The Bible and morality
Yes, of course. There is no other book equal to Bible for morality.
So you must be in favour of rape, murder and slavery.
I'm not, but I still believe that the Bible should be our source for morality. In fact, it really already is. The majority of western law is based on Biblical principals.
How is the "majority of western law" based on the Bible?
Don't kill
Don't steal
Don't sleep with someone you're not married to (until relatively recent times, now go for it)
Don't hurt people
Don't enslave people
These and the ten thousand variations are out of the Bible. Many western courts even had copies of the Ten Commandments in them. Many still do.They are in the Bible, they are also in codes of law that predate the bible or were developed in non Christian nations. hey are also pretty obviously stuff people don';t want done to them not matter what their creed.
That doesn't change my point. Western nations largely based their legal codes on the Bible. It was in places where things started getting weird that they strayed from the Bible. Maybe not so much in Eastern nations, but most Western ones did.
I disagree with your point. The western codes are based largely on avoiding harm and supporting a civil society. They are essentially the same as any first world nations code, Christian or not.
The truly weird laws are those that are explicitly religion in structure as they are not contained by utilitarian principle of avoid harm but purely on scripture.
Their explicit basis is in *Roman* Law.But most Western societies saw religion as a necessary utility for a safe and civil society. To them, to be utilitarian was to be religious.
Religion is deontological, the opposite of utilitarian.
And what Western nations do or do not think about religion has nothing to do with their laws being derived from the Justinian Code of a Pagan empire.Point taken. Let me rephrase. Most modern Western societies take their codes from the Bible.
And modern definitions of deism, ontology, utilitarianism and for that matter epistomology and teleology are useful only for modernist discussions. Historical fact remains what it is, and so does my point.They take their codes from a Catholic church mediated version of the Justinian code--that is the major source is Roman law. Specifically the Justinian code. Roman law is naturally not Christian in derivation and predates Christ.
Er, no. Some did, to be sure, but America most certainly did not.
So basiaclly some people out there need a Bible as a morality tool even though these "moralities" are basic common sense. Have there ever been a time in history where people were able to think for themselves?
The problem is not every one thinks. Unfortunately there are those who need to think someone is always watching. Let those hold onto it. We know the truth.
P.S. - Reading the Bible and thinking for yourself are not mutually exclusive.
So other cultures that don't have a Christian background allow theft, murder and adultry? Before the Bible those things were allowed?
And do I need to cite all the crazy hookups from the Bible? (e.g., Lot's daughters sleeping with him)Whoa! Let's rumble!
Okay, my point is that modern western cultures pattern a lot of their laws on the Bible. If you want to discuss the origins of morality in general, fine. But my point stands, and that's it.
Crazy hookups, hmmm....
I've often said (and it's not original to me) that it's a huge mistake to think that just because something is recorded in the Bible means that the Bible says it's a good thing. Just because God didn't come down and smite Lot's daughters on the spot doesn't mean they "got away with it," let alone that God approved of what they were doing. The descendents of Lot's daughters were groups that were at odds with the Israelites historically. Then they disappeared. To us in the 21st century, that may not seem like such a big deal but to people back then, it was a very big deal indeed. The descendents of Lot and his daughters did not share in the Blessing. God most certainly did not approve of what they were doing.
People keep pulling that one out. Got any others?Marriage, specifically:
- An arranged marriage—Genesis 24:1-4 (and many other passages)
- A levirate marriage (If a man died leaving no male heir, his brother was required to marry his widow and produce children)—Deuteronomy 25:5-10
- A polygamous marriage—1 Kings 11:3 (and many, many other passages)
- Not inter-racial—Deuteronomy 7:14; 1 Corinthians 7:39; 2 Corinthians 6:14
-- Not allowed to be dissolved, i.e. NO DIVORCE—Matthew 5:31-32; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18
- Except when the man wanted to because his wife had become ‘displeasing’ to him—Deuteronomy 24:1-4
- Between a rapist and his victim—Deuteronomy 22:28-29
- An arranged marriage by a slave owner for his slaves—Genesis 24:4
- Can be between brother and sister—How else do you explain where Cain’s wife came from!
- Intended to produce children—Without children a woman was:
Shamed—a barren woman was looked upon as cursed by God
Unable to be saved—1 Timothy 2:15
Re: the US basing its laws on anything in the Bible, the Constitution was based on the Magna Carta and classical Greek political thought. Law in practice is based on English common law, where court precedent is followed.Up to this point, you're strictly in the OT. Let me point out that the Mosaic Law was for a specific group of people, in a specific time, in a specific place. This means that these rules were not meant for 21st century Americans/Russians/Canadians/Armenians etc. Nor were they given to Egyptians or Assyrians from a contemporary time period.
It's also worth remembering that in many cases, these things were already going on, and the Mosaic Law was actually a step up from the way people were already treating each other.
And in other cases (such as polygamy) this is what men were already doing. God did not say "Go for it!" The actual God-given template for marriage is one man and one woman together for life (Genesis 2, as quoted by Jesus, which ties in with my next point.)
Yes, Adam and Eve were 'brother and sister' but not the same way I and my sister are siblings. They were both created by God whole. And yes, the thinking is that in the early days, when there weren't many humans, brothers and sisters did marry. But to think that means the Bible says it's okay for us to marry our sisters (or brothers) now is, well, misquoting the Bible. Relations betweens brothers and sisters are specifically forbidden. You ask where you misquote the Bible? Here's an example! Now, let's move on to one that's pretty breath-taking...
As I've said before, WOW! Talk about taking out of context! You completely ignore what Jesus goes on to say in the very next verses (just to refresh your memory, that men were WRONG, WRONG, WRONG to send their wives away for any reason. Jesus goes on to quote the aforementioned passage of Genesis to show that God intended for one man and one woman to cleave to each other, to become as one flesh, until death do them part.) Like I said, you completely ignore the plain, obvious and not-in-any-way-hidden statement that Jesus Himself makes to drag in a section of the OT that Jesus specifically repudiates! Does it get any better?
Again, in those days, a woman who was raped would be treated as used by the people around her. Is it unfair? Yes. But this way at least she was saved from total disgrace. And things haven't changed all that much. Rape victims today are still often victimized by society a second time.
Already dealt with that.
What version is that from? I can't find it.
And Paul's writings about women are not universally used as a template, even within conservative churches. But I still can't find where a woman is 'unable to be saved' except by childbearing.
In many ways the template for the laws was the Magna Carta. In almost all ways one of the main impetus for the law was Christian thinking. The word "created" appears in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Greek political thought was somewhat of an influence, but there were also major differences. The Ten Commandments was still looked upon as a template.
You're fun! Got any more?The 10 Commandments as a template? I think not. Where in US law does it say anything about having other gods, taking the Lord's name in vain, making graven images, or keeping the Sabbath holy? Or coveting? Or honoring thy father and mother? Not saying those aren't good idea, but they're up to the individual, not codified into law.
Prohibitions against murder, theft and bearing false witness are hardly unique to Christianity. I doubt the founder were brainstorming ideas for the Constitution and one said "Hey, I have an idea! How about we make murder illegal?" "Yo, TJ! That's sounds awesome!"
Obviously I jest, but there is an important point to remember: the Decalogue tells people things they're not supposed to do, for the most part. The Constitution, and specifically the Bill of Rights, expand freedoms of the individual, and limit the power of government.
You might also want to read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Constit … influences
I don't know Chris, we have laws against rape, murder, slavery and extortion.
Yeah, and they mostly came from Biblical morality and frameworks.
Try the entire New Testament.
Even the Old Testament was very particular about slavery. And remember that the OT was taking place in one specific place and time and was for one specific people, the Israelites. But they had strict rules about 'slavery', they didn't hold chattel slaves for life. And the NT makes clear that all men are created equal (which is where the American Founding Fathers got that) and even says that slaves should try to win their freedom if they can.So it doesn't tell the slave owners to release and pay these people at once?
I'm sorry, are you asking me if the Bible is really supposed to be a 21st century document?
Well yes, according to you it's a good place to get our morality from. According to you it's the word of God, so of course it should be a 21st century document. Why would you get your morality from a 2000 year old book if it's not applicable today?
No, you have a good point, and you're absolutely right. What I was trying to get at is a point I've made before, that human beings two, three and four thousand years ago didn't look at things the same way we do today. And had God tried to enforce that kind of behavior, He would have had limited and probably temporary success (that pesky free will which doesn't exist rears its ugly head again!) There are all sorts of behaviors that God said don't do, but people did them. It was still the rise of Christianity that led to eventua abolition of legalized slavery. Had Jesus (or Paul) said to do that in the first century, Christianity would have died a quick death.
"human beings two, three and four thousand years ago didn't look at things the same way we do today."
True, so why should we follow the Bible today?There's two answers to your question:
1) Because the Bible was teaching people how they should look at the world, and God was telling people how to live. Do you really think that just because people lived thousands of years go, they were willing and eager to follow the Mosaic law? If that were the case, half the OT would never have been written.
2) Your reply implies that anything written by people who live in a time and/or place where they look at things differently than we do means that we shouldn't be listening to them. It's the old "You're old fashioned and don't know what the world is like today!" argument. By that logic, the only thing we should really be listening to is ourselves, because nobody else really knows anything. That hasn't worked out very well, so far.
Perhaps you could quote it for us Chris? I don't recall Jesus saying anything against slavery - but maybe that is my lack of knowledge.
You are specifically asking about Jesus, and so that is what I will specifically answer. To quote myself:
Okay, I get a little verbose there (it's from a hub I wrote a year or more ago,) the point is that although many people think Jesus didn't talk about slavery, He did. It's just that the slavery He (as God's Son) was more worried about was people's slavery to sin. Slavery didn't start ending in Roman times until more people started getting right with God. Whatever the Roman Catholic church might be guilty of during the Middle Ages (the it was guilty of plenty) it was Christianity in the early days that was helping to put an end to slavery.
And it was Christianity that helped put an end (in a big way) to slavery both in America and England.No - nothing then? LOL that it was Christianity that put an end to slavery. How very funny that you cannot back that up with anything.
2,000 years of Christianity - 100 years of no slavery.
200:1
I mean - you don't think it some what "odd" that the bible speaks of slavery many, many, many times - yet when Jesus goes against it - he uses euphemisms?
Exodus 21:7-10 7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.I wrote a hub about slavery in the OT (and another about slavery in the NT.) That one actually doesn't deal with chattel slavery. It was more like indentured servitude. In those days, family members would "sell" themselves to pay off debt. But if it was the daughter who was serving the debtee, the master was not allowed to use her then cast her aside. If he liked her and wanted her to be his wife, or the wife of his son, he had to make arrangement. If he changed his mind, he had to compensate her.
Slavery in the NT was different than the OT. The Israelites under Roman occupation were kind of like slaves, unlike when they were taking over Canaan. And the situations were different. Jesus did not use euphamisms, He got at what was important. You may not agree that it was important, but to Him a person's relationship with God was the single most important thing.
And say what you will, I've never seen a convincing argument that slavery would have come to an end on it's own or by some other means. Yeah, it took centuries, but it was Christians who overwhelmingly were responsible for the end of legalized chattel slavery. And one hundred years is better than never.Jefferson Davis said "[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation"
For more, visit: http://www.csapartisan.com/jefferson_davis_quotes.html
Yes, Christians were abolitionists, but Christians were also slave owners.Your point?
You don't think I've acknowledged that pro-slavery forces quoted the Bible and thought slavery a positive good on the grounds that they were "Christianizing the heathens?"
And are you saying he was right? I know you're not. He was wrong. He misunderstood and misquoted scripture. Yeah, pro-slavery quoted the Bible (sometimes.) But it was still Christians who by and large were the most responsible for the abolition of it.
So, what's your point?Great point. It was Christians who helped free slaves held by Christians. The problem was it took Christians that recognized that the bible was WRONG about slavery to fight to end slavery.
I think that those Christians would disagree with you.
I don't see how. The Bible condones slavery, and they didn't.
No, the Bible does not condone slavery. I wrote three whole hubs on that. And the Christians who were against slavery were against slavery on Christian, Biblical grounds, not in spite of them.
Yet, it was used for years to justify slavery.
Yes, and I've acknowledged that over and over. But there's a huge difference between saying that people used the Bible to justify slavery (which they did) and saying the Bible itself condones slavery (which it doesn't.) You can find all kinds of misapplications of Scripture, from the amusing to the looney to the malevolent, if you look hard enough.
From wiki...
"The Bible contains several references to slavery. The Bible does not condemn slavery, but in fact supports the regulated practice of it, especially under the Old Testament, but also in the New Testament.
The regulation of slavery in the Bible, and absence of outright condemnation of it as an institution, was later used to justify slavery by its defenders. Abolitionists have also used text from the New Testament to argue for the manumission of slaves."
Perhaps then Chris, you need to re-write history. Good luck with that.
Wikipedia is a great source of information but it's also a terrible source of analysis. Sometimes it's wrong. And that's one of them.
Refer back to my hubs.Then, as I mentioned, re-write history yourself.
Your hubs are wrong.I also wrote an article for Wikipedia.
And no, my hubs are not wrong.Perhaps you could point to where Jesus tells us in specific words that slavery is wrong and should be abolished.
Sure - we know that the poor get their reward in heaven and not here. That is the entire point of your religion. Stops the slaves from killing the owners. This is a slave religion designed to keep the sheeple in their place.Don't take this personally, because it's not meant that way, but the only way I would tell anybody which article I wrote is if I were applying for a writing job and had to present it as part of my portfolio.
I don't assume that you're going to go on and mess with it. I just think it's poor form to go blatting around about the great article you wrote for Wikipedia. I only mention it now to make the point that anyone can write almost anything for Wikipedia.
I will say, however, that it's not about theology.
How is specifying which slaves you can own, and which you can't, not condoning slavery?
A) That was the OT. People were constantly doing things like taking others as slaves. God understood that people don't always do what He tells them to do, especially when all the peoples around them are doing it. Not any different from today. What the law did was modify the terms and conditions of slavery to a more humane level than was generally practiced. Still primitive by our standards but a leap forward at the time, pointing the way to people understanding that 'all men are created equal.'
B) The NT has no such rules. In fact, it tells slaves to try to gain their freedom if they can, and that in Christ there is no difference between slave and free (one of the prerequisites for slaveholding is often the conviction that the enslaved are somehow less human than you.)
Perhaps, some were indentured, but the vast majority were not, they were slaves who had no choice in the matter.
Not really. Some were, people do what people want to do. And the Bible talks about that too. But the slavery of the OT was (or at least was supposed to be) more like indentured servitude.
Don't forget...
Colossians 3:22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.
Or..
Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
Seeing as he was talking about the NT and all..
Don't forget incest, pedophilia, polygamy, genocide, human sacrifice, defrauding and betraying members of your own family . . .
And where, exactly, does the Bible tell anybody to commit those things?
Sodom and Gomorrah USA is living proof of predominate Christians behavior, who needs words to express those morals
I would point out that Sodom and Gomorrah USA is actually proof of the Bible's veracity. In the OT people were constantly doing what God told them not to. Some of them were even busy attempting to justify it using the very laws that God had set up. Not unlike western countries today, in fact not unlike the world.
Jesus told us that we should be careful because many people who think they're going to Heaven because they call themselves Christian will be unpleasantly surprised (the parables of the Sheep and the Goats and the Wide and Narrow Path.)
The behavior of people who call themselves 'christian' is not proof that the Bible is false.Just proof that it dose not work for most people on earth because they are not interested or even greater, not aware JC exist and most Christain are not Christ like anyways.
Find something that works for most, like love without all the conditions of love like in the Bible - a instruction book to God - (Yahweh or the Hell way)Point A I completely agree with.
Point B, I would love to see. It doesn't exist. I was born in the 60's and was surrounded growing up by college-educated, east-coast liberal types who believed in that stuff. So where is it?There is no god, yahweh or JC written into the Constiuition
How will Chris understand these laws without a JC cherry pickin stampReread the Constitution.
And thanks for the cred.
Oh yeah, definitely! Here's my guide:
Psalms 137:9 - Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
Malachi 2:3 - Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces
1 Timothy 2:12 - But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Deuteronomy 28:53 - And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the Lord thy God hath given thee
OK, who wants dung spread on their face? Line up now, 'cause I gotta go!You gotta love people who intentionally misquote the Bible!
How did I misquote it? I copied those from biblegateway.com. They might have been take out of context, so let's look at the context, shall we?
Here's all of Psalm 137:
137 By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
2 We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof.
3 For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion.
4 How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
5 If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning.
6 If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.
7 Remember, O Lord, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof.
8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
Quote the whole thing, and it gets weirder! Speaking of weirder, here's Malachi 2: 1-4: And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you.
2 If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the Lord of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart.
3 Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it.
4 And ye shall know that I have sent this commandment unto you, that my covenant might be with Levi, saith the Lord of hosts.
Shall I quote all of 1 Timothy 2? It gets worse.Um, this is what's called poetry. You know, meter, allegory, allusion? You might as well call Robert Frost or Lord Byron's stuff weird on the same ground. Maybe you do, I don't know. It's not uncommon to call stuff you don't understand weird, I've certainly done it. But still, this is poetry.
This was God speaking to Levite priests who were supposed to uphold His holy name but who instead defiled themselves by partaking in practices they were forbidden to do, then calling on the name of the Lord as if they had done nothing wrong. God said He would not accept their sacrifices anymore and went on to use some colorful language. If you'd bothered to quote the verses before and after that (in other words, in context) that would have become pretty clear.
I wish you would because from what I can make out from where you did 'quote' 1 verse of 1 Timothy 2, I don't know where you get that. If you can show it to me I would appreciate it.I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
What I take from that is that women shouldn't adorn themselves (i.e., not wear jewelry or makeup) and act is if they are shamed. Modest apparel, yeah, I get that. That's pretty reasonable, I guess, though I think women should be able to decide what they want to wear. But in verse 12, it says women shouldn't teach or have authority over a man (can't have a woman boss, I guess) and should be silent. Verse 11 tells women to shut up in general. There's also a verse (not in Tim, I forget where) that says that women must be silent in church. My Coptic Orthodox brother-in-law maintains that because of that, women should not be ministers. His wife, my wife's sister, disagrees, as I do.
It's easy to say that the OT is outdated and no longer applicable, but Tim. is the NT. And OK, you don't like tats (neither do I) but you can't swing a dead cat without hitting someone with a Jesus or other religious tattoo. I did a Google Images search and got 34 million hits. Granted, some are satirical (Hello Kitty Jesus being my favorite) but obviously not everyone has a problem with them.
So how does one choose which parts of the OT to follow and which to ignore?This part of 1 Timothy is controversial even within the evangelical (conservative) Protestant churches. It's pretty well agreed that women should not be in the pulpit, but there are women leaders. And lots of men have women bosses, I certainly have. I don't find that unbliblical.
Yeah, I know there are Jesus tattoos. I see them. I think they're weird but if I was 26 and not 46 I might think differently. I don't know. I don't get weirded out by guys with long hair. I used to be one (before I became a Christian.)
And for the record, my wife was far more against women in the pulpit than I am. I'm not in favor, but my wife's reaction was occasionally something to behold.
As for which parts of the OT to follow and which to discard, well, technically we don't discard any of it. However, the most direct answer to your question, as far as I have been able to figure out, is that it's between the individual and God. Obviously, nobody does the animal sacrifices or stones the blashphemers any more. And even parts that the church leaders believe we should be following are discarded by Joe in the Pew all t he time (and more often that they should be, discarded by the pastors and leaders as well.) The obvious is that some things (like the sacrifices and stonings) applied to specific people in a specific time and place. Others, like do not kill, do not steal, are just common sense, though people still do them. Others, like have no other gods before me, are ones that Christians should be practicing but don't."It's pretty well agreed that women should not be in the pulpit, but there are women leaders."
Apparently you're not a Methodist. They have tons of women as pastors. For example, the last three pastors at the church where we have our Boy Scout meetings have all had women as pastors.
"it's between the individual and God."
But the official position (if Pretestant churches can be said to have one) is against homosexuality, for example, because of Lev. 18. They're not leaving it up to the individual.
"Obviously, nobody does the animal sacrifices or stones the blashphemers any more."
Obviously, you go to the wrong church! What has happened, in effect, is that those parts of the OT (or the NT, for that matter) that we find distasteful in a modern context are discarded. We no longer use the Bible to justify slavery, for example. So Biblical morality has conceded to modernity.You're right, I'm not a Methodist.
I tried to differentiate by referring to conservative churches. So 'mainline' or 'liberal' churches like Methodist and Episcopalian, I don't generally comment on.
Goes back to my statement about things being discarded. And for what it's worth, there's almost as much division about homosexuality as there is about women in the pulpit.
Actually, modernity caught up with the Bible vis-a-vis slavery. But your point is right, I think I said pretty much the same thing. Instead of trying to wrestle with what things actually mean and live our lives according to God's Word, we discard what we don't like and live as we please. I'm not excluding myself from that.
We most certainly should take notice of what it says about immorality. Look at Sodom and Gommorah they were destroyed because of their sexual conduct. Marrage is sacred and the reason why is because if we all stuck to one partner then STI's wouldn't happen and that's why Jahovah gives us the bible and it's warnings. It clearly states that man shall not lie with man what it doesn't say is ' or thy shall get AIDS' God left that for us to find out AFTER Men disobeyed him. It also tells us to abstain from blood-the reason is two fold. 1-Because it belongs to him and 2- Blood contains diseases that cannot be detected until it's in the body. If you go through the Bible you will see many examples of those who ignored the warnings about immorality and their punishments. It's not written there for nothing. So for those of you who take the P out of it I'd be careful if I were you, ever heard of Armageddon, well unless you want to die when that takes place I'd start reading it if I were you and then put it into practice. Oh and by the way if you look at the end of Revelation it tell you that for those who add or take away from it the penalty is death (at armageddon that is) This includeds MIS-QUOTES or mis translations.
So if you're gonna quote Leviticus, I must ask, why follow Lev. 18 & 20, which speaks of "men lying with men as with women" and not Lev. 19, which expressly forbids tattoos? And speaking of the Biblical definition of marriage, let's have a look:
- An arranged marriage—Genesis 24:1-4 (and many other passages)
- A levirate marriage (If a man died leaving no male heir, his brother was required to marry his widow and produce children)—Deuteronomy 25:5-10
- A polygamous marriage—1 Kings 11:3 (and many, many other passages)
- Not inter-racial—Deuteronomy 7:14; 1 Corinthians 7:39; 2 Corinthians 6:14
- Filled with sexual prohibitions—no intercourse during menstruation (The woman is unclean. Yet another degradation of women.) —The woman cannot withhold sex from her husband; she has to fulfill his desire for sex when he wants it. (And another example of the Bible’s misogyny)
- Not allowed to be dissolved, i.e. NO DIVORCE—Matthew 5:31-32; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18
- Except when the man wanted to because his wife had become ‘displeasing’ to him—Deuteronomy 24:1-4
- Between a rapist and his victim—Deuteronomy 22:28-29
- An arranged marriage by a slave owner for his slaves—Genesis 24:4
- Can be between brother and sister—How else do you explain where Cain’s wife came from!
- Intended to produce children—Without children a woman was:
Shamed—a barren woman was looked upon as cursed by God
Unable to be saved—1 Timothy 2:15Wow!
Jesus said (since you're quoting Jesus) that the men who sent their wives away "because they were displeasing to them" GOT IT WRONG! God hates divorce under any circumstances, and only when the man us unfaithful to his wife is the wife allowed to leave. The man is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG to send his wife away for any circumstance he pleases (Jesus said Moses allowed it because their "hearts were hard." That means He knew that Moses couldn't stop it but he still shouldn't have allowed it.)
If you're gonna quote, quote right. Don't mix and match contexts. That's the worst kind of cherry-picking.
And I never liked tattoos...
Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed because of how they treated strangers and others...Marriage in the OT days.. was often between a Man and many women...Kinda like how USA Porn is larger industry than Hollywood
I think not only is it foolish but dangerous to recieve your morals from the Bible, especially the old Testament. The Old Testament where God asks his followers to commit genocide, murder and rape as well as displaying himself to be a jealous, murderous and unforgiving God. God, the great dictator in the sky who insults our very integrity as human beings. One would have to be immoral, stupid or brainwashed to recieve their morals from the Bible.
Really? And what if my brain is telling me that girls should be protected but that guy over there is being told by his brain that girls are property to be used and disposed of (literally)? Should the brain still be the ultimate source of morality?
That's what laws are for. It just doesn't or hasn't works to tell people not to do something for fear of the afterlife. Yes, it does work for a few, but most people don't really believe in hell for it to be a deterrent. Lets look at he mafia for example. They are God fearing people who, steal, extort, promote prostitution and launder money and show up for Sunday mass. Most of the world know the 10 commandments, but which one among us hasn't used the Lords name in vain when agree or stolen a pen from work?
So you're agreeing with me? I was disagreeing with her that the brain should be the ultimate source of morality. You and I may disagree on what the ultimate source of morality is or should be, but we are agreeing that it's not the human brain. If I read you correctly.
The majority of human brains think morally. Even those who don't almost always start life out thinking morally. A child knows stealing is wrong from the very first time they take a penny out of their mother's purse. Just because some CHOOSE not to use their brains doesn't mean the moral compass isn't in there still.
Having once been a child myself, and having known many children during my life, I would wonder about that penny stealing thing. Most don't think anything about it the first time. They want the penny, they take the penny. Unless they've been specifically told by Mom or Dad not to, they don't really think about the first time.
That's not argumentative just for the sake of argument. I think about these things. I do believe that many people have an "inner compass" of morality, but I also see society slipping into a much more 'barbaric' frame of mind, legal statutes notwithstanding. I think a lot about what kind of morality comes naturally to people, and what is conditioned by society (or God.)Oh I agree that society is slipping, I just don't associate that with a lack of the bible or a God. Another thing that would have to be noted is what one person sees as not moral another does.
A fetus does not develop a heart beat for around 12 days, so even a pro life person could easily say it is moral to abort as long as it is done prior to 12 days after conception.
Even if the bible is considered "God's Words" it is written word interpret by man. So man put his (at the time) morals in it.
I can say this, I do not have a bible or God in my life and I live morally. I was not raised by moral parents so I didn't get it there. So if it is not in my brain then where did it come from?I agree with that but that actually makes my point (my point being that the human brain is insufficient as as an arbiter of morality.) Yeah, I'm a Christian and I think the Bible (properly understood) should be the center of societal morality but that's not actually my point.
As a staunch pro-lifer I would say that it's not the heart beat or the brain patterns or any other single biological function that makes a fetus a human being. And as a pro-lifer I would also point out that this is a slippery slope. Once you start defining what is human by a set of biological precepts, no matter how precise or wide-ranging you attempt to be, you open the door for legislation as to who is and who is not human (which we already have, in effect.) That's how you wind up with T4.
As a Calvinist, we could debate what is meant by "written by man." Let me just say that I was not raised in a Christian environment. Your question is both ineresting and worth investigation.
Yes, so we get our moral compass from our peers and family. That's where it came from. We use our brain to make moral judgments and if the brain is mature were good, if not religion or fear of getting caught by the law may be necessary. That's why we were told about Santa a children. He knows who is naughty or nice.
You are reading me correctly. We get our moral compass from family, friends, school and the law and sometimes religion, but that's not necessary. Some need to fear the law, some need to fear the afterlife, some need to think someone is always watching, those are the one that haven't matured properly. We are taught not to hurt others, but some just don't get it. Some are left not having any compassion or empathy, while they make good business men they make lousy companions.
Annsalo, well said! You have been making some very thoughtful and adept points on this forum. Keep it up!
there r far better books than bible for moral values...bible is relevant in some context but largely it is book written by bunch of people who lives 1900 years ago...many things have changed since then...
Also, I think it is more a work of philosophy and parables and not to be taken literally. Granted, it is a 2000-yeaar-old philosophy...
Would you also think of religion as a form of culture, as people have been formed more by culture than race? The English speaking Christian countries I do not feel are that civilized, when you look the state of Sodom and Gomorrah behavior .
The Bible is a historical collection of facts as documented by people wishing to project thought into a pattern of living that would permit the reader to understand how humans lived during good and bad times.
If the individual chooses to follow the path of the moral individual then the Bible is a good structure.
If the individual decides that following the immoral path is good because man and God will forgive them, then it is probably not so good.
The only way the Bible is a good source for morality is if the individual reading and interpreting the writings is smart enough to recognize the moral requirements.
This is true for any book that describes the activities that would lead on to a moral life.
Besides, moral is not a book, but the way you choose to live your life.
If that were the case, they wouldn't need the Bible.If someone decides to receive their morals from the Old Testament I would suggest giving that person a wide berth. The Bible is the most immoral book I have ever read.
Related Discussions
- 170
Who is the ultimate authority on the Bible?
by arsmith 13 years ago
Who is the ultimate authority on the Bible?Jesus stated; “But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”“Vain; Unproductive of success; Unreal, potential, virtual; baseless, in nubibus; unsubstantial, fruitless.”“Doctrine; a principle of law established through a...
- 38
Is the bible against or okay with homosexuality?
by ii3rittles 4 years ago
Is the bible against or okay with homosexuality?I have read scripture that goes both ways (no pun intended!) and I am honestly confused. Can some please quote scripture that shows God is against homosexuality or okay with it. And is it okay (with God) that I view it as wrong? I try not to in...
- 43
If man originated from one source, Adam and Eve, how come we have white and blac
by Lawal Abiodun 7 years ago
If man originated from one source, Adam and Eve, how come we have white and black people?Adam and Eve were either black or white. And if they really had the same skin color, where do other skin colors originate from. And also, why do we have different races? What really happened to us?
- 25
Purpose of the Bible ... What is the Bible about?
by Jouneyman2 15 years ago
I'm kinda new to this forum but in reading through some of the threads on religion I was amazed at the spectrum of theories and beliefs. In all of what I read, which wasn't ALL the topics, I didn't see this question posed by anyone, so I thought I would present it. Feel free to reply as you wish, I...
- 212
How do you prove something is morally right or wrong without using the Bible or
by Joseph O Polanco 4 months ago
How do you prove something is morally right or wrong without using the Bible or appealing to God?
- 82
Why did God embrace racial bias and condone slavery?
by Ivan Tod 7 years ago
Why did God embrace racial bias and condone slavery?