especially the whole hearted promotion of slavery.

What I feel is that there are certain things in the Bible which are socially conscienable (love thy neighbour, etc) and those are preached as being direct instructions. And there is a LOT which is socially unconscionable, and that is said as "needing to be put into context". And thats where I as a thinking human being have a problem, if something is God's message, it need not be put into context.

Nobody is capable of clarity as God is, therefore the holy writ should be understandable to all without the need for "context".

Unless of course its a false book written to con people but I don't want to accuse Christianity of being a false faith here (I myself am a Nihilist) but rather I'd like to review the morals taught by the "Holy Book".


Try to make this a intellectual discussion and not a hateful one.

 

[DeletedUser]

Skimmed the pamphlet.

If you had to label me something, I suppose I'd be leaning most towards "agnostic atheism".

On the main subject iself,

Religion is a relic from the past. Religion most likely started because of peoples curiosity and the need to explain why things happened. Human minds also have this tendency to try and draw connections between everything. That is why they porbably started worshiping deities and gods. When they had just brought a sacrifice to them and something good happens, they subconsciously drew a connection right away.

The Bible on the other hand, is one magnificient item. To single handedly influence the western world so much and still continue to do it to some extent even after 2000 years. I'm guessing the original idea behind the Bible was to teach morals in an attempt to make the society better. However, here's this one tidbit of information that escapes a lot of people. It portrays the situation and our social norms from 2000 years ago. The writers of it weren't quite so enlightened humanists to realize those for the atrocities(In our moral values meter) they are and thus it portrays the things that was the social norm back then. Two thousand years ago.

And this is the part where people followed it blindly for over a thousand years and all disbelievers were quickly punished.

As for the people gleefully taking apart every inconsistency and moral value(compared to ours, which is a few thousand years later) is basically a modern day philosophist and scientist making fun of the author for not having the same ideas and social norms as us currently.

 

[DeletedUser]

At first I thought this was about that Kid everyone hates on da internets

 

[DeletedUser]

In order to defend the Bible, it would appear you need to first claim that Christianity is a false religion and the Bible is a false book in order to then contextualize those things as being applicable 2000 years ago and not compatible with modern moral standards.


However, thats to say if it was a man made book and not a Holy Book, if its a Holy Book and its message comes from Heaven, then it is flawless and applicable for all time.

Love to see a Christian defense of the matter.

 

[DeletedUser]

In order to defend the Bible, it would appear you need to first claim that Christianity is a false religion and the Bible is a false book in order to then contextualize those things as being applicable 2000 years ago and not compatible with modern moral standards.

Pretty much this.

However, thats to say if it was a man made book and not a Holy Book, if its a Holy Book and its message comes from Heaven, then it is flawless and applicable for all time.

Love to see a Christian defense of the matter.

And this is the part where the atheists throw argument after argument and fact after fact at the stalwart Christians and then watch them reject them with "God made it so".

Sadly the saying "People believe what they want to believe" is too true in the case of religion.

Going a bit more to the on-topic track of "The role of the Bible as a moral guide" I'd say it has performed that duty rather well. It gave medieval Europe some sense of unity and a common ground to stand on with neighbours. It can also help people during times of great stress. Believing someone omniscient and omnipotent cares about you and you can attain perfect life after you die can be a good motivation for sure.

 

[DeletedUser613]

Christians don't need to defend themselves, as heavenfox said, they can believe what they want to believe.

 

[DeletedUser]

Christians don't need to defend themselves, as heavenfox said, they can believe what they want to believe.

Unfortunately they shouldn't be allowed to believe what they want. What Pervie and Fox have said about the bible is correct in my view; but christians take the bible literally. Looking at the points raised by Pervie when christians take the bible literally then it causes problems for other people. For example; murdering homosexuals etc.

 

[DeletedUser]

I couldn't be bothered reading most of what's in the thread, but I've got a little point. For something that was wrote thousands of years ago, if we lived by the lessons the bible teaches us the world would be perfect, or damn close to it.

 

[DeletedUser]

Going a bit more to the on-topic track of "The role of the Bible as a moral guide" I'd say it has performed that duty rather well. It gave medieval Europe some sense of unity and a common ground to stand on with neighbours. It can also help people during times of great stress. Believing someone omniscient and omnipotent cares about you and you can attain perfect life after you die can be a good motivation for sure.

If what medieval Europe achieved is attributable to the Bible, then the atrocities it committed is also so. The Crusades, the witchhunts, the subjugation of women, the feudal domination of the poor, colonial exploitation, the staggering corruption of the Church, the rise of inter continental slave trade. So no, it did not perform its duties as a moral guide very well, it laid the stage for one of the most morally bankrupt sections of human history.
To refer back to the pamphlet, that era is called The Dark Ages for a very good reason.


Also if Christians cannot defend their book in terms of basic logic and not blind acceptance, then they cannot preach their Book to a logical person. Hence the decline of Christianity (as an attended faith, not a culture or a people) around the world.

They can believe what they want to, but if they want others to respect or even take up their point of view (i.e. convert) they would have to be able to defend against these logical skepticism.

I couldn't be bothered reading most of what's in the thread, but I've got a little point. For something that was wrote thousands of years ago, if we lived by the lessons the bible teaches us the world would be perfect, or damn close to it.

No it wouldn't. It would be a pretty terrible, bigoted, hateful and intolerant world if you lived by the lessons the Bible teaches.

 

[DeletedUser613]

Unfortunately they shouldn't be allowed to believe what they want. What Pervie and Fox have said about the bible is correct in my view; but christians take the bible literally. Looking at the points raised by Pervie when christians take the bible literally then it causes problems for other people. For example; murdering homosexuals etc.

They should be allowed to believe what they want? wat.
No, actually very few Christians take the bible literally, if Christians took the bible literally then then wouldn't kill, as to abide by the commandments so I don't see how they would muder homosexuals

 

[DeletedUser]

if Christians took the bible literally then then wouldn't kill, as to abide by the commandments so I don't see how they would muder homosexuals

Contradictions.

There's a lot of them in that book.

 

[DeletedUser]

If what medieval Europe achieved is attributable to the Bible, then the atrocities it committed is also so. The Crusades, the witchhunts, the subjugation of women, the feudal domination of the poor, colonial exploitation, the staggering corruption of the Church, the rise of inter continental slave trade. So no, it did not perform its duties as a moral guide very well, it laid the stage for one of the most morally bankrupt sections of human history.
To refer back to the pamphlet, that era is called The Dark Ages for a very good reason.


Also if Christians cannot defend their book in terms of basic logic and not blind acceptance, then they cannot preach their Book to a logical person. Hence the decline of Christianity (as an attended faith, not a culture or a people) around the world.

They can believe what they want to, but if they want others to respect or even take up their point of view (i.e. convert) they would have to be able to defend against these logical skepticism.



No it wouldn't. It would be a pretty terrible, bigoted, hateful and intolerant world if you lived by the lessons the Bible teaches.

Pervie, no one has to defend themselves. We have free speech. We have the ability to choose what we believe in. I find no need to defend the Bible to be honest, as there is no point for someone who would ignore it and when put down to it would attempt to use a science clause, or ask for proof.

Religion has inspired to world to advance. Religion has united people and drove people. You cannot pin the bad things on the Bible, they were committed by the tainted person. We are not perfect.

The Crusades, the witchhunts, the subjugation of women, the feudal domination of the poor, colonial exploitation, the staggering corruption of the Church, the rise of inter continental slave trade.

Crusades? Witch-hunts were not just confined to Christianity, other religions such as those in the Arab states had the same ideologies. So, you expect the poor to fight for themselves? To be a slave would have allowed you home and food, instead of sleeping out in the cold and likely starving. Let us not forget, that even in the modern system, slavery was only abolished a few hundred years ago. You cannot simply just stop it and expect everyone to find a nice cushy job. Again, the corruption is a taint. We, man, are greedy. Women were safer in the home, no? They had a position where they would be provided for and all that was asked was they maintained the home.

Most of what you state is what man does. The Bible has told us what should be done, but the taint in man has made us fall. The Bible isn't going to throw you in jail for breaking it's commandments, hence why more do not stick to them. They find sinning easier, for it is.

Quick point Judaism, Islam and Christianity all refer to the 10 Commandments. For religions who are very different, that's quite something. And another There aren't just the 10 Commandments, apart from those that are obvious, there's over 300.

 

[DeletedUser]

Quick point Judaism, Islam and Christianity all refer to the 10 Commandments. For religions who are very different, that's quite something. And another There aren't just the 10 Commandments, apart from those that are obvious, there's over 300.

That would be because the Old Testament played some role in the foundation of all 3 of those.

 

[DeletedUser]

Pervie, no one has to defend themselves. We have free speech. We have the ability to choose what we believe in.
Religion has inspired to world to advance. Religion has united people and drove people. You cannot pin the bad things on the Bible, they were committed by the tainted person. We are not perfect.
I find no need to defend the Bible to be honest, as there is no point for someone who would ignore it and when put down to it would attempt to use a science clause, or ask for proof.

Nobody is forcing you to think the Bible is a sadistic and false book. Everybody can choose what to believe for themselves.
The human race has evolved to the point where this is the norm, unlike the times when people followed the Bible and put to death those who would not, as the book itself prescribes.

However, do not mince, unwillingness with inability.

I find no need to defend the Bible to be honest, as there is no point for someone who would ignore it

By yourself you admit that you have not bothered to read the thread, I ask you just to read the pamphlet and the astounding amount of reasoned arguments about how hateful and intolerant the Bible is that it provides.
There is no chance of asking for scientific proof because we are not trying to establish divinity, but rather to establish whether the things the Bible teaches that are highlighted in that pamphlet to be morally defensible or not.

Quite frankly if you could morally defend those passages, then you would. But I do not believe you could do it, or that it can be done.
Hence your statement that you don't feel the need to.

Crusades? Witch-hunts were not just confined to Christianity, other religions such as those in the Arab states had the same ideologies. So, you expect the poor to fight for themselves? To be a slave would have allowed you home and food, instead of sleeping out in the cold and likely starving. Let us not forget, that even in the modern system, slavery was only abolished a few hundred years ago. You cannot simply just stop it and expect everyone to find a nice cushy job. Again, the corruption is a taint. We, man, are greedy. Women were safer in the home, no? They had a position where they would be provided for and all that was asked was they maintained the home.

Most of what you state is what man does. The Bible has told us what should be done, but the taint in man has made us fall. The Bible isn't going to throw you in jail for breaking it's commandments, hence why more do not stick to them. They find sinning easier, for it is.

Quick point Judaism, Islam and Christianity all refer to the 10 Commandments. For religions who are very different, that's quite something. And another There aren't just the 10 Commandments, apart from those that are obvious, there's over 300.

Its a poor argument to compare what others did wrong in that time. Thats like saying war crimes are alright because others commit as bad or worse war crimes.
Being very bad but comparatively better or no worse than, is not an excuse for being very bad. Especially if the book in question claims to carry a divine message.

What man does which is bad is man's fault, but a plethora of biblical passages have been provided which shows some of what the Bible preaches is bad. In which case, the problem becomes that this supposedly holy book urges people unto evil acts.

 

[DeletedUser]

I really don't agree with this "You can believe whatever you want"

Of course you can't! I can almost guarantee that every single christian in the world today has outside influence to find their faith, in one way or another. Many are born into christian families as the majority of the middle age people were christian we find ourselves with a huge religion.

The point of this is; You will all accept the bible, despite it's flaws. Yet condemn science which doesn't have it's flaws? It makes no sense at all. Religion in general is pure ignorance, and I think it is weak. Can nobody just deal with the fact that when we die, we rot. There is no afterlife, there is no fate, there if no grand scheme of things.

How do we know this? Because there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Everything we know in life points towards these things, but those who believe in religion conveniently overlook these facts and place their ideology in their "faith," which nowadays we call "believing what you want to believe for the hell of it."

Religion is like a Child who is told the Earth revolves around the sun, the child says "show me," but the grown-up lacks the resources to show the Child, and doesn't know anyone who does. The child therefore continues to believe that the sun revolves around the Earth.

I have nothing against religious people as people; but their believes baffle me. Of course it would be nice to think there is something when you die, but these kind of ideas are worse than scientific theories, as they don't even have any backing.

 

[DeletedUser6695]

In order to defend the Bible, it would appear you need to first claim that Christianity is a false religion and the Bible is a false book in order to then contextualize those things as being applicable 2000 years ago and not compatible with modern moral standards.


However, thats to say if it was a man made book and not a Holy Book, if its a Holy Book and its message comes from Heaven, then it is flawless and applicable for all time.

Love to see a Christian defense of the matter.

Sorry I cba to read the article, but the bible storys, mainly Jesus' miracles are metaphorical and its up to you to take meaning from them...just like poetry

 

[DeletedUser]

Also, Can I ask all of the religious people participating in this chat. Why are you religious? Why do you believe in God? What evidence pointed me towards God?

I am sure 90% will (if they ask themselves these questions unbiased and properly) find that outside influences such as parents, community, schools etc.. are to blame. The other 10% will be because they had something dramatic happen to them and claim "they found god."

 

[DeletedUser6695]

Also, Can I ask all of the religious people participating in this chat. Why are you religious? Why do you believe in God? What evidence pointed me towards God?

I am sure 90% will (if they ask themselves these questions unbiased and properly) find that outside influences such as parents, community, schools etc.. are to blame. The other 10% will be because they had something dramatic happen to them and claim "they found god."

Its called belief, I believe in God and Heaven its nothing got to do with evidence.Sure my parents chose my religion when I was born but I would never change it

 

[DeletedUser613]

Parents, schools and other influences may try to force you to believe religion, but nobody can truly force you what to believe.
Although it may sway your decision, to truly believe in such a thing people need much more substantial faith than "my parents told me to believe" atleast, when they get older.

 

[DeletedUser]

Its called belief, I believe in God and Heaven its nothing got to do with evidence.Sure my parents chose my religion when I was born but I would never change it

But that's exactly the thing I don't understand "belief." I am a scientific individual, I look for a cause and a coincidence in most things out of habit. So do many people I know, I even know some quite prominent Christians who are like this. When I ask them about Christianity they are quite happy to talk about their belief, but they never say Why.

There is never a Why? or a How? Involved in a religion. Just "blind faith," and I know where the answer to my question lies, and I know where to find it - I just find it hard to grasp how many people in the world follow a religion.

It's all down to neurochemistry. Suggestibility and a want for a purpose in life drives us to fill in the gaps that as lamens we can't explain. There is one easy answer to everything; and that would be a mysterious higher being. The hard answer is being searched for by Scientists.