The morality of the Bible?

[DWill]

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.

I didn't realize that my wording might be misunderstood. I guess I should have written "refusal of believers" or something to that effect. I certainly wasn't referring to you or most others participating. Now having glimpsed Geo's post, I have little else to add to the discussion right now. This is a white-hot issue for you, while I'm more detached about the whole matter.

[tat tvam asi]

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.

Thanks. But I guess I see it as contradictive whether viewing the bible as sacred or not. The contradiction doesn't magically disappear if you don't see the bible as sacred. The contradictions remain because they're simply a fact that one's belief or disbelief can not alter. If you believe, than you believe in a bunch of contradicting statements. That belief may cause you to turn a blind eye to them or even to try and deny that they are contradicting. If you don't believe, then you don't beleive in a bunch of contradicting statements.

I didn't realize that my wording might be misunderstood. I guess I should have written "refusal of believers" or something to that effect. I certainly wasn't referring to you or most others participating. Now having glimpsed Geo's post, I have little else to add to the discussion right now. This is a white-hot issue for you, while I'm more detached about the whole matter.

No problem. I'm just trying to address any sort attempt at trying to excuse or dismiss the error, immorality, and contradiction that is an interconnected part of the bible, be it from a literalist or liberal perspective. The apology I have been addressing is a way of trying to excuse the immorality of the verse in question, from a liberal perspective. But granted it was a 'what if' scenario presented, not an absolute - which was a smart move.

'What if the translation is wrong?'

That's a good question, so I looked into it. In the end, yes, its translated that way because the character of Jesus is calling for the hatred of ones own family and indeed ones own life in the Greek. In this day and age that's regarded as a red flag when a cult leader starts insisting on people choosing him and his cult doctrine (especially if the person in question claims to be God on earth) over ones own family. It isn't even a matter of choosing God above others, its about having to choose a person claiming to be God almighty who has forced you to choose between him, your own life, and your family. That's just what the bible writers have created with this contradicting text. But because this old cultic doctrine has since risen to dominance its excused and brushed under the rug and people just want to make it go away because it makes people look foolish for accepting this as divine.

[geo]

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.

Thanks. But I guess I see it as contradictive whether viewing the bible as sacred or not. The contradiction doesn't magically disappear if you don't see the bible as sacred. The contradictions remain because they're simply a fact that one's belief or disbelief can not alter. If you believe, than you believe in a bunch of contradicting statements. That belief may cause you to turn a blind eye to them or even to try and deny that they are contradicting. If you don't believe, then you don't beleive in a bunch of contradicting statements.

I'm fine if we disagree, but I just want to clarify my point. The Bible is not something that you believe in, any more than you would believe in The Iliad or the Gilgamesh, both of which are literary and historical texts. Nor would you accuse The Iliad of being inconsistent with Gilgamesh, being that they are separate documents from different cultures. The point is the Bible is a collection of texts as well and we can and do expect them to be inconsistent with one another. Seeing the Bible as contradictory is only true when you attempt to see it as a cohesive document or as literal truth. Because the Bible neither of these things, and the flaw is attempting to see it as something it's not. The fact that some people do treat it as a literal or sacred document or as a book of morality is completely beside the point.

[Robert Tulip]

This 'hate your family' debate identifies a key problem in religion, the role of moral absolutes.

The story of religion often suggests to believers that our secular world is so lost and fallen that it provides no guidance for salvation. The call to conversion requires a rejection of the world in favour of a new moral absolute, a vision of truth grounded in a spiritual connection to ultimate reality. The idea is that until we make a decisive break from the path of ordinary life, we are on the wide and easy road to hell instead of the narrow path to heaven. (Mat 7:14) Acceptance of social ties is seen as part of this corruption of the secular world.

The problem with this method is that it produces fanaticism, zealotry and cultic conformity, and is wide open to manipulation and abuse. All absolutes are mediated by fallible human understanding. Historically, this ideal of zealotry has been exploited by corrupt power-mongers to say that one way of thinking is absolutely true and another is absolutely false. Such absolute dichotomies fit with a framework of historic literalism, and with the idea of the Bible as a sacred book, but not with a framework of mythic allegory. When the literal claim is false, eg around the story of Jesus, the absolute vision lacks real foundation, and inevitably produces immoral outcomes. The apparent connection between belief in the dogma of virgin birth and the immoral behaviour of the priesthood is an example.

It all points to the need to shift from literalism to myth as the framework for spiritual dialogue. But, that leads straight to the problem of how to assess the worth of myth. This is where scientific knowledge provides the foundation of good ethics. If we can develop a systematic understanding of reality based on science, we can establish a framework to assess the moral worth of religious claims based on evidence and consequences.

It may be that scientific findings are pushing society towards the sort of polarisation symbolised by the vivid ‘hate your family’ example. Such polarisation is unfortunate, representing a failure of dialogue and respect. It should be possible to respect religious people even when they believe things that are obviously false. The trouble is that respect and love are difficult to sustain when they are not reciprocated.

[tat tvam asi]

Any book which combines conflicting ideas and throws them together, is at that point a contradicting book. The difference in sources doesn't make it any less contradicting, does it?

Action: The bible has been consciously compiled out of different sources that do not agree with one another and presented to the public as a consistent story line that does agree.

Reaction: The bible has since been called out on being compiled out of different sources that do not agree with one another and in fact contradict one another and it is not a consistent story line that does agree.

Seeing the Bible as contradictory is only true when you attempt to see it as a cohesive document or as literal truth. Because the Bible neither of these things, and the flaw is attempting to see it as something it's not.

Are you trying to say that because the bible is compiled from different sources which disagree with one another it isn't really contradicting? Separate sources, with do not agree with one another, do not contradict one another?

Jesus Saying 1: What you do to others you do to me as well.

Jesus Saying 2: Love those who hate you.

Jesus Saying 3: Hate yourself and your family.

These are not contradictory "Jesus" sayings then?

con·tra·dic·tion   /ˌkɒntrəˈdɪkʃən/ Show Spelled[kon-truh-dik-shuhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.the act of contradicting; gainsaying or opposition.
2.assertion of the contrary or opposite; denial.
3.a statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous.
4.direct opposition between things compared; inconsistency.
5.a contradictory act, fact, etc.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... ncies.html

At the end of the day, no matter the semantic game, apology, excuse, or dismissal, the bible is just plain contradictive. Sources that contradict one another have thrown together into one book. So what does that make the one books of many books? It makes it a collection of contradicting books...

[geo]

Any book which combines conflicting ideas and throws them together, is at that point a contradicting book. The difference in sources doesn't make it any less contradicting, does it?

This is becoming a semantic squabble and i'm inclined to let it go.The Bible is contradictory, but you make it sound like a flaw of some sort. To me it doesn't seem contradictory because I'm looking at its contextual history. The various and diverse documents that make up the Bible were collected in an attempt to conceptualize a religion. Any Bible scholar can find inconsistencies in it, but they are thoroughly expected in a collection of diverse documents taken from different cultures. Just because some people pretend it's a unified document doesn't mean it is or that such claims should be taken seriously. As you point out, even the gospels are contradictory, but that is because they were written by men who were invested in the myths being put forth. Of course there are going to be mistakes. I'm sure you can find contradictions in many works of fiction and, likewise, histories are written from very different perspectives. But no one spends a lot of time talking about them. In my opinion these "mistakes" such as the first day in Genesis, which has been the subject of a very prolonged discussion on these forums, is not significant or relevant except as an argument against the Bible as literal truth. And as I've pointed out it's pointless to argue with those who want to see the Bible as literal truth.

I feel like what I'm saying should be clear, but evidently it is not. It's like pointing out the potholes in the road and saying, "see, see, roads aren't perfect! But only a tiny group of road-worshippers actually believe the roads are perfect and they are impervious to reasonable debate, so why waste the time trying to persuade them?

[tat tvam asi]

Oh come on now Geo, I'm just having fun with the mental challenge you put forward. I was analyzing it. The funny thing is that you agree as if you disagree.

The Bible is contradictory, but you make it sound like a flaw of some sort. To me it doesn't seem contradictory because I'm looking at its contextual history.

As you point out, even the gospels are contradictory, but that is because they were written by men who were invested in the myths being put forth. Of course there are going to be mistakes.

They don't seem that way to you from one perspective, fair enough. But they are actually contradictory regardless of that perspective, fair enough as well. I'm just looking for truth here, the bottom line is that yes the bible is contradictory when all is said and done. And it isn't the great moral guide that people have made it out to be because of all of the contradiction associated with morality. Even the first chapter of Genesis, which is attributed to the "E" source, contradicts itself. It isn't even between different books written by different people, its from the same source according to OT scholarship. And for the believer its from the same source, Moses. Either way, its self contradictive.

The only way to break down the bias in this country against atheists and atheism is to shine a bright light on all of this as I have done here and keep the light on it. How else? We can't openly hold office because atheists are viewed as "immoral" by the majority of the nation.

"No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."

- George H.W. Bush

The same God that has ordered the raping, killing, enslaving, splitting open of pregnant womens bellies and every other immoral atrocity that this God is made to do and say in this archaic mythology created by men for men! But people turn a blind eye to it. The bible is moral and atheists are immoral. Why not shine a bright light on this false assertion and hold it there until the false assertion eventually breaks down because there's no other choice in the matter? I guess it just depends on how much you care about it. If you don't care then it doesn't really matter at all, granted. But if you do care then it matters quite a bit. That's why these debates rage on like they do. It matters to some of us...

"Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land - for Jesus Christ - to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect life & godliness. It is dominion we're after not just a voice. It is dominion we're after not just influence. It is dominion we're after not just equal time. It is dominion we're after. World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to do."

- George Grant - "changing of the guard" pg 50-51

"Our goal, as Christians, is to dominate society"

- Pat Robertson

"Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost. As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors -- in short, over every aspect and institution of human society."

- D. James Kennedy

"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith ... We need believing people."

- Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933, from a speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordat of 1933.

[DWill]

What a problem opened up for Christianity when Protestants proclaimed that authority was henceforth to come only from the Bible. Then the Bible came to be really scrutinized, and it was discovered that there is all sorts of "authority" in it, not one authoritative voice. Catholics didn't face this problem, because scripture was filtered through the clergy and Catholics weren't expected to study the Bible on their own. The compilers of the Bible probably weren't worried that questions about consistency would be raised. How much of the population could read, anyway?

What you see in the Bible, in terms of variety of viewpoint and attitude, is pretty much what you'd expect from a project with this kind of composition history. It's sort of the ancient equivalent of a vast Wiki project.

[stahrwe]

What a problem opened up for Christianity when Protestants proclaimed that authority was henceforth to come only from the Bible. Then the Bible came to be really scrutinized, and it was discovered that there is all sorts of "authority" in it, not one authoritative voice. Catholics didn't face this problem, because scripture was filtered through the clergy and Catholics weren't expected to study the Bible on their own. The compilers of the Bible probably weren't worried that questions about consistency would be raised. How much of the population could read, anyway?

What you see in the Bible, in terms of variety of viewpoint and attitude, is pretty much what you'd expect from a project with this kind of composition history. It's sort of the ancient equivalent of a vast Wiki project.

I've been travelling so haven't been able to keep up with the traffic. Right now I am in a hotel room a few miles from Camp Lejeune NC. My son is headed for Afghanistan this week so we are here to see him off. He's a grunt and this is his first deployment.

As to the topic, this comment as well as the Questions for God discussion once again point out the need for a serious review of the Bible. We tried to do a book by book discussion and need to do that. You wouldn't study mathematics or physics, or chemistry the way you approach the Bible. Why do you apply different rules?

[johnson1010]

Tell your son to keep his head down, and be safe!