Apparently, Now I Have Nothing To Live For?

[kclark]

You brother in law seems to have taken what I call the

meaning he ties his personal morality to his faith. Like other posters have said, his position really isn't that moral, given that he's basically saying that what he will or will not do is determined solely by what a book says, and not by his own critical thinking. He's also insinuating (probably unintentionally) that he'd be pillaging and raping and killing nonstop if weren't for "Da Word" telling him not--though he'd clearly be glossing over some bible passages to jump to that conclusion.

 

The conclusion I've come to since deconverting is that we as a society decide what is/isn't moral. Two hundred years ago, we as a society thought slavery was moral, then we didn't. The same with giving women the right to vote, civil rights, interracial marriage, and now with gay marriage. Like you this made me uncomfortable/kind of stressed out at first, but now I realize it's good thing. Having to define morality for ourselves means we also to think for ourselves, which usually leads us to a better, more empathetic place than mindlessly paying heed and/or doing mental contortions for some ancient text.

 

This could help.

 

 

And this just makes me laugh:

 

[falemon]

kclark, at some point some dudes sat down and wrote the morals of the bible

 

There are actually a good set of principles and morals in the Bible, so it's a little misinforming to suggest that it only teaches people to do bad things because that is not true at all. Remember that the Bible consists of works of many authors, some writing stories, some writing parables, and so on, and unless you are trying to demonise it it's clear that it does teach justice and morals.

 

It doesn't abolish slavery, but one thing it does say is this, "after 7 year let your slave go, for you were slaves in Egypt" (to paraphrase). Given the time this was written, that is more moral than we were 250 years ago, so let's not be deceptive and try to demonise people, I just don't think it leads to useful outcomes, not unless you wish to repeat the errors of the church, IMO. Of course I don't aim to discount your experience because like us all we've all had to escape from the cult that nobody even realises is a cult lol

[mymistake]

According to the Bible if a man is willing to sell me his 10-year-old daughter as my wife then I get to do anything I want to her. It's a business transaction between her father and me. The girl has no say in it. As my wife she must then submit to me in every way. That is a Biblical marrage. This little problem in the Bible - the lack of consent - has caused many problems as Christians look to the Bible as a source of all morality. It's why there was resistance to marital rape laws. The Bible gives people permission to rape the (virgin) women they capture when attacking other countries. Go over there and attack that land. Keep the little girls for yourself and kill everybody else. If you try to turn that order into the word of an all-loving God then problems arise. It breaks the brain. Perhaps that led to the Dark Ages and "Kill them all for God will know his own".

[falemon]

According to the Bible if a man is willing to sell me his 10-year-old daughter as my wife then I get to do anything I want to her. It's a business transaction between her father and me. The girl has no say in it. As my wife she must then submit to me in every way. That is a Biblical marrage. This little problem in the Bible - the lack of consent - has caused many problems as Christians look to the Bible as a source of all morality. It's why there was resistance to marital rape laws. The Bible gives people permission to rape the women they capture when attacking other countries. Go over there and attack that land. Keep the little girls for yourself and kill everybody else. If you try to turn that order into the word of an all-loving God then problems arise. It breaks the brain. Perhaps that led to the Dark Ages and "Kill them all for God will know his own".

 

Does it really give permission to rape people, like really? Is that what you got from reading the bible? IIRC the bible didn't give permission to rape the captured women, it said to take them (as opposed to the killing of the men), rape was written as a crime punishable by death. One can try to interpret it as "keep and fuck the hell out of", but I find that awfully presumptuous and it just doesn't fit in with the rest of the language and context. Perhaps I could double check the lexicons, but I'm highly doubtful of that being a viable interpretation.

 

But my point is that it actually teaches lots of good morals, from the golden rule made famous by Confucius to various other virtues on being forgiving, patient, helpful, graceful amongst many others. I've yet to see a church or Synagogue preach pro rape.

 

Now there are some dick moves in there, like God hardening people's heart and then punishing him for it (injustice), and so on. There is also a cult mechanic in the bible, and I will post a bit of an expose on it at some point, but one thing I am not for is misinformation, no matter what it's about.

 

I know it's possible to indoctrinate someone to do evil by quoting the bible, but that's not to say that all people who follow the bible must somehow inherit evil morals. Last I heard Jesus instructed nothing that agrees with the dark ages, so to suggest otherwise is absurd. Now they did do that in the name of it, which is a real testament to the influence it can have on people, in fact spiritual ideals have the most influence on people's beliefs and behaviours.

 

---

 

So what am I saying? just that there are good morals in the bible, just like so many other books out there, and also putting in a few corrections on what's instructed in there, which I am sure (almost certain) will be ignored in favour of the preferred idea that the bible instructs and supports rape. Now there is the questionable Sodom and Gomorrah story, which was pretty deep, though it would be terribly misinforming to attempt to call that the Bible's stance on being pro rape

[kclark]

kclark, at some point some dudes sat down and wrote the morals of the bible

 

There are actually a good set of principles and morals in the Bible, so it's a little misinforming to suggest that it only teaches people to do bad things because that is not true at all. Remember that the Bible consists of works of many authors, some writing stories, some writing parables, and so on, and unless you are trying to demonise it it's clear that it does teach justice and morals.

 

It doesn't abolish slavery, but one thing it does say is this, "after 7 year let your slave go, for you were slaves in Egypt" (to paraphrase). Given the time this was written, that is more moral than we were 250 years ago, so let's not be deceptive and try to demonise people, I just don't think it leads to useful outcomes, not unless you wish to repeat the errors of the church, IMO. Of course I don't aim to discount your experience because like us all we've all had to escape from the cult that nobody even realises is a cult lol

 

I'm aware that there are good things in the bible--loving others, forgiveness, giving etc. But the point I was making is that morality, be it bad or good, should not be solely determined/dictated by the bible or any holy book. For every good thing the Bible says--love your neighbor as yourself--there are verses advocating genocide, rape and so on. It should not be unquestionably looked at as good just because it's the bible. Yes, the bible says it's wrong to kill and steal, but what if it didn't? Would it suddenly be alright to do those things? I, and I'm assuming you, would say "of course not," because we rely on logic and rational thinking to decide what is or is not moral. Whereas someone who views the Bible as the end all, be all of morality and believes they can't be moral without it--like the poster's brother in law seems to--would have to agree with whatever it says, no matter good or bad.

 

Of course, lying and and even killing have their gray areas (i.e. an undercover cop lying about his true identity, killing someone in self-defense), which we as nonbelievers can recognize and accept. Many Christians can also recognize this and other examples of moral complexity, but for some reason they can't make the mental leap to realize they're using critical thinking to expand their view of morality in way that isn't always 100% lined up with the bible or Christianity.

 

As for what you said about slavery, it proves my earlier point--we as a society determine what is moral. At one point letting a slave go after seven years was moral, but then in America life-long chattel slavery became acceptable. In one of those instances we were more progressive as a society (if you can call any instance of slavery progressive), and the other we regressed. It can go either way. Who's to say women will still have the right to vote 100 years from now or interracial marriage may become illegal again? It could happen if a majority decides everyone having equal rights is not a moral imperative or a "good' thing to do.

 

What is or what isn't moral is always subject to change--hopefully for the better--but it is less likely to when people view a book or deity as the absolute, unmovable authority on it.

[RipVanWinkle]

Falemon: Re: morality of the Bible. Yes, the Bible was written by many authors. But christians claim that it all fits together in a cohesive whole. And that it is the word of god. And that it is totally consistant within itself. Not! It is irreconcilably in confict with itself. So, I don't believe it is deceptive to say the bible is immoral if one contends that it is all true. The bad stuff trumps the good stuff if it is claimed to be all true.

 

Take another look at the OT which describes the most vindictive god in any religion. It expressly condones first the jews , then the gentiles to perform the most egregious violance on each other at different times. Like the approval by god for the Jews to take the young virgins for themselves after battle. Like murdering all people in the enemy territory, including men, women, chilren, pregnant woman and all the animals. The specific details vary in each horrendous declaration that god orders or condones. The atrocities caused or condoned by god are many and those I just set forth are only a few. They are well known to anyone who is familar with the OT as I'm sure they are to you.

 

The NT is not any better. Indeed it is worse. God throws all his own creatures in the eternal fire forever if they don't believe fantastic tales described by unknown authors in books written 1700 to 1900 years ago, (approximately) which were written decades and more after the events they purportetly described, which events were not even possible under natural law. And this must be believed without doubt or proof.

God changed his covenant with his "chosen people" without telling them, and adopted their enemies.

The new plan is that the world will end with the vast majority of god's own creation condemned to eternal torture. Let the Xtrians defend this "morality" if they choose. I call it madness. I mean no disrespect to you, Faleman, or to any others who responded to this post. My point is that a Xtian is being highly hypocritical to say atheists cannot come up with their own morality when their book of morality falls so far short of it. They can't lay claim to the admittedly moral portions of the Book if they insist on the truth of the rest of it.

Cybelle: Your brother in law has no legs to stand on. Pick some of the most horrible verses from the OT and fax them to him if you want to see some fast foot work and rationalizing on his part. Either that or ignore him, whichever would give you the most peace. Good luck to you on this most upsetting process your going through. bill

[Vigile]

There are actually a good set of principles and morals in the Bible,

 

I'm curious what those would be. Golden rule is obvious, but it's hardly definitive of biblical morality. Biblical morality is far more involved and is better summed up as either 'a bunch of crazy-ass rules and laws designed by and for war-mongering bronze-age goat herders' and 'a collection of rules and self-defacing guilt trips designed to keep cult members dependent.'

 

As a modern day xian, you don't run around happy and free just mouthing the golden rule. Instead, you hate yourself and live under a constant burden of guilt as you micro manage your thoughts. And, when you're not doing that, you're running around telling everyone else they are pissing off god too simply because they are human.

 

There are better moral principles in the Dick and Jane series than the bible. Taken at face value, the bible is a distortion of the very principles of morality. Cherry-picked, and it offers a few basics that can be found in any ancient religious or philosophical text; basics that are easily arrived at and not all that profound.

[mymistake]

According to the Bible if a man is willing to sell me his 10-year-old daughter as my wife then I get to do anything I want to her. It's a business transaction between her father and me. The girl has no say in it. As my wife she must then submit to me in every way. That is a Biblical marrage. This little problem in the Bible - the lack of consent - has caused many problems as Christians look to the Bible as a source of all morality. It's why there was resistance to marital rape laws. The Bible gives people permission to rape the women they capture when attacking other countries. Go over there and attack that land. Keep the little girls for yourself and kill everybody else. If you try to turn that order into the word of an all-loving God then problems arise. It breaks the brain. Perhaps that led to the Dark Ages and "Kill them all for God will know his own".

 

Does it really give permission to rape people, like really?

 

Yes, really.

 

Numbers 31:15-18

Judges 21:11-14

Judges 21: 20-21

 

For some reason these stories don't usually make it into Sunday School lesons.

 

Is that what you got from reading the bible? IIRC the bible didn't give permission to rape the captured women, it said to take them (as opposed to the killing of the men), rape was written as a crime punishable by death.

 

It was punishable by death to rape a betrothed Israeli woman. You see her husband owns a betrothed woman. An unbetrothed woman has a penalty of 50 pieces of silver paid to her father and then marring the victim. See the lack of consent? She didn't want to have sex with her attacker the first time so now she has to have sex with him for life. Rape of an unbetrothed woman was a crime against her father.

 

Deut 22:28-29

 

One can try to interpret it as "keep and fuck the hell out of", but I find that awfully presumptuous and it just doesn't fit in with the rest of the language and context. Perhaps I could double check the lexicons, but I'm highly doubtful of that being a viable interpretation.

 

In Judges 21 the purpose of the exercise was to get wives so then men would have children. It's quite clear that the intent was that these women would have sex with the man who now owned them.

 

But my point is that it actually teaches lots of good morals, from the golden rule made famous by Confucius to various other virtues on being forgiving, patient, helpful, graceful amongst many others. I've yet to see a church or Synagogue preach pro rape.

 

That is because most modern Churches use their own personal morals to cherry pick the Bible and down play the really barbaric stuff. Yes, there are some good things in the Bible. However there are a lot of horrible things in the Bible as well.

 

Now there are some dick moves in there, like God hardening people's heart and then punishing him for it (injustice), and so on. There is also a cult mechanic in the bible, and I will post a bit of an expose on it at some point, but one thing I am not for is misinformation, no matter what it's about.

 

I know it's possible to indoctrinate someone to do evil by quoting the bible, but that's not to say that all people who follow the bible must somehow inherit evil morals. Last I heard Jesus instructed nothing that agrees with the dark ages, so to suggest otherwise is absurd. Now they did do that in the name of it, which is a real testament to the influence it can have on people, in fact spiritual ideals have the most influence on people's beliefs and behaviours.

 

---

 

So what am I saying? just that there are good morals in the bible, just like so many other books out there, and also putting in a few corrections on what's instructed in there, which I am sure (almost certain) will be ignored in favour of the preferred idea that the bible instructs and supports rape. Now there is the questionable Sodom and Gomorrah story, which was pretty deep, though it would be terribly misinforming to attempt to call that the Bible's stance on being pro rape

 

That is exactly what the Bible does. Show me a Bible verse that gives a woman the right to refuse to marry. Show me a Bible verse that give a woman the right to refuse to mate with her husband. Women were property. That Sodom and Gomorrah story is just another example. Lot was a righteous man even though he offered to let his daughters be raped. Of course he was righteious. His daughters were his property to sell or give away however he wished.

 

The reason the Bible doesn't have the concept of consent is because the men who wrote the Bible hadn't thought of it. They couldn't imagine a world where a woman could choose who she wanted as a mate. They certainly didn't want a woman to think she could refuse her own husband.

[Serendipity Rose]

Hi cbelle and welcome to Ex-C.

 

I think what you're looking for is a way to understand where your own morals are coming from for your own use as well as to be able to explain to your bil. So see if this rings true for you. This isn't an explanation of where morals come from that you'll want to use in talking with your bil. This is just a way of understanding for you to clarify it for yourself perhaps.

 

Basically morals come from our own selfishness. I have an evolutionary instinct to nurture my children and provide for them what they need to be the most productive people that they can be. I also must take care of my own needs or else I won't be able to perform my first imperative, my children. If I don't treat my husband well (he might argue against this) then I may also not be able to provide for my children.

 

I, or my children, may need things that my husband can't provide. So then I must form a network of people around me that can support me.

 

This continues with every decision that I make through out my life. If I want to be happy, I must make others happy. If I want to be treated well, I must treat others well. Every action that we take has a purpose, to make ourselves happy. Because happy people are productive people.

 

To take it to a larger perspective, why do I care whether children in another country far, far away might be starving, or abused? If I had been born several generations back I might not be so concerned. I probably would have been more concerned about my small inner circle because I didn't have the information about those children and even if I did, I would have been limited and need to concentrate on my own family's survival. Today we have less to do to survive and my instincts might tell me that if there are children starving or abused elsewhere, I should do something to make a difference because the same could happen to my own descendants some day.

 

Each time you choose to do something because you just think it's the right thing to do, stop and look at your reasons a little deeper. Is it ONLY because it seems like the right thing to do? Or are you doing the right thing because you know how you would want it to happen for you?

 

This of course is a simplistic explanation but if you start thinking about why you feel the need to do the right thing in the future, you will likely be able to connect it to some kind of selfish reason.

 

Maybe the reason we do things that hurt other people is because we are morally confused by following arbitrary rules, either from religion or our society. I'm not talking about when you're tired and say stupid things that hurt someone, but purposefully doing something that hurts someone.

 

I grew up in Christianity but just like with everything else I do, I ignored all the rules and kept what seemed right for me. It was my way of coping with the world I was born into. The one thing that I held onto that did make sense was the idea that God is Love. I could relate to that, nothing else mattered. I stayed in religion until about 4 years ago when I realized that going to church was making me angry (too much politics from the pulpit for me!) and I couldn't do it any more.

 

Tonight it occurred to me that those words that made sense to me are the only thing I know to be true. But today I would say it as, "god is Love" or "Love is god." In other words, all that really matters is love, period. I base all of my values on love and human rights, not some arbitrary doctrine.

 

You can ditch all the rest of the Bible and Christianity and keep 1 John 4:8.

[falemon]

Falemon: Re: morality of the Bible. Yes, the Bible was written by many authors. But christians claim that it all fits together in a cohesive whole. And that it is the word of god. And that it is totally consistant within itself. Not! It is irreconcilably in confict with itself. So, I don't believe it is deceptive to say the bible is immoral if one contends that it is all true. The bad stuff trumps the good stuff if it is claimed to be all true.

I never claimed the Bible to be the source of all good and only source of morals or anything of the like. And I'm not suggesting to treat it as the Universal Source of Morals, just that it quite simply has good morals to follow. I've never read an instruction telling me to rape women, but in terms of reading the philosophy behind it's instructions regarding justice, it instructs people to exercise good justice, judgement, fair trial, etc.

 

When I speak of many writers I mean just that, so there were philosophy scholars putting their bit in there, there were occultists putting their bit in there, and many other good sources of information collected, copied, and compiled. I'm not saying there aren't morals outside of the bible or that the beliefs of the bible are the source of morals, just that, like many texts it has moral lessons. It has lessons on keeping your mouth shut, something that was considered a characteristic of wisdom in places like ancient Greece, and so on.

 

I am not saying, "the bible is good, read it and follow it, bow down to it's power", just that, like many books of the past you can draw lots of good things out to consider and use if you choose. Anyone with discernment can do that and gain/extract wisdom, justice and sound morals from many sources, even if it's surrounded with war, violence and dragons. See Atheism 2.0 for a good idea of what I mean.

 

It just seems more like a dogmatic tirade against seeing anything useful in there to take. Before I de-converted I had read up quite a fair bit on the occult, ancient wisdoms, and collected wisdoms for the modern day, and found that a lot of it is also mirrored (or copied if you must) in the bible. The discerning man can still gain lessons from it, and it would be naïve to think that none of the authors were in some way enlightened (since they obviously knew there was no God and were clearly well studied).

 

The NT is not any better. Indeed it is worse. God throws all his own creatures in the eternal fire forever if they don't believe

That is not exactly instructing us to throw people into fire or anything, it's talking about it's belief in judgement, etc.

 

 

My point is that a Xtian is being highly hypocritical to say atheists cannot come up with their own morality when their book of morality falls so far short of it. They can't lay claim to the admittedly moral portions of the Book if they insist on the truth of the rest of it.

I never said we cannot come up with our own morals, just that one can gain insights and plenty of good ideas. Have you ever read the bible, like the books of proverbs or ecclesiastes? Or 1 Cor 13?

 

1 Cor 13 is the basis for A Scanner Darkly and the philosophical punchline for The Ghost in the Shell. I'm not saying anyone must follow it, but for a path of self discovery it gives you plenty of things to examine and think about.

 

I would just ask, "what could be gained from those things spoken about?", "why did they consider the instructions in the book of Proverbs (minus believing in God) to be a source of wisdom?".

[falemon]

I will say one thing, I am able to extract good things from many sources, learn from them, consider the thinking behind them and add them to my own personal philosophy. By exercising discernment and good judgement I am able to develop myself and my ideas.

 

What I do see here is just a refusal to acknowledge anything good in there, ignoring it exists altogether.

 

I'm curious what those would be. Golden rule is obvious, but it's hardly definitive of biblical morality. Biblical morality is far more involved and is better summed up as either 'a bunch of crazy-ass rules and laws designed by and for war-mongering bronze-age goat herders' and 'a collection of rules and self-defacing guilt trips designed to keep cult members dependent.'

1. Love over hate
   
2. Justice
    
   
3. Humility
    
   
4. Self discovery and the understanding of proverbs, parables and riddles
    
   
5. Good judgement
    
   
6. Accepting good correction
    
   
7. Picking knowledge out of every situation
    
   
8. Sense of abominations against justice, fairness and rights, etc.
    
   
9. Fair trial (innocent till proven guilty)
    
   
10. Empathy and treating your neighbour as you would treat yourself
     
    
11. Fidelity
     
    
12. Self control
     
    
13. Honesty
     
    
14. Commitment and being faithful to your word, cause and dependents
     
    
15. Responsibility
     
    
16. Patience, helpfulness, discernment, charity
     
    
17. Respect for mens wives, households and possessions, and to not entertain jealous thoughts that would give rise to it
    

Of course they are there for each person to consider for themselves, not as blind instructions to transform you into little-christs

 

Cherry-picked, and it offers a few basics that can be found in any ancient religious or philosophical text; basics that are easily arrived at and not all that profound.

My point exactly, they are there. You say they are easily arrived at, but if you track the history of man you will see that they clearly aren't, well not the ones I noted IMO.

[falemon]

Numbers 31:15-18

Judges 21:11-14

Judges 21: 20-21

Numbers 31:15-18 --- responded below

Judges 21:11-14 --- "So Benjamin returned at that time, and they were given as wives"

Judges 21: 20-21--- "come out of the vineyards and catch a wife"

 

 

 

It was punishable by death to rape a betrothed Israeli woman. You see her husband owns a betrothed woman. An unbetrothed woman has a penalty of 50 pieces of silver paid to her father and then marring the victim. See the lack of consent? She didn't want to have sex with her attacker the first time so now she has to have sex with him for life. Rape of an unbetrothed woman was a crime against her father.

 

Deut 22:28-29

If a man has sex with a virgin, never anywhere at all mentions, suggests or implies rape whatsoever. Terrible terrible distortion of texts. It clearly says one thing and one thing only, which is "if a man has sex with a virgin". So unequivocally no, that is no about rape :|

 

In Judges 21 the purpose of the exercise was to get wives so then men would have children. It's quite clear that the intent was that these women would have sex with the man who now owned them.

And so you presume rape, why? Why is that the only way for that situation to end, says a lot about your belief system

 

 

That is exactly what the Bible does. Show me a Bible verse that gives a woman the right to refuse to marry. Show me a Bible verse that give a woman the right to refuse to mate with her husband. Women were property. That Sodom and Gomorrah story is just another example. Lot was a righteous man even though he offered to let his daughters be raped. Of course he was righteious. His daughters were his property to sell or give away however he wished.

 

The reason the Bible doesn't have the concept of consent is because the men who wrote the Bible hadn't thought of it. They couldn't imagine a world where a woman could choose who she wanted as a mate. They certainly didn't want a woman to think she could refuse her own husband.

1. Is there a bible verse of a women who (a) was unhappy with her marriage or ( was unhappy to mate and didn't want children? So instead you presume women didn't want to marry. There are cultures today where women and men happily have blind marriages (some even spoke different languages), and I've met the children and families so I don't think it's hard to understand the world of the past where women just wanted a man to have, and men wanted women to have. It's far too easy to translate our modern values into the past and see it through our lens. That is just wrong, and it causes you to miss the point of the stories.
   
2. Does something need to be in the bible to make a decision? since the bible does instruct self discernment, not the blind following of rules. It gives instruction for wisdom, but expects sound judgement. Some people are incapable of that I guess.
   
3. Lot never just went out and offered his girl, like, hey dudes, come rape my daughter. In the scene the men came to rape the men (a war insult to disgrace the defeated men, not a sign of homosexuality as is often incorrectly used against homosexuality). There he is basically saying it is worse to rape a man than a woman, not that I'm agreeing that a woman should be raped, but that is his proposition, feel free to agree / disagree, judge / ponder about.
    
   

[Vigile]

1. Love over hate
   
2. Justice
   
3. Humility
   
4. Self discovery and the understanding of proverbs, parables and riddles
   
5. Good judgement
   
6. Accepting good correction
   
7. Picking knowledge out of every situation
   
8. Sense of abominations against justice, fairness and rights, etc.
   
9. Fair trial (innocent till proven guilty)
   
10. Empathy and treating your neighbour as you would treat yourself
    
11. Fidelity
    
12. Self control
    
13. Honesty
    
14. Commitment and being faithful to your word, cause and dependents
    
15. Responsibility
    
16. Patience, helpfulness, discernment, charity
    
17. Respect for mens wives, households and possessions, and to not entertain jealous thoughts that would give rise to it
    

Of course they are there for each person to consider for themselves, not as blind instructions to transform you into little-christs

 

 

 

I'm afraid everything you've listed here is the bible viewed through a modern cultural lens. Give a man from Mars a copy of the book and I doubt he will arrive at any one of these qualities. Given the history of the church, which has among other things, bashed the heads of heathen babies on the rocks after baptizing them, tortured and burned heretics and witches, supported slavery, etc... -- all reasonable conclusions derived from the text -- it's pretty hard to argue the book promotes anything like a sense of morality unless it is wildly cherry-picked.

 

I'm betting -- assuming I had the time and patience -- I can disprove every single quality you listed above using the bible itself and wouldn't even have to cherry pick or quote out of context to do it.

 

 

 

 

Cherry-picked, and it offers a few basics that can be found in any ancient religious or philosophical text; basics that are easily arrived at and not all that profound.

My point exactly, they are there. You say they are easily arrived at, but if you track the history of man you will see that they clearly aren't, well not the ones I noted IMO.

 

The problem with cherry-picking is it avoids the true intentions of the text. It is in fact not there and represents a montage representing the views of the picker, not the text producer.

 

I still contend that unless we can gain some valuable insight from the strange rules of a group of bronze-age goat herders or from cultist such as the writers of the gospels or Paul, then the book is a very poor source of moral teachings. I'm sure we could cherry pick the sermons of David Koresh and make him sound sorta/kinda all right too, but it wouldn't be a fair representation of Koresh and his teachings. Plato and many other works, written before the gospels, offers a far richer source of moral teachings

[falemon]

It is in fact not there and represents a montage representing the views of the picker, not the text producer.

Really? So I'm guessing you've read the entire bible and been unable to see absolutely no text explicitly stating what I said? since your statement implies "there are no verses directly stating those qualities". That also implies you must have absolute knowledge of all of it to suggest it's not there. You also presume it is a view, the verses explicitly state them, how is that cherry picking. Jesus points to the golden rule as the core concept (as well as loving your God with all your heart, blah blah).

 

You say that the acts of past christians imply the true nature, ignoring the acts of modern christians, or different groups of christians. On top of that

 

Oh and again, to suggest it promoted those actions is to presume their knowledge of it was total. How much were they exposed to in order to lead to those actions? Did they even read the bible, or were they manipulated by someone. Why do you only take note of negative inspirations and totally ignore any positive inspiration as something it promotes. Why the choice in selection?

 

I'm betting -- assuming I had the time and patience -- I can disprove every single quality you listed above using the bible itself and wouldn't even have to cherry pick or quote out of context to do it.

You could discredit, but discrediting is not disproving. I say discredit because if I can supply a verse for each then it cannot be disproved by another verse since it would require further judgement to know what takes precedent, and also makes a hidden requirement that "the bible only makes a statement if it does not contain a conflicting statement". That is reduction by implication of contradiction, a process of extracting only totally consistent statements, which is an entirely different discussion to this one as I'm saying, "it's in there".

 

The only way to disprove what I've said is to prove that every verse does not support what I said. Bear in mind I'm like, A* in logic and reasoning, academically I'm speaking, that is the only way to disprove what I said (if we are talking about actually disproving my statement).

 

People misuse the word disprove when when they are really discrediting or contradicting. They are different things entirely

[ExCBooster]

Numbers 31:15-18

Judges 21:11-14

Judges 21: 20-21

Numbers 31:15-18 --- responded below

Judges 21:11-14 --- "So Benjamin returned at that time, and they were given as wives"

Judges 21: 20-21--- "come out of the vineyards and catch a wife"

 

 

 

It was punishable by death to rape a betrothed Israeli woman. You see her husband owns a betrothed woman. An unbetrothed woman has a penalty of 50 pieces of silver paid to her father and then marring the victim. See the lack of consent? She didn't want to have sex with her attacker the first time so now she has to have sex with him for life. Rape of an unbetrothed woman was a crime against her father.

 

Deut 22:28-29

If a man has sex with a virgin, never anywhere at all mentions, suggests or implies rape whatsoever. Terrible terrible distortion of texts. It clearly says one thing and one thing only, which is "if a man has sex with a virgin". So unequivocally no, that is no about rape :|

 

In Judges 21 the purpose of the exercise was to get wives so then men would have children. It's quite clear that the intent was that these women would have sex with the man who now owned them.

And so you presume rape, why? Why is that the only way for that situation to end, says a lot about your belief system

 

 

That is exactly what the Bible does. Show me a Bible verse that gives a woman the right to refuse to marry. Show me a Bible verse that give a woman the right to refuse to mate with her husband. Women were property. That Sodom and Gomorrah story is just another example. Lot was a righteous man even though he offered to let his daughters be raped. Of course he was righteious. His daughters were his property to sell or give away however he wished.

 

The reason the Bible doesn't have the concept of consent is because the men who wrote the Bible hadn't thought of it. They couldn't imagine a world where a woman could choose who she wanted as a mate. They certainly didn't want a woman to think she could refuse her own husband.

1. Is there a bible verse of a women who (a) was unhappy with her marriage or ( was unhappy to mate and didn't want children? So instead you presume women didn't want to marry. There are cultures today where women and men happily have blind marriages (some even spoke different languages), and I've met the children and families so I don't think it's hard to understand the world of the past where women just wanted a man to have, and men wanted women to have. It's far too easy to translate our modern values into the past and see it through our lens. That is just wrong, and it causes you to miss the point of the stories.
    
   
2. Does something need to be in the bible to make a decision? since the bible does instruct self discernment, not the blind following of rules. It gives instruction for wisdom, but expects sound judgement. Some people are incapable of that I guess.
    
   
3. Lot never just went out and offered his girl, like, hey dudes, come rape my daughter. In the scene the men came to rape the men (a war insult to disgrace the defeated men, not a sign of homosexuality as is often incorrectly used against homosexuality). There he is basically saying it is worse to rape a man than a woman, not that I'm agreeing that a woman should be raped, but that is his proposition, feel free to agree / disagree, judge / ponder about.
   

I sure hope you're being sarcastic... otherwise this whole position implies a total lack of knowledge of what "consent" and "rape" actually mean, in the context of rights-based modern philosophy (the basis of most of today's governments and law). To clarify: rape is sex without the consent (or the capacity for consent) of one of the parties.

I think all the others were saying was that the Bible's contents were written by and for people of another time and place - a totally different social structure from ours, and that in it, we can find instances of acts being encouraged that would be morally reprehensible to us. Different culture, different rules. Of course this doesn't mean that there's nothing of value in it - those common factors I mentioned in my first post in this thread are most likely to be accepted by us. Check the tag on your shirt: is it blended-fiber? (Leviticus 19:19) But I've seen plenty of appeals to "Love is god" tossed around in this very thread. See also Confucius and the virtue of Ren, or being humane. But you probably wouldn't agree with Confucius on the moral imperative of righteous revenge for the death of a parent.

You don't even need the Bible to see this effect. Look at the map linked above of ages of consent around the world - the age at which a person is legally considered able to give consent for sex. Any sexual contact below that age in that country, and it's rape. So: married at 13 to a 40 year old in Angola or Mexico? Statutory rape in most of these other countries. Also note the ones in which you have to be married (green). There aren't minimum ages of consent in many of these countries. You just have to be married to, say, a nine year old. (To be fair, you're supposed to wait for sex until all parties are physically capable of withstanding sex without physical harm, and it's not standard practice to be married to a six year old... but not unheard of.)

[ExCBooster]

Sorry to double-post, but I thought I'd just say that although this thread seems to be drifting a bit off-topic, it does illustrate how to navigate thorny ethical issues without the Bible as a moral guide. Everybody's been so intelligent about this.

Huzzah for real-time learning aids, and independent reasoning!

[falemon]

@ExCBooster, well my standing isn't about saying we must follow it's laws, all I was saying is just as you were saying, there are things of value in it. I also agree that some of its culture is abhorrent to us, yes, and so on it's all good.

 

There was no sarcasm, but what I do see is that we have a propensity to project our presumptions onto other people in such a way that we become just as ignorant and bigoted as fundies. On top of this we bias our logic on our ideals, which strays from reaching logic evaluations since we colour our acknowledgement of statements based on how much it appeals to our beliefs rather than following what it actually is.

 

To suggest my statement implies a "total lack of knowledge of what 'consent' and 'rape' means" is terribly presumptuous and I would love to see the logic behind that premise in which you can make such a judgement.

 

I also think people are confusing the instructions of laws as morals, like, "blended fibre" is a moral. That is just and nothing more than an instruction of something they have to follow, and in no way discredits the mention of morals whatsoever :/ What made you bring that up in regards to morals?

 

My simple statement was just that it contains and promotes good morals, not to say that everything in it is the juice of life. The response I receive are interpretations to suggest rape, and the proposition that it implies rape, completely disregarding the culture at the time, and I don't mean culture in the sense that "consent is not necessary", but just he culture. So we judge it on our common lens, which in itself is not a bad thing, but then use that to suggest that "bible does support [statutory] rape, therefore that contradicts its prohibition of rape, therefore meaning either (a) it is pro rape or ( it has no good morals", sort of thing :/

 

I personally weigh each thing to its own rather than considering everything under bias where things are only acknowledged if it supports your own idea, ignoring everything challenging a few of your own premises.

 

I've seen people claim (a) that they can disprove what I said, and ( that it is purely a figment of my own lens. To satisfy the (a) statement actually requires that EVERY verse be evaluated against each point, and is only satisfied if there are absolutely no verses supporting it. The ( statement is nothing more than a presumption and can only rationally be considered after proving (a).

 

---

 

That being said, it's clear that some people just have a particular conclusion and have no interest in acknowledging the existence of things that challenge that conclusion, even at the expense of suggesting that all THEY got from the bible was permission to rape women :/ Some of the things I listed are very simple statements literally paraphrased from the bible. Read 1 Cor 13, nothing but speaking about love, charity, patience. Gal 5 from around 18 or so, speaks about various QUALITIES. Proverbs lists many virtues, so it's incredibly ignorant to suggest "the bible does NOT ever ever promote good morals" when they are clearly written, and then used that unsatisfied logical statement to derive the statement that "all christians are therefore immoral". That the same thinking you see from FUNDIES against atheists, making me think that you can take the dude out of the church but you can't take the church out of the dude

 

Maybe we are exactly the same now as we were when we were christians, and perhaps the bad things christians did was because they, like you and I, are human Hmm.

[falemon]

Sorry to double-post, but I thought I'd just say that although this thread seems to be drifting a bit off-topic, it does illustrate how to navigate thorny ethical issues without the Bible as a moral guide. Everybody's been so intelligent about this.

Huzzah for real-time learning aids, and independent reasoning!

 

yeah, also it's funny that we are probably doing a more in depth bible study than any congregation ever has lol

[Thackerie]

... making me think that you can take the dude out of the church but you can't take the church out of the dude

...

 

Yes, I've noticed that ... in your posts.

[falemon]

... making me think that you can take the dude out of the church but you can't take the church out of the dude

...

 

Yes, I've noticed that ... in your posts.

 

Is that just because I have good things to say about it? Because if this is just a "good things to say against the bible" versus "bad things to say against the bible", that's just asinine.

 

That's what I consider to be a problem and exactly what I meant when I mentioned taking the church out of the man, because rather than evaluate what's being said it's turned into a case of Us vs Them, and anyone who does not subscribe to my view is them (i.e. a man with the church in him), applying judgements on one person, i.e. cherry picking, but not applying it to oneself.

 

But hey, if that's all you are able to derive from what I'm saying, then that's cool

[raoul]

I think it's a little unfair (yet tactical) of your BIL to bombard you so soon after deconversion. It's a shaky time. I'm actually in the middle of a conversation with a friend's father about how all of the good in the world can/can't exist without a theistic God. I'm still trying to formulate a fair question, but the first thing I disagree with is the statement/idea that morality began with God. That is something you should research and question before you decide how to answer. It's ok to say, "I don't know, but I'm thinking about it and doing some work on it." It's also ok to just say "I don't know".

 

Christianity really fed me answers, and supplied meaning for every unknown thing. Not knowing is scary at first, but I love it so much now. I can objectively consider different variables for the first time.

 

I love this:

 

MM, many thanks for sharing that vid - it sums it up no nicely, concisely, rationally, and extremely accurate (his examples from religions and ot). I miss Hitch every day since his passing.

[raoul]

Also, apparently I have no basis to say that the Holocaust was wrong, or that murder is wrong, or that stealing is wrong.

 

My brother-in-law, an extremely rigid and negative fundamentalist with a Church of Christ background, has told me that if I am no longer a Christian, I don't have any basis for morality. "Morality started with God. If you don't believe in God, what is the point of being a good person? And even if you are a good person, what right do you have to tell a murderer he has done something wrong?"

 

I can honestly say that I didn't have any clue how to debate with my brother-in-law on this topic. He bombarded me with these questions only a week or so after I had de-converted.

 

So, have I resigned myself to a world without morality? I hate the thought of it. I love being a good person, being kind, petting puppies and kittens, sharing what I have, etc. I think that some things, like taking another person's life, is absolutely wrong, and will forever be wrong. But when I dig really deep into my thoughts, I don't have any proof for the way I think.

 

I guess I am a little scared that I don't have any basis for morality except my own reasoning. That is OK with me, except that I cannot expect other people to view my morals as correct. Do you get what I mean? For example, who am I to say genocide is wrong, if to another person's reason, it is OK?

 

I think I'm making a mess of this. I'm sorry. I hope someone understands what I mean...

What everyone has told you is right on! Especially the very short video MyMistake shared which showed the magnifcent Christopher Hitchens excoriating his opponent. A couple of other points:

1. If you bring up the ot atrocities committed by the Jews, especially depicted in the book of Joshua, the xtians will counter with nonsense about it being from a god so it's completely good or whatever. You can rebut with something like "well then my morals exceed those of your god since I would NEVER slaughter a child". I've done this in debates and have never been rebutted by them.

2. If they try to shake off the ot by quoting from the nt you can easily, once more, show how your morals exceed even those spouted by their messiah. When he said you must hate your mother or father or let the dead bury the dead (what he told the son who wanted to bury his father before following), you can say something about this contradicting the 10 commandments which claim we should honor our parents. Regarding the dead burying their dead, this shows a sociopathic nature of their leader - something a normal person would NEVER say to someone who is grieving a death.

 

It's really quite easy once you're not intimitated by them. As some of our friends here have also stated - they commit far more heinous acts than most atheists could ever think of doing. But with them they have the 'get out of jail card' they play - just confess their sin, move on, commit another one, confess it, move on - ad infinitum. With us we go by our consciences which can be very strict masters - at least for me it is. I'm committed, as the rest of the folks here, to live a very moral life and doing no harm to others. Compare that with the xtians who act like sociopaths at times.

[Vigile]

Really? So I'm guessing you've read the entire bible and been unable to see absolutely no text explicitly stating what I said?

 

Indeed. Not without my former pastor's lens to help guide my way. When I read it objectively, those qualities you list do not jump out. Take justice for instance. Biblical justice includes stoning unruly children and eternal torture for crimes such as unbelief. How exactly do people derive the concept of 'true' justice from a book that teaches these things as its broader message?

 

 

since your statement implies "there are no verses directly stating those qualities"

 

No. My statement implies that pulling out verses (which are constructs added later btw) amounts to cherry picking the text. See my example of the concept of justice above. I'm sure I could find a soundbite that will make the bible sound like it supports the concept of justice in the enlightenment era sense of the word, but that's not the message the original writers were going for and if you read everything else they wrote this becomes quite clear.

 

You say that the acts of past christians imply the true nature, ignoring the acts of modern christians, or different groups of christians. On top of that

 

I didn't say anything like this. I said the acts of past xians were result of their reading the bible and taking it seriously. They were well justified according to their own book to behave as they did. What I'm saying is the moral tenets of modern xians have nothing at all to do with their book and everything to do with their modern interpretation of that book; IOW, they are influenced by the culture that is around them and they make their reading of their book fit the cultural ideals of their contemporary culture.

 

if I can supply a verse

 

I don't mean to get testy here, so forgive me if this comes across that way. Again, this is how xians approach their book. They cut it up into verses and use them as soundbites. Approached this way, it's quite easy to make the book read however you want it to. This is why there are 30,000 xian denominations today. Taken at face value OTH, you end up with something that looks anything like your example of 'good judgement' for instance. Biblical judgement argues that child-like ignorance triumphs over adult understanding, that people should allow themselves to be mistreated by others by offering their other cheek or walking extra miles when they are abused or enslaved. It argues that people should learn to hate themselves and all things natural and that this life is meaningless in lieu of a non-existent afterlife. I'd say these things are the antithesis of good judgement in spite of what any verse taken as a stand-alone premise might otherwise indicate.

[mymistake]

Judges 21:11-14 --- "So Benjamin returned at that time, and they were given as wives"

 

You are kidding right? You left out the part where these under age girls had their whole family butchered and then thes girls were taken. Hey if some guy with a sword kills you and kidnaps your daughter and forces her to marry some other guy that isn't rape right? Of course it is.

 

Judges 21: 20-21--- "come out of the vineyards and catch a wife"

 

Whoever catches a girl owns her. It doesn't say come out of the vineyard and talk to a girl to see if she wants to be your wife. There is no asking the girl out on a date and proving yourself to her before proposing on bended knee. These women were property. If the father decided to give them away or sell them this was his right. The girl had no say. If she didn't like the guy who caught her that was tough.

 

 

 

Deut 22:28-29

If a man has sex with a virgin, never anywhere at all mentions, suggests or implies rape whatsoever. Terrible terrible distortion of texts. It clearly says one thing and one thing only, which is "if a man has sex with a virgin". So unequivocally no, that is no about rape :|

 

There is no consent. The concept of woman's consent is not found. The verse is only about what the man does to the woman.

 

And so you presume rape, why? Why is that the only way for that situation to end, says a lot about your belief system

 

Because when you kidnap a girl and take her away to force her to be your wife and she has to obey you for life that is rape. A woman's consent is not in the Bible.

 

 

1. Is there a bible verse of a women who (a) was unhappy with her marriage or ( was unhappy to mate and didn't want children? So instead you presume women didn't want to marry. There are cultures today where women and men happily have blind marriages (some even spoke different languages), and I've met the children and families so I don't think it's hard to understand the world of the past where women just wanted a man to have, and men wanted women to have. It's far too easy to translate our modern values into the past and see it through our lens. That is just wrong, and it causes you to miss the point of the stories.
   
2. Does something need to be in the bible to make a decision? since the bible does instruct self discernment, not the blind following of rules. It gives instruction for wisdom, but expects sound judgement. Some people are incapable of that I guess.
    
   
3. Lot never just went out and offered his girl, like, hey dudes, come rape my daughter. In the scene the men came to rape the men (a war insult to disgrace the defeated men, not a sign of homosexuality as is often incorrectly used against homosexuality). There he is basically saying it is worse to rape a man than a woman, not that I'm agreeing that a woman should be raped, but that is his proposition, feel free to agree / disagree, judge / ponder about.
   

 

1. So the point of the stories is that women should be liberated, have as much power as a man, never to be treated as property, have the right to work to earn a living, have the right to mate with whoever she wishes? If that is the point of the Bible then I did miss it.

 

2. You are projecting onto the stories. Blind following of rules is exactly what we find in the Old Testament. Prevent the Ark of the covenent from falling over and spilling it's contents? Well that means death to you because the blind rule says you are never to touch it and there is zero tolerence. There are dozens of other rules that result in death. Bronze Age Israel was a very barbaric place.

 

3. You are joking right? The story of Lot is filled with ignorance. But he certainly did offer his daughters up to be raped, there is no excuse for it but the Bible calls Lot a righteious man. Thus the Bible endorces what Lot did. What we don't see is the Angels or God turning to Lot and saying "What have you done? A woman should choose for herself who she will have as a mate". That never happens in the Bible. The closest is found in Ruth where Ruth sneeks into Boaz's room in the middle of the night and offers him sex but he instead wait tills the next morning to talk with the other men of the town to see if some other guy wants her instead.

 

These were ignorant men who did not want nor even imagine modern concepts about respecting and empowering women. So in respect to women their morality was backward compared to now. That is why it's crazy when Cbelle's B.I.L. or those like him say that without the Bible we can't have morals. Modern churches use their modern and subjective morality to cherry pick the Bible. You can find some good stuff in it but over all the Bible is a very immoral book. As another example it's filled with genocide. Hitler, Pol Pot and Stallin had nothing on the Old Testament.

[Serendipity Rose]

Sure, you can find good morals in the Bible. But then again you can find good morals in pretty much anything you read if you look hard enough. From what I understand you can even find some good morals in "Fifty Shades of Gray." http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=37749

 

Unfortunately most people read and don't do a whole lot of discerning.

 

Here's a book that cherry picks from a lot of valuable resources that might be a worthwhile source to guide your morals. http://www.amazon.com/Good-Book-Humanist-Bible/dp/0802717373

 

If you go over to the "Belief in a God" thread and read some of Joshpantera's posts which are primarily quoting Joseph Campbell, old Joe gives a wonderful explanation of why our western religious traditions have gone so wrong. http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/53847-belief-in-a-god/page__st__80#entry824561

 

The mere tying of history to what should be a metaphorical guide, limits any value that might have been gained from Christianity. Christianity is killing itself.

 

If we are to look for ways to teach morality to the next generation we need to move away from the idea that we can glean anything from an ancient text that teaches us that history is holy. We need to learn from history, not worship it. We need to go back to metaphor and the act of seeking answers rather than finding them.