The morality of the Bible?

[President Camacho]

Training people to betray their closest relatives and friends can also be witnessed in Communist Russia, Cuba (present day), Nazi Germany, and I've read of it in 1984.

It's extremely immoral in my opinion. Recognizing this as a feature in cult or government should signal evil intent.

[President Camacho]

After watching the video:

You know how much time people spend debating and interpreting the bible?

I'm not talking about lives lost or tragedies carried out on behalf of it; I'm just talking time. What if we spent that time concerned with natural events and with figuring out our own planet and beyond? What if we used our most valuable resource for discovery?

Why don't Americans value science? You can hear how despondent Sagan is in the video. We could do so much if in one voice we all decided to give it our best shot at finding Real answers and dedicating ourselves to truth.

We need more people interested in discovery. We need people who can lend their own creativity and perspective to help find solutions to mysteries. I wonder how many intelligent people are out there that have turned their backs on science because they have been taught to believe that the word of God is final and that science runs counter to it.

From Americans not having any large guided rockets to landing on the moon was roughly 25 years. That happened in far less than a lifetime! What an achievement! It took 2 wars to do it. Maybe we need a war on the behalf of science.

**Landing on the moon was the culmination of many years of scientific discovery (notably during the latter part of the 17th century) and did not all happen within 25 years. The point is that without some spurring of public interest we may have never reached the moon. We did and it didn't take very long to do it. We can do extraordinary things!!!

[seespotrun2008]

Why not just say: "Love your family but do not become too attached to them because all things pass away. Love God above everything else that you love because the eternal God is the one thing that shall not pass away. If you wish to be my disciple, love God above all things."

Because the gospels were not written in English for Americans in 2010. The world was pretty different 2000 years ago and people expressed things differently and had a different perspective on the world.

The reason it wasn't stated any different is because it has to do with what the story line is talking about. The last year of the age of Aries was the end of the last Great Year. Jesus life story has been formatted to fit the last year of the age of Aries up to the crucifixion scene. It's the end of a world age:
http://www.usbible.com/astrology/gospel_zodiac.htm
It's based on turmoil and division from that perspective. The end of an age is an ill-omened time traditionally. There's a new religious symbolism mounting on the horizon geared for the new age (Pisces) ahead which is about happen in the context of the story. He comes to bring down fury on the old ways of orthodox Judaism (separating the wheat from the tares). It isn't about peace from that angle at all. There is no indication that world will peaceful at that time, peace is actually projected for later (the millennium). And what is being suggested here is that those who wish to take on the new ways of the new age will be at odds with those who wish to cling to the ways of the old. And it's a time of great division in that respect - the 'crossing' over from age and Great Year to another all at the same time. It's saying that households in Israel will be divided over the changing of the ages because some will want to move on while others will reject moving on. And those who want to move on and take up the new religious symbolism (Aries / Moses to Pisces / Jesus) will have to do so against the will of their own families, even reject their own families over this religious transition.

That is one way of looking at it. It could also be that people were writing about the turmoil that was happening in their lives. And the gospels were written to convert followers. So there is definite persuasion going on in the gospels. However, when Christianity first started there were a lot of Christian groups that all thought very differently. All of the things that we take for granted about Christianity today were worked out over centuries by theologians and religious and political leaders. When Christianity first started religious belief was not even a question and there were many different groups that disagreed with each other. These verses could have been referring to an in-fight within the Christian community. There is a lot of that that goes on in the New Testament.

They could have just as easily suggested that a new symbolism is in order and you can agree to disagree with those who refuse it. You don't need to hate them for their refusal!

I do not think that is the world these people lived in. The Romans did not agree to disagree. Militarily they were very violent and controlling. This may just be the way that the world was. And again, I think it is incredibly important to go back to the original language to interpret the Bible.

[tat tvam asi]

The world was pretty different 2000 years ago and people expressed things differently and had a different perspective on the world.

Yes, it was much less moral at that time as we've been saying. Their was slavery, women were property, and so on.

That is one way of looking at it. It could also be that people were writing about the turmoil that was happening in their lives.

Yes, the turmoil and messanic expectation links to the time frame in question, the changing of the "ages".

However, when Christianity first started there were a lot of Christian groups that all thought very differently. All of the things that we take for granted about Christianity today were worked out over centuries by theologians and religious and political leaders. When Christianity first started religious belief was not even a question and there were many different groups that disagreed with each other. These verses could have been referring to an in-fight within the Christian community. There is a lot of that that goes on in the New Testament.

These verses are coming from Jesus speaking to the Jews before going into the crucifixion - before there was such a religion as Christianity established yet in the story line. The creation of various Christian sects comes after the ascension. Their were no competing Christian groups as of these verses which are clearly addressed to Jews having to leave their families for this new version of messianic Judaism. The context is clear, whenever it was written and copied. It's referring to before Christianity became Christianity when it was still simply a messaniac branch of Judaism in the context of the story line. I'm just trying to keep the quotes in the context that they appear in the narrative.

I do not think that is the world these people lived in. The Romans did not agree to disagree. Militarily they were very violent and controlling. This may just be the way that the world was.

Romans? Jesus was talking to the Jews. Paul took the message to the Gentiles afterwards, according to the context of the narrative. I was saying why didn't Jesus tell the Jews that he was addressing in these verses, in Israel, to simply agree to disagree with their family members who opposed this new age based form of messianic Judaism that he was promoting in the story line? This contradicts 'turning the other cheek' and 'what you do unto others you have done unto Jesus'. Why draw a line and say 'it's either them or me?' Is that moral?

And, to do so, to reject your family, you have therefore rejected Jesus also in the process because 'that which you've done unto the least of these, my brethren, you have also done unto me'.

Rejecting family = rejecting Jesus

Red flag contradiction!

And again, I think it is incredibly important to go back to the original language to interpret the Bible.

What do you think the bible translators have done? What were they translating from in the first place? Even if we throw out the word hate, if you'd like, there's still a major problem with morality left in the verses. This is not so easily dismissed or excused in any way.

Luke 14:26 (New International Version)
26"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.

Luke 14:26 (King James Version)

26If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Luke 14:26 (New King James Version)
26 “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.

Luke 14:26 (21st Century King James Version)

26"If any man come to Me and hate not his father and mother, and wife and children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.

Luke 14:26 (Young's Literal Translation)

26`If any one doth come unto me, and doth not hate his own father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brothers, and sisters, and yet even his own life, he is not able to be my disciple;

Luke 14:26 (Today's New International Version)
26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even life itself—such a person cannot be my disciple.

[seespotrun2008]

These verses are coming from Jesus speaking to the Jews before going into the crucifixion - before there was such a religion as Christianity established yet in the story line.

In the story line of that particular gospel that may be true, but scholars now discuss what Jesus really said. We do not necessarily know how much of these stories are something that Jesus said and how much of it was written by the gospel writers. The gospels were written 50 to 150 years after Jesus' death. And again, interpretation of these gospels has been filtered through 2000 years of theological study and need for political power.

Romans? Jesus was talking to the Jews.

In the story he was talking to the Jews, but again, Jesus did not write this. People who followed him did. The Romans were the most powerful group in this time. And certainly when you live in a dictatorship you would get used to thinking a certain way. And dictatorships do not normally agree to disagree.

What do you think the bible translators have done? What were they translating from in the first place? Even if we throw out the word hate, if you'd like, there's still a major problem with morality left in the verses. This is not so easily dismissed or excused in any way.

I think that Biblical translators do the best they can. But capturing another language is extremely difficult. There are many things that English does not always capture. For example, in Greek there is a form of time that encompasses the past, present, and future all in one. There is nothing like that in English. Understanding that concept of time changes interpretation drastically. Which is why I am wondering what that text would have meant to the people listening? I know that people take English translation of these texts and attempt to apply them to today. So the English literal interpretation informs people how to see the modern world. It is a very complicated mix.

[tat tvam asi]

I guess you pretty much agree that this content is not all that moral then? It's better left to that ancient time period of brutality and to promote it as moral today is very errant.

I know about the Gospels as well. The truth is that none of them make a firm appearence into the historical record until the mid to late second century. Placing them any closer is wishful thinking at best because there's no evidence for it. And on that same note there isn't so much as one contemporary source to confirm the historical existence of Jesus or the disciples of the story line. The Gospels are not contemporary source material, Paul is not contemporary material, Josephus is not contemporary source material, and of course neither are Pliny, Tacitus or any other noncontemporary sources used to try and place Jesus into history (see "the mythicist position video" on my signature). I know that very well, hence my saying according to "the story line" and to "the narrative" when discussing the bible:

http://www.youtube.com/user/theemptycross#g/u

And does that do anything to make these verses moral and worthy of continuation in the modern world? Not hardly.

It's about leaving your family for a new age based cult teaching of that time period regardless of who made up the cult teaching or at what time. Why should it be promoted as morality in the modern world?

And as for biblical interpretation, the modern translations are based on going back to the oldest sources available to try and make as accurate a translation as possible. They are aimed at trying to do better than the old King James and older errant translations. That's why there's a new King James. Now I'm wondering if you can show that the word "hate" is a mistranslation across the board and that every translation using it - old to modern - must be corrected? By the way, just to get you started, the original Greek word is "miseo," as in MISOGYNY, and it means "TO HATE." That's why it's been translated as such...

Here is the Strong's Concordance for the word in the New Testament:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex ... 3404&t=KJV

Note that "to hate" and "to detest" are the ONLY definitions listed here by this renowned authority. Scroll down, and you'll see the scriptures that term is used in, including Luke 14:26. Note the contradiction as you scroll down. 'Love those who hate you' becomes 'hate your family if they don't go along with this new Piscean age cult' by the time you get down to Luke.

So why try and defend this archaic literature founded on errant contradiction that most likely never even arose from any historial Jesus or disciples in the first place? You've taken up apologetics for this nonsense and I have to wonder why, when you know as much as you do about the error involved in the bible.

[DWill]

So why try and defend this archaic literature founded on errant contradiction that most likely never even arose from any historial Jesus or disciples in the first place? You've taken up apologetics for this nonsense and I have to wonder why, when you know as much as you do about the error involved in the bible.

If I may, I don't think it's accurate or fair to put down what seespotrun is saying as "apologetics." She presents an independent, thoughtful perspective, very different from that in which apologists attempt to reconcile any contradiction as consistent in logic with everything else in the Bible.

The presence of contradictions doesn't mean that this literature is "founded" on contradictions. I like Robert Wright's approach in The Evolution of God. He explains the contradictions in terms of a dynamic political situation that held over the course of several hundred years. From the Bible passages we can infer some of this political dynamism. That has the advantage, at least, of making the bible more interesting as an object of study. It might be a good thing that the Bible is not a more manipulated collection of documents than it is.

A central point of Wright's is that religions are not only what their scriptures or their leaders say they are. Religions don't run strictly by a manual. This can explain how Christians (or Muslims) make their own selections from scripture, featuring some elements while ignoring many others. The passages you've been quoting on hatred for family ties obviously are not brought up today, when religion and family values are considered to be synonymous. I suppose that might be considered as hypocritical. The only thing that bothers me about the situation, though, is the refusal to acknowledge that many mixed voices are present in the Bible. That seems a little perverse.

[tat tvam asi]

The presence of contradictions doesn't mean that this literature is "founded" on contradictions.

The bible starts off with a contradiction, that is, the first day has no firmament nor sun in the firmament by which to have a "day". The foundation of the bible begins with contradiction and many more follow through all the way to the contradictions we find here in the NT. Love those who hate you, but hate your family if they reject this cult teaching? Shouldn't you love them even if they hate you for being a Christian according to the first standard? This is ass backwards nonsense! What you have done unto others you have also done unto Christ? So then hating your family, that is, hating others as Christ is now saying, amounts to hating Christ in the process. This is ass backwards nonsense! Why promote it as anything else? Those who try are then forced to try and dismiss and excuse all of this immorality.

The only thing that bothers me about the situation, though, is the refusal to acknowledge that many mixed voices are present in the Bible. That seems a little perverse.

What refusal? I've pointed out that the bible can only be viewed as partially moral at best on every conversation about the morality of the bible around here. And I quoted some of the verses that are moral in standard as well along side of the immoral verses to make the point. And we've just outlined the factor of 'many voices' that are responsible for the bible in the last few posts made along with active links which support it. It's those 'many voices', which have been mentioned already, that have brought all of this "contradiction" to table in the first place. Differing thoughts and ideas coming from different people and factions written down as if they came from an historial Jesus written down by disciples, or as if they came from an historical Moses writing down Genesis before that. These 'many voices' are all the more reason to see this as a case of ancient people struggling along towards morality and falling short along the way, than some great moral book that must be followed or else.

[geo]

Religion is always about humanity.

Oh we like to talk about how great god is, but in the end, who's god's favorite little creation? You are, arent you! Oh your special! Yes you are! Yes! Yes you are! Who's got opposable thumbs, huh? Who does?! You do! Just look at you with your own little world to live in, and animals to eat, and we even made women for you to do whatever you want with!

God created all the universe for us to live in? He controls everything everywhere, but he gave us free will because he loves us so much and lets us, alone in all creation, do whatever we want even if it hurts us because he loves us so much? We are the center of all creation in religion. Its an absurd, self-centered appeal to our own ego.

God is nothing more than our imginary friend which we cooked up to make us feel like the most popular princess in all the world. This enormously powerful uncle who has the whole universe to run but really can't wait to hear what we did today. All the people we met, all the good things we did, and to chastise us for the bad things we did. Because despite being the summation of everything anywhere and at anytime, he still cares enough to tell us to be nice to one another.

Awww... arent we special.

Bullshit.

Ha ha, this is priceless.

[geo]

The bible starts off with a contradiction, that is, the first day has no firmament nor sun in the firmament by which to have a "day". The foundation of the bible begins with contradiction and many more follow through all the way to the contradictions we find here in the NT. . . .

Tat, you have made a great case that there are contradictions in the Bible. Clearly, there are, but only if you see it as a sacred document which it is not. It is collection of texts from different cultures—a few creation myths, some scattered histories, genealogies, all collected two thousand years ago by a group of people who were attempting to consolidate them into a coherent religion. As such, one would expect such a collection to contain many contradictions and differing viewpoints, as they derive from different cultures and span quite a lot of time. Religious belief is entirely subjective, never based on any kind eternal truth. This is why there are countless beliefs, scattered amongst hundreds of thousands of religions.

That there are contradictions in the Bible is an open-and-shut case. But by continuing to argue your "case" you are only reacting to those who insist that the Bible as a literal text. At last count there is one person on this forum who persists in this delusion and no amount of rhetoric is going to convince him otherwise. You have a lot to offer and I enjoy reading your posts, but I do believe at this point in time that your case for Biblical contradictions is sealed tight as a Pharoh's tomb and ain't nobody going to open it.

Likewise, someone here said that the Bible should be tossed out with the garbage. This is also a reaction to those who persist in seeing the Bible as literal truth. I would suggest by seeing it for what it is—a historical document—the Bible has lots to offer. Not to be revered, but studied and enjoyed for what it is, contradictions and all.