Liverpool Echo Thursday November 14Th...
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
The Bible And Morality
80 Answers
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.
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.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by nailit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
LG; I thought I did answer your question when I referred you to the earlier posts. How this came about (and I shall recap only once more); was it had been stated stated that the Pope was a hypocrite, to which I said he would be in agreement - (even Popes go to confessionals, I believe). Then the Rochefoucauld quote appeared - and so it continued.
We seem to be in agreement on hypocrisy on reading your post, your complaint seems to be that I am too opaque in mine, well this isn't the best medium for writing essays I find.
I went looking around on the Internet on this subject and it didn't take long to find a superb champion in Scott Locklin, an entertaining read; http://
We seem to be in agreement on hypocrisy on reading your post, your complaint seems to be that I am too opaque in mine, well this isn't the best medium for writing essays I find.
I went looking around on the Internet on this subject and it didn't take long to find a superb champion in Scott Locklin, an entertaining read; http://
I’m sorry, Khandro, but I thought Rochefoucauld’s meaning was pretty clear. I take him to mean that hypocritical pretensions to virtue (as in LG’s examples) are an admission that, say, we ought to be loyal to our wife even if we have no intention of ditching the girlfriend. This behaviour is not praiseworthy (but don’t get me wrong: I’m not going to be the first one to pick up a rock).
There are milder cases of hypocrisy which rightly attract less censure and perhaps should command praise. Much of what we call politeness and good manners falls into that category, I suggest. A point which I’m sure the article you cite makes.
There are milder cases of hypocrisy which rightly attract less censure and perhaps should command praise. Much of what we call politeness and good manners falls into that category, I suggest. A point which I’m sure the article you cite makes.
Khandro, could you once in a while use your own arguments to make your points rather than borrowing the quotes of other people? It would cut out a degree of misunderstanding resulting in you having to explain what it was that you thought the quoter meant resulting in the argument being sidetracked until the orginal point is out of sight and all but forgotten.
Well, I read the article. I would agree on the trivial points - that we should not let an awareness of hypocrisy blind us to what might be a very good message, but that's pretty much all i agree with. I certainly don't agree with the proposition that hypocrisy is a driver for change.
Nor do I think hypocritical behaviour should just be accepted as being part of our complex lives, or just shrugged off as "meh".
Anyway, this exchange does seem to have veered off course from the OP, so I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Thanks at least for expanding and clarifying on the initial point you were attempting to make Khandro...
Nor do I think hypocritical behaviour should just be accepted as being part of our complex lives, or just shrugged off as "meh".
Anyway, this exchange does seem to have veered off course from the OP, so I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Thanks at least for expanding and clarifying on the initial point you were attempting to make Khandro...
I was attempting to expound a naturalistic explanation of moral feelings, Khandro, in support of Beso's point about altruism in chimps. The religious see a need of a soul, but I don't. I agree with the rather provocative statement by P. Z. Myers that the differences between chimpanzee brains and human ones are quantitive not qualitative. You will be quick to inform me, I'm sure, that none of the chimps of your acquaintance read Nietzsche or listen to Mozart. Neither do any I know.
first may I ask you open your mind to his questions first one is in the land your living which is England do the government have rules and regulations to follow , do you follow those rules and regulations, so once again think about the options that the government laws are, for instance are you to jump traffic lights or kill somebody or steel ,these are some of the regulations which governs you in your country just a few, if not following the recommendation you can be punished. So there is a president's do not jump the traffic lights so in the same way are god law ,for Christian, god has rules and regulations which is for our benefits to preserve life, not death .over time you follow the regulations of your country you have a measure of freedom and give you delights, but if you jump over those guidelines and disobey the authorities then you are in big trouble and that is the same with gods law. This is the way that I look at the explanation. Every country has rules and regulations which has to be follow it doesn't matter which country you live in there is regulations. But that does not mean you are a robot and you still have freedom in the same way god give you freedom ,. this is the way i see thing s
@ Locusts.
Those secular laws that you claim are analogous to gods law, are no such thing. Secular law is formulated by the lawmakers within parliament, often responding to a demonstrated need or a popular demand. Crafted, scrutinised, amended and voted upon by our democratic representatives.
Some laws fall out of date, too , although they may remain on the statute book, but that is recognisably the case.
As for gods law - well which ones, spring to mind? Which ones were actually handed out by god, and which ones were made up by individuals? Were is the evidence of scrutiny or amendment? Do gods laws become redundant? If so, which ones? How are we to know? What right of appeal does anyone have?
No, far more likely is that so called gods laws were made up by prophets because they seemed like a good idea, and policed and enforced through fear. Society and Culture has moved on, so why do the fervent believers so frequently attempt to apply redundant law? Stuff like halal or kosher butchery spring to mind, or the established churches hysterical rejection of gay marriage. or the reluctance of the catholic church and probably others to reinforce the safety message of using condoms, or even the ridiculous and frankly mysoginistic comments of some religious, republican political wannabees like Todd Aiken and his offensive and frankly uneducated comments about rape.
Recognise the bible for what it truly is - a heavily edited collection of human folklore. Embrace the good messages in it, if you like, but do not try to enforce such beliefs on others.
Those secular laws that you claim are analogous to gods law, are no such thing. Secular law is formulated by the lawmakers within parliament, often responding to a demonstrated need or a popular demand. Crafted, scrutinised, amended and voted upon by our democratic representatives.
Some laws fall out of date, too , although they may remain on the statute book, but that is recognisably the case.
As for gods law - well which ones, spring to mind? Which ones were actually handed out by god, and which ones were made up by individuals? Were is the evidence of scrutiny or amendment? Do gods laws become redundant? If so, which ones? How are we to know? What right of appeal does anyone have?
No, far more likely is that so called gods laws were made up by prophets because they seemed like a good idea, and policed and enforced through fear. Society and Culture has moved on, so why do the fervent believers so frequently attempt to apply redundant law? Stuff like halal or kosher butchery spring to mind, or the established churches hysterical rejection of gay marriage. or the reluctance of the catholic church and probably others to reinforce the safety message of using condoms, or even the ridiculous and frankly mysoginistic comments of some religious, republican political wannabees like Todd Aiken and his offensive and frankly uneducated comments about rape.
Recognise the bible for what it truly is - a heavily edited collection of human folklore. Embrace the good messages in it, if you like, but do not try to enforce such beliefs on others.
Many people in the world today said he the Bible is out of date and is old-fashion but many of the rules and regulations which we use is from the holy writings , we use in our own rules in the country today, are from the Bible which many people follow, as for example, murderer.,stealing ,adultery, and many more which we favor by obedient, so would you call these rules in just, so gods rules are the same and you are calling these rules, are just from what you have read, are not the rules and regulations for our benefits to preserve life.
