Atheists are having it too easy.

[myksav]

Do you think it is right to be selective about the bible and choose only the passages you like or do you use them all for inspiration ? I was making an argument which stands on it's own. It is within the usual realm of speculation without proof which theology and religion inhabits. The usual angels on the head of a pin type discussions by those who have studied stock questions and answers is not for me.
Some passages in the bible are very fine but thats a very selective excerpt. I can select some of my own below :


Sex Slavery:



Ritual Human Sacrifice




Rape and Baby Killing




More cruelty towards babies:



Rape of Female Captives




Murder of Homosexuals:



More Rape




Christian and religious morality is all about obedience to ''God'' , a dictator of such intelligence and power that humanity compares as nothing but ants, no matter what those instructions to obey consist of.
How can you say about me that: ''You are making an argument against an argument that does not exist.'' It is not a non argument. Read carefully the passages I choose to quote and tell me how does God not come across as an uncaring a$$hole or at the very least insincere, inconsistent and deranged ?
The existence of God is one thing to ponder but assuming this existence does not give one free reign to assume the goodness of such an entity unless one completely abandons logic and resorts to blind faith and obedience to religious dogma which in itself is all about obedience and selective reasoning plus the ignoring of those passages in Gods book which embarrass with no smart questions entertained. I still await some defence of those passages I quoted above from Almanac etc. I would be extremely interested in some enlightenment on this matter. I would assume that we would be lucky if such a being did not view and treat us the way we view and treat cattle, battery farmed hens and pigs. The gulf in intelligence between mankind and such a being would certainly be far wider.




What about self defence ? Its' not impossible that a police sniper may very well have a maniac in a school with a bomb strapped to his back in his sights where shooting to kill may be the only available option because maiming will leave the maniac sufficient strength to press the arming trigger. You attempted a objective moral law and while I cant disagree with the spirit of this law I cant see how your quoting of the bible earlier helps your argument. The bible as I have shown quoted above is riddled with questionable passages which most people would view as immoral. Therefore the morality written about in this book is not an objective one but one where the definition of morality equates with nothing but obedience to God. It's only objective is obedience. Religion does not own or trademark the definition of morality by any means.

All quotes from the Old Testement, the Judeaic section of the Bible, not the New Testement which is the founding for christian religions.

"Thou shalt not kill" is a somewhat mistranslated. The correct Commandment is "Thou shalt not commit murder."

[fionnmccool]

All quotes from the Old Testement, the Judeaic section of the Bible, not the New Testement which is the founding for christian religions.

But all written by the same God ?

"Thou shalt not kill" is a somewhat mistranslated. The correct Commandment is "Thou shalt not commit murder."

Does it not seem funny how with all the power and money organised religion has, the number of times the bible has been printed etc that they cant get around to translating the bible properly ?

[Didimus]

Fionn
If you want to use your arguments to challenge a fundamentalist reading of the bible fire ahead.
Mainstream Christian churches don't derive their moral nor scientific positions from such a reading.
Nor do they believe that the bible was written by God.

[Toland]

Revelations is in the New Testament, is it not?

And that stuff about Paul's attitude to women, if I remember rightly.

[Toland]

Fionn
If you want to use your arguments to challenge a fundamentalist reading of the bible fire ahead.
Mainstream Christian churches don't derive their moral nor scientific positions from such a reading.
Nor do they believe that the bible was written by God.

So what is their reading and what is their justification for that reading?

[Didimus]

So what is their reading and what is their justification for that reading?

They regard the bible as a collection of different texts, using different genres, such as quasi-historical, etiological,poetic, genealogical, philosphical etc.
As such as they are open to a whole variety of interpretative strategies. This has been true since the time of the Rabbinical schools , up through the patristic era when allegorical strategies were used, into the modern period when historical-critical and form criticism came into prominence. Nowadays the full range of the hermeneutical weaponry which I'm sure you would look askance at, including deconstruction, reader response theory etc is used.
On a popular level the most common interpretative approach is narrative criticism which treats the text much as anyone approaching a pece of literature.
The justification of any these approaches is simply a belief that engaging with these texts can help reveal some truth about the human condition.

[fionnmccool]

Fionn
If you want to use your arguments to challenge a fundamentalist reading of the bible fire ahead.

I just did. Not only that but I challenged any reading of the bible as a source of objective morality putting an end to this arrogant notion many theists seem to have that they and they alone are objectively moral and that anyone outside of their circle is somehow damaged.

Mainstream Christian churches don't derive their moral nor scientific positions from such a reading.

So they make it up as they go along ? or more accurately the unelected people (cardinals etc) subjectively make the religion and its rules up as they go along and then tell the rest of us what to believe , right ?

Nor do they believe that the bible was written by God.

The bible claims it is the word of God doesn't it? Is it therefore lying ?

[Didimus]

I just did. Not only that but I challenged any reading of the bible as a source of objective morality putting an end to this arrogant notion many theists seem to have that they and they alone are objectively moral and that anyone outside of their circle is somehow damaged.

Most the posts denying objective morality on this thread have been from atheists. Anyone who uses the bible literally for objective moral norms is not a wise person. The stuff about anyone who is not a Christian being morally damaged does not reflect any Christian I am acquainted with. we're usually more concerned with our own failings.

So they make it up as they go along ? or more accurately the unelected people (cardinals etc) subjectively make the religion and its rules up as they go along and then tell the rest of us what to believe , right ?

Its a living tradition, and changes come about through a mixture of intellectual debate, what is called the sense of the faithful, a power struggle or two, a few bolshies - cardinals job is usually to put a brake on change with a couple of notable exceptions. Usual sociological/systems analyis of large organisations applies to the church too.

The bible claims it is the word of God doesn't it? Is it therefore lying ?

The usual formula is the word of God in words of men. In other words there's a job of work to do in interpreting it.
As there is any text that people look to for existential meaning.

[sondagefaux]

Most the posts denying objective morality on this thread have been from atheists. Anyone who uses the bible literally for objective moral norms is not a wise person. The stuff about anyone who is not a Christian being morally damaged does not reflect any Christian I am acquainted with. we're usually more concerned with our own failings.
Its a living tradition, and changes come about through a mixture of intellectual debate, what is called the sense of the faithful, a power struggle or two, a few bolshies - cardinals job is usually to put a brake on change with a couple of notable exceptions. Usual sociological/systems analyis of large organisations applies to the church too.
The usual formula is the word of God in words of men. In other words there's a job of work to do in interpreting it.
As there is any text that people look to for existential meaning.

So it's a flawed text written and interpreted by flawed people in the light of changing social circumstances.

Except for the bits that are to be taken literally.

Which bits can be interpreted and which bits must be taken literally?

Depends on who you're talking to.

Glad that's been cleared up.

Mainstream Christian churches.

Define 'mainstream' please. If it's based on numbers then how do you know what the individual members of the churches believe?*

*as opposed to what the church hierarchy wishes them to believe.

[Didimus]

So it's a flawed text written and interpreted by flawed people in the light of changing social circumstances.

Glad that's been cleared up.



Define 'mainstream' please. If it's based on numbers then how do you know what the individual members of the churches believe?*

*as opposed to what the church hierarchy wishes them to believe.

Not sure how you can call any text flawed - it is what it is. Certainly true that it is interpreted by flawed people , and that their interpretation is contextual.

By mainstream I simply meant to distinguish Roman Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, amongst others, from the plethora of other denominations many of which are biblical literalists.
I don't know what most individuals believe, whatever their affiliation.
Of course belief is only one component of religious faith.