religion and morality

[billvon 2,991]

>Geesh! Another person who cannot tell the difference in a parable and a command ...

Hmm. That would make you a person who can't figure out that that's how Jesus taught?

Just to make it clear - I don't believe in a literal interpretation of the bible, nor do I believe it is error-free. The parable of the ten minas describes the charity that Christ's kingdom will show, and the responsibility those with wealth have. It ends with "but bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me." That's not just a euphemism for something else. But rather than a suggestion that nonbelievers be killed, I strongly suspect that it's a translation or oral tradition error.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Hmm. That would make you a person who can't figure out that that's how Jesus taught?

How is that? I know JC taught in parables -- I'm not sure you understand that. My suggestion is you can't tell the difference between a direct command from Christ and a lesson he istrying to teach in a story. the LESSON is the key; the elements in the story is not a command.

The common interpretation of that parable is the "killing" of the enemies is a reference to God's final judgement, not a command to kill enemies.

steveOrino

[pajarito 0]

The irrationality of the usual atheist's critical assessment of the Bible is not usually how they would assess any other comparable work. There seem to be different standards. He knows the differences in writing styles. He knows what a parable is and its purpose. He knows that context, intended audience, timeframe, etc. are crucial in determining exactly what an author is trying to convey. They usually just take the simple minded approach in their attacks knowing that most in passing will accept the criticism on its face. That’s easier. I think it's ridiculous. There is so much deeper meaning in this text than most are willing to dig for. The Bible needs to be studied for what it means. Not what I “feel” like it means to me or what you might “feel” like it means to you. This kills me.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

The Bible needs to be studied for what it means. Not what I “feel” like it means to me or what you might “feel” like it means to you. This kills me.

Who decides what it really means? What makes that person's interpretation more correct than someone else's?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 2,991]

>The Bible needs to be studied for what it means. Not what I “feel” like it means to me . . .

It IS "what it means to you." That's its only value. It is NOT a book of laws, or a history book, or a science book. It's a moral guide (again, not a literal list of morals, an interpreted one.) You get something different out of the OT than hassidic jews do. Are you right and the hassidic scholars wrong, just because they think most of Leviticus is applicable and you don't? That's a silly way to look at it. What does matter is that it works for YOU - and the fact that another religion looks at it a different way does not invalidate your take on it.

>There is so much deeper meaning in this text than most are willing to dig for.

I think digging to that extent is akin to reading the Declaration of Independence and trying to figure out what kind of beer John Hancock was drinking when he signed it. That's not important. What is important is the message contained within - and the measure of validity of that message is its usefulness in setting a moral framework one can live one's life in. The obsession in proving that the bible is 100% correct, error-free, non-contradictory and morally unambiguous is somewhat misguided (IMO.)

[billvon 2,991]

>Who decides what it really means? What makes that person's
>interpretation more correct than someone else's?

I think that's the whole issue. Each reader decides what it really means to _them._ No one's interpretation is more correct than someone else's - although I may disagree with those interpretations.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Who decides what it really means? What makes that person's interpretation more correct than someone else's?

It's a consensus among those people most qualified in their individual fields concerning areas such as theology, textual criticism, historicity, hermeneutics, translation, etc.

[beowulf 1]

ha ha That's a joke. Consensus???? Since when has there ever been a consensus among any christion factions???!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Who decides what it really means? What makes that person's interpretation more correct than someone else's?

It's a consensus among those people most qualified in their individual fields concerning areas such as theology, textual criticism, historicity, hermeneutics, translation, etc.

Sorry, I'm not seeing much of a consensus. I believe Billvon described it more accurately. It means what it means to the reader. Certainly an onipotent God can make sure those who read his word understnd his word as he intended them to understand it.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Sorry, I'm not seeing much of a consensus. I believe Billvon described it more accurately. It means what it means to the reader. Certainly an onipotent God can make sure those who read his word understnd his word as he intended them to understand it.

You look outside and tell me that a tree is made of wood. I say, no, not really. To me, I think that tree is really made of jello. I don't care that those who've studied trees decide that it's made of wood. Neither of us is right or wrong. It's all just jello to me.

[Royd 0]

Quote

those behaviors that we consider "moral" offer a survival benefit.

So why are there so many thieves and liars out there?

[beowulf 1]

That analogy doesn't help your cause. It just makes you look silly.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Sorry, I'm not seeing much of a consensus. I believe Billvon described it more accurately. It means what it means to the reader. Certainly an onipotent God can make sure those who read his word understnd his word as he intended them to understand it.

You look outside and tell me that a tree is made of wood. I say, no, not really. To me, I think that tree is really made of jello. I don't care that those who've studied trees decide that it's made of wood. Neither of us is right or wrong. It's all just jello to me.

That's exactly my point. The Bible is subjective. People interpret it how they interpret it. No one is in any position to claim someone else's interpretation is incorrect.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 2,991]

>You look outside and tell me that a tree is made of wood. I say, no,
> not really. To me, I think that tree is really made of jello. I don't
> care that those who've studied trees decide that it's made of wood.
> Neither of us is right or wrong. It's all just jello to me.

Fair enough. Now imagine we are arguing over what's in a blimp. Further, imagine neither one of us has ever seen a blimp and the only description we have of either comes from an oral tradition that's 2000 years old and has been translated half a dozen times. I say hydrogen, you say helium. That guy over there says hot air. Which is right?

[Royd 0]

Quote

As I have said in the past, I think there ARE absolute, objective morals that come from our basic evolutionary drives.

Would protection of the most innocent, most vulnerable amongst us be one of those morals?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Fair enough. Now imagine we are arguing over what's in a blimp. Further, imagine neither one of us has ever seen a blimp and the only description we have of either comes from an oral tradition that's 2000 years old and has been translated half a dozen times. I say hydrogen, you say helium. That guy over there says hot air. Which is right?

Bill, you know as well as I do that there is methodology behind studying text. You're right. It's not an exact science. However, with regard to the Bible, it has been scrutinized probably more than any other document in history. Certainly in a LOT more detail than either of our "silly" simplistic analogies. I'd say it can be trusted for accuracy.

[billvon 2,991]

> I'd say it can be trusted for accuracy.

Given that differing scholars have vastly different takes on parts of it - I disagree. But again, as long as YOU think it's accurate, and it works for you - that's all that matters.

[billvon 2,991]

>So why are there so many thieves and liars out there?

Because honesty and respect for other people's property are NOT survival instincts. Indeed, during a food shortage, the better thief survives. Respect for other's property is, however, good for large societies, which is why we have laws that prohibit theft.

>Would protection of the most innocent, most vulnerable amongst
>us be one of those morals?

Yes. It stems from protection of one's partner and children.

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Quote

Sorry, I'm not seeing much of a consensus. I believe Billvon described it more accurately. It means what it means to the reader. Certainly an onipotent God can make sure those who read his word understnd his word as he intended them to understand it.

You look outside and tell me that a tree is made of wood. I say, no, not really. To me, I think that tree is really made of jello. I don't care that those who've studied trees decide that it's made of wood. Neither of us is right or wrong. It's all just jello to me.

Very bad analogy.

You are pretending that the various authorities on the Bible all agree that its made out of wood.

Thats just not true or the protestants would never even have split from the catholics

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[sweetmoose 0]

Wow, I haven't read everything on here becuase, lets face it, it's really long, so sorry if I say something that's previously been said.

Religion is a farce. It is used to control the masses, to give people something to lean on cause thier not strong enough for themselves, and to explain the unexplainable (take the easy way out).

People don't need religion to be moral. I think it's really sad when people do or don't do things because of a fear of punishment or a belief in a reward in the afterlife. There is a very simple way to be moral, treat others as you yourlself would want to be treated. That's how I operate.

If there were no religions in the world for people to put all thier beliefs and convictions into, the world would be a much better place. Think of all the wars started over varing religions, just look at whats going on now. The Christian George Bush hates Islam, and Islam hates him. Just kidding about that last part, I don't have anything to back that up with, but think about it. How can any reasonably intelligent person believe in an afterlife.

We die only once, but for such a very long time.

I'll believe in ghosts when I catch one in my teeth.

[sweetmoose 0]

Oh, and a great site on the bible, the book or mormon, and the Koran is www.skepticsannotatedbible.com, might be www.theskepticsannotatedbible.com. can't remember for sure

We die only once, but for such a very long time.

I'll believe in ghosts when I catch one in my teeth.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Wow, I haven't read everything on here becuase, lets face it, it's really long, so sorry if I say something that's previously been said.

Religion is a farce. It is used to control the masses, to give people something to lean on cause thier not strong enough for themselves, and to explain the unexplainable (take the easy way out).

Nope, you're the first person to ever say that.

Quote

There is a very simple way to be moral, treat others as you yourlself would want to be treated.

Sorry, JC beat ya to it about 2000 years ago Matt 7:12

Quote

If there were no religions in the world for people to put all thier beliefs and convictions into, the world would be a much better place.

Yep, no hospitals, orphanages, great works of art, schools of higher learning. Yep, a whole lot better place.

Thanks for the valuable input to the debate!

steveOrino

[Royd 0]

Quote

Would protection of the most innocent, most vulnerable amongst
>us be one of those morals?

I was actually hinting at the millions of abortions since the 70's for the sake of convenience. They surely weren't all for the sake of rape or incest.

This is an example of relative moralism at its finest, which also goes against the evolutionary thinking of furtherence of the species.

[philh 0]

" Sorry, JC beat ya to it about 2000 years ago Matt 7:12 "
Oh dear oerhas you are not aware that oters said it before him, here are som examples:

Pittacus (650 B.C.):
Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him
Confucius (500 B.C.):
Do unto another what you would have him do unto you, and do not to another what you would not have him do unto you. Thou needest this law alone. It is the foundation of all the rest.
Thales (464 B.C.):
Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing.
Sextus (406 B.C.):
What you wish your neighbors to be to you, such be also to them.
Aristotle (385 B.C.):
We should conduct ourselves toward others as we would have them act toward us.
Aristippus (365 B.C.):
Cherish reciprocal benevolence, which will make you as anxious for another's welfare as your own.

[steveorino 7]

I knew that.

steveOrino