The Bible And Morality

[nailit]

why do christians claim to derive their morality from the bible?
My own reading of the bible led me to believe that it is a grotesque, immoral, unjust and disgusting piece of work. I honestly fail to see how people in the 21st century can claim that the bible is a 'manual for living.'
If theres any bible believers reading this can you explain to me why you think a work choc full of unjust laws, genocide, racism, homophobia etc is in any way moral. I'm genuinely curious.
Thank you.

[Khandro]

v_e; We seem to be at cross purposes here. You are talking about human behaviour and I about animal behaviour, - rising from beso's post of 11:42 today.
jomifl; To be human being and be 100% virtuous is not (at least in my life-experience) possible, but this does not prevent some from trying. What Rochefoucauld is saying is that when those trying to lead as virtuous a life as they can, but because of human weakness failing, there is always the un-virtuous standing on the sidelines and wagging their fingers shouting "hypocrite", at them.

[jomifl]

Trying to be virtuous and failing is not hypocrisy. If nobody can be virtuous by virtue of being human then it is axiomatic that all spectators are un-virtuous. what was your point is Khandro?

[jomifl]

-is

[Khandro]

jomifl; //Trying to be virtuous and failing is not hypocrisy// -of course it's not, that is not the issue. What is being said is that failure will inevitably lead to being accused of hypocrisy by the 'un-virtuous'. This was, for example, the stance that was the stock-in-trade of 'The News of the World' for many decades.

[naomi24]

VE, Sod’s law rather than God’s law.

Khandro, //Trying to be virtuous and failing is not hypocrisy// -of course it's not, //

So that hypocrisy you’re ’all for’ doesn’t denote //striving and not quite making it// Do you actually know what you’re talking about?

[Khandro]

^ Firstly you do not understand Rochefoucauld (16:01 Sat.) and now you do not understand me. Neither of us have said virtue = hypocrisy. What is being said is that those trying to be virtuous and erring, will always be called hypocrites by the non-virtuous.
Actually, it was not I who posted the quote, it was v_e. I merely concurred.

[naomi24]

Khandro, I didn't suggest you posted the quote - simply that you didn't understand it, which going from your two contradictory posts, you didn't.

[LazyGun]

I am confused. Can you give some real world examples, Khandro, of these individuals who you claim genuinely strive but fail, and are subsequently labelled as hypocrites as a consequence purely because of their failed effort?

From what I have read of the thread to date, I am unclear exactly what point you are attempting to make.....

[Khandro]

LG; Please return to post 23:01 Fri.

[LazyGun]

@ Khandro - You are referring to your post of 23:01 Friday?

This one?
"widwood; //Religions are consistent in that the followers are all hypocrites//
Are you as an atheist exempt from hypocrisy?"

How does that serve to answer the question I just asked you?

[Khandro]

LG; That was my response to the previous post which asserted "Religions are consistent in that the followers are all hypocrites and none follow their sanctimonious book to the letter, even the pope."
Your comments are welcome, but I'm not prepared to go through the whole thing ad nauseam, just read.

[naomi24]

Khandro, I've read it and you're still making no sense.

[wildwood]

None are so blind as those who do not want to see.

[naomi24]

Wildwood, I'm not sure who you're saying that applies to.

[Khandro]

I think it applies to you naomi.

[naomi24]

Khandro, Since I'm not alone in being unable to make sense of your posts, your opinion comes as no surprise. As Wildwood says 'None so blind...' and all that.

[Khandro]

naomi; “Hypocrisie est un hommage que la vice rend à la vertu.” I'm sorry you cannot "make sense" out of what either Rochefoucauld, v_e, (who posted it) or I are saying, and you still have not given us your unique understanding.
"Mind like parachute, only work when open". - Charlie Chan.

[RATTER15]

Khandro, I seem to remember a post where you claimed to be a Buddhist, maybe I'm wrong?

You certainly don't come across as any Buddhist I have known in the past.

I find you sarcastic and unpleasant.

[naomi24]

Khandro, it’s not him I can’t make sense of – it’s you. Your posts are contradictory, you’ve declined LG’s request for an explanation, and as always you end up resorting to insults. I can only conclude that you’re again tying yourself in knots that you are unable to unpick.

[LazyGun]

@Khandro - Seems more than a little self- absorbed to contribute to a thread but not explain yourself when asked. The meaning of your posts can sometimes be opaque, cryptic or elliptic. This does not denote a greater intellect on your part, or a lack of intellect on the reader, as you have claimed - It just means that you obviously have problems expressing yourself clearly.

You appear to be suggesting, in response to v_e's post. and apparently paraphrasing Rochefoucould, that it is impossible to be human and be 100% virtuous. Despite this, some people try. So far, so clear, so uncontroversial.

You then go on to suggest that those people who try to lead a virtuous life as they can, but fail, due to some unspecified human weakness are constantly being labelled hypocrites by the un-virtuous standing on the sidelines.

This is the interpretation of yours that is unclear - Its this last issue I have some problems with. There is no hypocrisy in attempting to conform to a moral standard and failing, due to human weakness- that's all part of the human condition, agreed.

But I have not seen anyone here arguing that such a behaviour should be considered hypocritical. Nor can I think of any real-world examples of such behaviour - which is why I asked you to provide an example, so we could all be clear about your point.

What is clearly hypocritical is to lecture others about a particular behaviour whilst enthusiastically and gleefully carrying out such actions yourself in your own private life.Instances of this kind of behaviour abound - American senators lecturing the public on moral standards, whilst engaging in long- standing affairs, for instance - or,closer to home,classic examples from John Majors government in the UK, which adopted a position and then presumed to lecture the public on the importance of family values - with many of those doing the lecturing having affairs with colleagues, cheating on wives, fathering illegitimate children, and all the rest of it.

Or how about politicians lecturing society on the importance of wisely spending public money, not wasting it on benefits shirkers or disability claimants, all the while enthusiastically trousering as much as they can in false or inflated expenses claims? Or catholic priests, listening to confessions, preaching to their flock about morality, whilst they abuse children? Hypocritical, disgusting and criminal, in this last example.

These are not the action of sincere people trying and failing to conform to a high moral standard, and then being labelled hypocrites simply for that failure - they are accurately being labelled hypocritical for exhorting society to conform to a moral framework whilst enthusiastically breaking that framework in their own personal life.