Even if You Are Not a Christian or Jew

[Twfan55]

Read the Bible. I am a Catholic and believe in what it says, but not in a literal sense. If you take a look at some of the things Jesus and the people in the bible said and live by them, they will not hurt you.

Some of the things Jesus said.

Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.

Using and practicing these can be bad for you how?

[mongoose]

But how do we filter out the filth from the wisdom? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." is perfectly good and all, but what about "if a man lies with another man, it is an abomination and they must be put to death" (paraphrased from memory)? Though I still agree that everyone should read the Bible.

[Irishman]

To be honest, if you cut out the mythology, the Bible is a second rate moral system.

It spends too much time explaining what will happen if you don't follow it and amounts, to a large extent, to a list of rules.

There are plenty of moral codes and philosophies which would be much better to read if you are looking for a secular moral philosophy.

[Kscott]

Numbers 5: 11-31

11 and the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying: 12 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them: If any man's wife go aside, and act unfaithfully against him, 13 and a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, she being defiled secretly, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken in the act; 14 and the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled; or if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled; 15 then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and shall bring her offering for her, the tenth part of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put frankincense thereon; for it is a meal-offering of jealousy, a meal-offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance. 16 And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the LORD. 17 And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water. 18 And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and let the hair of the woman's head go loose, and put the meal-offering of memorial in her hands, which is the meal-offering of jealousy; and the priest shall have in his hand the water of bitterness that causeth the curse. 19 And the priest shall cause her to swear, and shall say unto the woman: 'If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness, being under thy husband, be thou free from this water of bitterness that causeth the curse; 20 but if thou hast gone aside, being under thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee besides thy husband-- 21 then the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman--the LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to fall away, and thy belly to swell; 22 and this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, and make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to fall away'; and the woman shall say: 'Amen, Amen.' 23 And the priest shall write these curses in a scroll, and he shall blot them out into the water of bitterness. 24 And he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that causeth the curse; and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her and become bitter. 25 And the priest shall take the meal-offering of jealousy out of the woman's hand, and shall wave the meal-offering before the LORD, and bring it unto the altar. 26 And the priest shall take a handful of the meal-offering, as the memorial-part thereof, and make it smoke upon the altar, and afterward shall make the woman drink the water. 27 And when he hath made her drink the water, then it shall come to pass, if she be defiled, and have acted unfaithfully against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away; and the woman shall be a curse among her people. 28 And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be cleared, and shall conceive seed. 29 This is the law of jealousy, when a wife, being under her husband, goeth aside, and is defiled; 30 or when the spirit of jealousy cometh upon a man, and he be jealous over his wife; then shall he set the woman before the LORD, and the priest shall execute upon her all this law. 31 And the man shall be clear from iniquity, and that woman shall bear her iniquity


Jesus said some nice things, but the bible really is not the shining example of morality as some would like us to believe.

[Syron]

Read the Bible. I am a Catholic and believe in what it says, but not in a literal sense. If you take a look at some of the things Jesus and the people in the bible said and live by them, they will not hurt you.

Some of the things Jesus said.

Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.

Using and practicing these can be bad for you how?

But the thing is, do you honestly believe those things are in any way original?

Take "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

This is essentially "The Golden Rule",

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

The Golden Rule was a common principle in ancient Greek philosophy. A few examples:

"Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him." (Pittacus)[1]

"Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." (Thales)[2]

"What you wish your neighbors to be to you, such be also to them." (Sextus the Pythagorean)[3]

"Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others." (Isocrates)[4]

"What thou avoidest suffering thyself seek not to impose on others." (Epictetus)[5]

Why exactly do you think anyone should read the Bible to get a sense of morality when most of the ideas it presents are not exactly new? There are far more works in the area of ethics that are far less ambiguous, prejudiced, and a darn sight more logical than many aspects of the Bible.

You see the thing is, the bible contains many stories where the "hero(s)" acted in a manner that goes against the golden rule. Wouldn't it make more sense to read proper intellectual discussions that contain the very same concepts than wade through a mass of pseudo-history and parables?

[jankren]

I like to cut my wrists. I would gladly do the same unto others. Anyone interested? LOL

Anyway, I personally like many things in the Bible but mostly if not all are Jesus' supposed quotes.

[kev-o]

the Bible is a second rate moral system.

Thats wonderful. Whats the first rate moral system? Yours? I mean you are atheist so morality is relative to how you see it so it has it be yours.

[Kscott]

Thats wonderful. Whats the first rate moral system? Yours? I mean you are atheist so morality is relative to how you see it so it has it be yours.

Atheists, at least intellectual ones, tend to get their moral systems from philosophy. Relative morality is limited to Nihilism. The vast majority of philosophers do not only believe in morality, but try to spell it out logically.

The bible has some very questionable morals. Just sit down and read the old testament. Slavery is fine, unless they are a fellow Jew of course, women clearly have their own set of (stricter) rules, and the mauling of children is God's punishment for children mocking a prophets baldness! And this isn't just empty rhetoric, I can find plenty of in context scriptural evidence for all of this. I mean just look at the thing I posted above. Its sick. Especially if you realize that women would essentially be stripped down naked in front of witnesses in this barbaric practice.

[kev-o]

Just sit down and read the old testament.

Using theological logic, Jesus (being God) gave mankind a new set of morals: Love your God with all your heart, mind, and soul. Love your neighbor as yourself. Plus the Beatitudes, These would overrule the OT laws. Theologically speaking, the OT laws only apply to the Jews nowadays since they don't beleive Jesus was God, ergo they don't follow the NT.

[Syron]

Using theological logic, Jesus (being God) gave mankind a new set of morals: Love your God with all your heart, mind, and soul. Love your neighbor as yourself. Plus the Beatitudes, These would overrule the OT laws. Theologically speaking, the OT laws only apply to the Jews nowadays since they don't beleive Jesus was God, ergo they don't follow the NT.

..............Which is why plenty of fundamentalist Christians just LOVE Leviticus

Hence the comments about the ambiguity of Christian Doctrine.

[kev-o]

Which is why plenty of fundamentalist Christians just LOVE Leviticus

Which is why I despise fundamentalist Christians. They take everything so seriously that what they are doing is blinding themselves in the process. People like the West Boro Baptist Church are an example. Even baptists get everthing mixed up. They are the kind of people that give christianity a bad rap and give christian apologists and others a head ache.

[Irishman]

Using theological logic, Jesus (being God) gave mankind a new set of morals: Love your God with all your heart, mind, and soul.

Jesus uses the old testament in many parts of the new. You cannot separate the two.

[Syron]

But again this goes back to my earlier point. Little of the moral positions stated in the Bible, even by Jesus, were particularly new and have been present in literature for a long time. Why obfuscate moral teachings by trying to wade through the Bible?

Yeh if you are a Christian (believe in the divine inspiration to the Bible etc) fine, but i just find a Christian telling me the Bible somehow has novel moral teachings or that it conveys them in an easy to interpret way compared to other sources to be quite unhinged from reality.

[Irishman]

Why obfuscate moral teachings by trying to wade through the Bible?

My point exactly!

[kev-o]

Jesus uses the old testament in many parts of the new. You cannot separate the two.

I realize that. Yet he is the new Adam, who brings hope back to mankind, saving us from sin. The OT laws are Jewish. Jesus spoke about them to his followers who were Jewish. The laws Jesus brings are benevolent. His word is the new law, which supercedes the original. The reason he uses the OT is because his first followers and himself were Jewish. The OT is Jewish law, the law from God the Father. Jesus, God the Son, brings new laws to replace the old one which served their purpose in God's eyes.

Little of the moral positions stated in the Bible, even by Jesus, were particularly new and have been present in literature for a long time

This would be what C.S. Lewis calls the Moral Law, which states that the Moral absolutes are universal.

[Irishman]

His word is the new law, which supersedes the original.

Yet his new law is BASED on the old, and is highly centered on punishment.

This would be what C.S. Lewis calls the Moral Law, which states that the Moral absolutes are universal.

And CS Lewis' interpretation of this was absolutely laughable. The idea that these similarities stem out of societies' structure is far more likely.

There are also many differences between "moral absolutes".

[Captain Blackadder]

I prefer Gaius Musonius Rufus personally it is a great pity that more people do not know about him he has a modern view on most subjects apart from homosexuality but then the bible is hardly a bastion of tolerance on that subject. He was a man so well respected that even Christians said he was fantastic and one of the two greatest men in history with Socrates'

[The Sixth Wizard]

The problem with the Bible is the number of instances in which it contradicts itself. If you are going to use it as a moral compass, you are going to have to draw a pretty clear-cut line between what you are going to find literal and what you are going to disregard.

Proof: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

Lists of bad stuff: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/inj/long.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

List of good stuff: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/good/long.html

[kev-o]

Yet his new law is BASED on the old, and is highly centered on punishment.

Thats your interpretation.

And CS Lewis' interpretation of this was absolutely laughable.

Care to explain why? You offer an opinion on his analysis but care not to elaborate.

The idea that these similarities stem out of societies' structure is far more likely.

Likley? Its just another Darwinian theory, spun from evolution, another theory. A theory from a theory. Very likly indeed.

There are also many differences between "moral absolutes".

Which is why I go back to CS Lewis's statement I presented. But I won't offer more until you elaborate on why its laughable, since there is no point for me to move on until I understand your critque.


@ The Sixth Wizard

I offer sites in rebuttal.

http://www.tektonics.org/

http://www.skepticalchristian.com/

http://www.carm.org/

[Irishman]

Thats your interpretation.

No, its not. As I said (to which you agreed) Jesus used and based his teachings on the OT.

Care to explain why? You offer an opinion on his analysis but care not to elaborate.

I did, the sentence after it.

Likley? Its just another Darwinian theory, spun from evolution, another theory. A theory from a theory. Very likly indeed.

So I suppose you dismiss evolutionary psychology too...

Wow, just wow. Social contract theory is simply a better explanation than that there is some metaphysical truth that something is "right"- an innately human concept, which did not exist before humans.

You are positing more variables than I.

Which is why I go back to CS Lewis's statement I presented. But I won't offer more until you elaborate on why its laughable, since there is no point for me to move on until I understand your critque.

I already have. Social contract is a simpler, and more elegant explanation than a "moral law". You COULD make the argument that the nature of human interaction mandates certain actions be abhorred, but this is not what you are doing. Strange...