The bible is a handbook of bad morals.

[nw843x]

This story brightened up my Monday morning.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/091019/entertainment/portugal_literature_religion



At the launch event in the northern Portuguese town of Penafiel on Sunday, Saramago said he did not think the book would offend Catholics "because they do not read the Bible".


"The Bible is a manual of bad morals (which) has a powerful influence on our culture and even our way of life. Without the Bible, we would be different, and probably better people," he was quoted as saying by the news agency Lusa.

[Hux]

"A writer of Jose Saramago's standing can criticise, (but) insults do no-one any good, particularly a Nobel Prize winner," the priest said.

What is insulting and who is insulted?

[Eyeron]

BAd morals?

Thous shalt not steal?
Thou shalt not commit adultery?
Thou shalt not covey?
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor?

Judge not lest ye be judged in kind?

Those are bad morals? How so?

And what about the seven deadly sins of "Lust", "Gluttony", "Greed", "Sloth", "Wrath", "Envy", and "Pride"?

[CurtC]

Apparently Eyeron has only read Bible verses on church signs and not the book itself.

[joobz]

BAd morals?

Thous shalt not steal?
Thou shalt not commit adultery?
Thou shalt not covey?
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor?

Judge not lest ye be judged in kind?

Those are bad morals? How so?

And what about the seven deadly sins of "Lust", "Gluttony", "Greed", "Sloth", "Wrath", "Envy", and "Pride"?
the bible claims those are the morals we should follow, but then shows god advocating the breaking of many of those rules.

[Hokulele]

BAd morals?

Thous shalt not steal?
Thou shalt not commit adultery?
Thou shalt not covey?
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor?

Judge not lest ye be judged in kind?

Those are bad morals? How so?

And what about the seven deadly sins of "Lust", "Gluttony", "Greed", "Sloth", "Wrath", "Envy", and "Pride"?


Why is coveting a "bad moral"? To me, this commandment is the very definition of thought-crime, something I strongly disagree with. As far as I am concerned, actions are moral or immoral, not private thoughts. Although thoughts may lead to actions, that isn't always the case, and it certainly isn't justification for telling other people what they are allowed to think.

[IMST]

BAd morals?

Substitutional atonement?
Slavery?
Genocide?
Racism?

Killing your kids for backtalk?

Those are bad morals? How so?

And what about killing all the men, women and boys but keeping the virgin girls for yourselves?

[Foster Zygote]

I don't think that believers are so much a reflection of the Bible as the Bible is a reflection of believers. The Bible contains a mixture of inspiring and horrific text simply because it was written by so many different authors with different theologies and perspectives over such a long period of time.

[Aepervius]

BAd morals?

Thous shalt not steal?
Thou shalt not commit adultery?
Thou shalt not covey?
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor?

Judge not lest ye be judged in kind?

Those are bad morals? How so?

And what about the seven deadly sins of "Lust", "Gluttony", "Greed", "Sloth", "Wrath", "Envy", and "Pride"?

The god (with a small g) in the OT , is seen asking for sacrifice, asking for genocide, promoting incest, rape, enslavement and i pass over probably more.

The NT is better, but not too much as enslavement is still promoted.

Those are definitively bad morals.

[drkitten]

Why is coveting a "bad moral"? To me, this commandment is the very definition of thought-crime, something I strongly disagree with. As far as I am concerned, actions are moral or immoral, not private thoughts. Although thoughts may lead to actions, that isn't always the case, and it certainly isn't justification for telling other people what they are allowed to think.

Sure it is.

I get told what to think routinely. Just google "distract yourself from cravings" or something like that and you'll find dozens of people telling other people that they shouldn't be thinking about eating if they want to lose weight (and providing suggestions about the best way to avoid thinking about eating).

It's good, sensible medical advice.

Similarly, an important part of treating depression is not letting yourself brood; to distract yourself from depressive thoughts when they happen. (http://www.ucop.edu/sciencetoday/article/986) Again, that's just good, sensible medical advice.

For that matter, what are people doing (if not telling other people what they are allowed to think) when they tell you to "focus on the positive"? What is a coach doing when he's talking about "mental preparation" for a game?

You can't apply modern standards from the very narrow area of criminal law to a general principle, especially not when the general principle is routinely and productive violated in almost all other areas of life.

[Cainkane1]

Gluttony. If you eat too much and gain weight then pride will help you get thin again. If it wasn't for lust we wouldn't be here. Greed is merely wanting more than you have. If you wrk hard you get slotful at the end of the workday. Envy is seeing something we want and working toward getting it. Averice is sometimes justified if someone wrongs us. Wrath within the law is what happens when a criminal needs to be punished.

[Hokulele]

Sure it is.

I get told what to think routinely. Just google "distract yourself from cravings" or something like that and you'll find dozens of people telling other people that they shouldn't be thinking about eating if they want to lose weight (and providing suggestions about the best way to avoid thinking about eating).

It's good, sensible medical advice.

Similarly, an important part of treating depression is not letting yourself brood; to distract yourself from depressive thoughts when they happen. (http://www.ucop.edu/sciencetoday/article/986) Again, that's just good, sensible medical advice.

For that matter, what are people doing (if not telling other people what they are allowed to think) when they tell you to "focus on the positive"? What is a coach doing when he's talking about "mental preparation" for a game?

You can't apply modern standards from the very narrow area of criminal law to a general principle, especially not when the general principle is routinely and productive violated in almost all other areas of life.


I see this as being the difference between "encouraging against thinking" as opposed to "not allowed to think". I agree, when you look outside the field of criminal (or, as in this case, immoral/sinful) behavior, there are many examples of where "you shouldn't think that" are reasonable. Since the OP was about morality instead of personal well-being, I believe my point holds.

[Eyeron]

Why is coveting a "bad moral"? To me, this commandment is the very definition of thought-crime, something I strongly disagree with. As far as I am concerned, actions are moral or immoral, not private thoughts. Although thoughts may lead to actions, that isn't always the case, and it certainly isn't justification for telling other people what they are allowed to think.

I'm not the one who is making the claim of bad morals, the original post is.

And I think you might have the definition of the commandment wrong.

The full context of it says:

Exodus 20:17

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."

As for myself I can see why this could be a bad thing and don't really see how this can be considered a thought crime. Whenever I think of the term "Thought crime" I tend to think of in terms of things like censorship, and hate crime legislation, or of countries in which there is no such thing as free speech.

Admiring a person's things and wife is one thing and so is wanting such an item for yourself, but wanting to take them for yourself is coveting.


And yes, I've read the Bible at least once. My mom is a lifelong Christian and my entire family is Christian. But I am not.I an atheist. However, I do agree with some of the morality expressed in the Bible.

[marksman]

I think, in the context of Exodus that "coveting" was not so much a ban on "wanting" things but a ban on taking things that don't belong to you but wouldn't be called "stealing". Notice how everything on the list are things that are alive (spouse, employees, livestock). While we in English might talk about "stealing" someone's spouse, I don't know that the same word would be used in ancient Hebrew. So it is possible the commandment against coveting is really an extension of the ban against stealing, but extended to things that are not inanimate objects.

I cold be wrong, as I'm no expert on Hebrew or Biblical translations.

[drkitten]

I see this as being the difference between "encouraging against thinking" as opposed to "not allowed to think". I agree, when you look outside the field of criminal (or, as in this case, immoral/sinful) behavior, there are many examples of where "you shouldn't think that" are reasonable. Since the OP was about morality instead of personal well-being, I believe my point holds.

No, it doesn't hold at all. You can't conflate "criminal behavior" with "sinful behavior." Even the ancient Hebrews, whose moral code we are ostensibly analyzing, did not do that.

The reason that thoughtcrime is problematic is not because there's anything particular good about the ability to think bad thoughts. The reason it's problematic is because it's hellishly difficult to prove, frightfully open to abuse by corrupt judges, and, of course, hard to keep from committing.

Which is why "coveting" isn't a crime. There's a very detailed list of what the ancient Hebrews considered to be crimes, along with the punishments detailed for them, and even in some cases the types of testimony that would be necessary to consider such a crime proven. And "coveting" is conspicuously not among them. In a list that explicitly mentions "stoning" as an appropriate punishment for disobeying your parents, you don't find the absence of a punishment for "coveting your neighbor's ox" to be significant?

In addition to wrongly conflating criminal and moral law, you're also wrongly distinguishing between "moral" and "improving." Again, to the ancient Hebrews (and to most of the modern Jews), the whole point of these rules is not that you were to be punished for breaking them (the whole "punishment for sin" thing is largely a Christian invention), but that they were simply descriptions of how the world worked.

Acting in conformity with the way the world was going to work anyway is better for all concerned. Evil acts, under the Jewish framework, carry their own punishment because that's the way the world works. Good acts similarly carry their own reward. I'm not rewarding you by pointing out that if you practice the piano, you'll get better --- and I'm not punishing you by pointing out that if you don't, you won't. If I tell you that a pan is hot and will burn you if you touch it, who is "punishing" you if you ignore my advice?

God therefore doesn't have to punish you -- and doesn't punish you. The world itself can be a dangerous place, especially if you ignore the warning signs that say things like "don't covet or you'll get metaphorically burned."

[drkitten]

Gluttony. If you eat too much and gain weight then pride will help you get thin again. If it wasn't for lust we wouldn't be here. Greed is merely wanting more than you have. If you wrk hard you get slotful at the end of the workday. Envy is seeing something we want and working toward getting it. Averice is sometimes justified if someone wrongs us. Wrath within the law is what happens when a criminal needs to be punished.

Wow. That's as impressive a pile of wrongness as I've seen in a long time.

Actually, "pride" doesn't usually help much if you need to lose weight. What you usually need is not pride, but humility -- the ability to admit that there's something wrong with you (you are too fat) and the willingness to do a fairly elaborate and lengthy penance (not eating much and working out) to improve yourself.

Similarly, the words you're using don't mean what you think they mean. We are supposed to appreciate God's world (after all, God Himself pronounced it "good"); things like greed and gluttony become sinful when they become excessive. This is a point well understood by nearly all theologians of all of the Abrahamic religions.... and if you want a very well expressed description, I suggest you look at Dante's Purgatorio.

God created the world and made it worthy of appreciation -- but not to the point where our appreciations become perverted and evil in themselves, or even to the point where our appreciations distract us from greater things worthy of deeper appreciation. Avarice is specifically an unhealthy desire for material things, but being a wastrel is just as great a sin, since it fails to show appropriate respect for the things God has made. (And, indeed, the hoarders and wastrels are punished together in the Inferno.) A desire to improve oneself is a good thing, but when it becomes perverted into pride or envy, you lose sight of what is truly important about self-improvement.

[grayman]

Exodus:
20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

But...

Matthew:
8:21 And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.
8:22 But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.

Luke:
9:59 And he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.
9:60 Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.
9:61 And another also said, Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house.
9:62 And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

Confusing.

[Eyeron]

So how is burying one's father contradictory to honoring one's father?

[grayman]

So how is burying one's father contradictory to honoring one's father?
Jesus is telling the person to follow him and don't bother with burying the person's father. That seems contradictory to honoring one's parents.

[drkitten]

Jesus is telling the person to follow him and don't bother with burying the person's father. That seems contradictory to honoring one's parents.

In the interests of fairness -- Jewish law and custom has always recognized that the commandments can go hang when there's really important stuff in the balance. The usual formulation is that you can break almost any of the commandments to save a life; if you need to go to the hospital on Saturday morning, call a taxi and take money to pay the driver.

In fact, this is more or less what Jesus said elsewhere (Matthew 12:12) -- "it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath day."

We can argue about whether or not the Gospel counts as something important enough to ignore the commandments for.

[HansMustermann]

Sure it is.

I get told what to think routinely. Just google "distract yourself from cravings" or something like that and you'll find dozens of people telling other people that they shouldn't be thinking about eating if they want to lose weight (and providing suggestions about the best way to avoid thinking about eating).

It's good, sensible medical advice.

Similarly, an important part of treating depression is not letting yourself brood; to distract yourself from depressive thoughts when they happen. (http://www.ucop.edu/sciencetoday/article/986) Again, that's just good, sensible medical advice.

For that matter, what are people doing (if not telling other people what they are allowed to think) when they tell you to "focus on the positive"? What is a coach doing when he's talking about "mental preparation" for a game?

You can't apply modern standards from the very narrow area of criminal law to a general principle, especially not when the general principle is routinely and productive violated in almost all other areas of life.

There is a difference between focused advice for a given situation and problem, and a blanket "thou shalt not, or thy lord shall kick thy donkey" ;) E.g., you wouldn't tell an anorexic girl that she's got to think even less about eating. E.g., you wouldn't tell the underachieving village drunk to focus on desiring even less of what other people achieve.

[HansMustermann]

Wow. That's as impressive a pile of wrongness as I've seen in a long time.

Actually, "pride" doesn't usually help much if you need to lose weight. What you usually need is not pride, but humility -- the ability to admit that there's something wrong with you (you are too fat) and the willingness to do a fairly elaborate and lengthy penance (not eating much and working out) to improve yourself.

Similarly, the words you're using don't mean what you think they mean. We are supposed to appreciate God's world (after all, God Himself pronounced it "good"); things like greed and gluttony become sinful when they become excessive. This is a point well understood by nearly all theologians of all of the Abrahamic religions.... and if you want a very well expressed description, I suggest you look at Dante's Purgatorio.

God created the world and made it worthy of appreciation -- but not to the point where our appreciations become perverted and evil in themselves, or even to the point where our appreciations distract us from greater things worthy of deeper appreciation. Avarice is specifically an unhealthy desire for material things, but being a wastrel is just as great a sin, since it fails to show appropriate respect for the things God has made. (And, indeed, the hoarders and wastrels are punished together in the Inferno.) A desire to improve oneself is a good thing, but when it becomes perverted into pride or envy, you lose sight of what is truly important about self-improvement.

That was not the medieval interpretation of it, at least. It was the capital sin of pride even to take pride in your, say, crafting skills and the work that went into honing those skills, instead of thanking the Lord for giving unworthy little you that gift.

Ditto for other of those sins. It was at times argued that it's the major sin of lust even to, you know, make love to your wife for the fun of it, as opposed to just doing your duty. Based also on Onan's transgression.

And ditto for commandments. E.g., a lot of the modern expressions like "by golly" appeared because it was really that great and unforgivable a blasphemy to say "by god's body." They really took the part about not taking the Lord's name in vain that seriously.

Sure, the actual people weren't that holy, and it got watered down even more over time (if you want to talk about Dante's times), but the church originally went for the guilt trip in a big way. Just about anything you did for yourself was a major sin that you had to beg (or buy) forgiveness for.

[Eyeron]

So if one moral in the Bible is bad does that automatically make all morality in the Bible bad, or discredits all morality in the Bible?

[joobz]

So if one moral in the Bible is bad does that automatically make all morality in the Bible bad, or discredits all morality in the Bible?
No. But it does make it difficult to rely on the bible as a perfect moral source. Reality is that we should take everything we read with a critical eye and interpret the lessons as they fit in with the real world. However, the bible is often given as a "exception" to this rule. That we should consider it holy and special and that it's teachings hold some deeper meaning that we are too stupid to see right now.

[HansMustermann]

So if one moral in the Bible is bad does that automatically make all morality in the Bible bad, or discredits all morality in the Bible?

What Joobs said.

It's like taking one's morals from Al Capone. Hey, he did give generously to the poor and ran kitchen soups, you know? So he also had some people brutally murdered. That shouldn't detract from his being the perfect source of morality, right?

And it's not just _one_ moral there, btw. There are genocide, there's rape, there's brutal mass-murder of babies, there's injustice, etc.

Heck God even apparently gives a famine all over the world for no particular reason than to get Joseph obscenely rich. (And since they do say all the world, I guess that would include the Mayans, and the Japanese, and the Bantu, and lots of other people who couldn't come buy from Joseph anyway.) Seriously, what shocked me there is that there is no reason given, no nothing. There is no crime of humanity that's punished that way. Just, you know, wham, 7 years of famine all over. So Joseph can impress the Pharaoh with predicting them.

Seriously, read it. It's got more death and wanton destruction per page than <insert your favourite horror novel>. So what's not to like? ;)

[Lucian]

That was not the medieval interpretation of it, at least. It was the capital sin of pride even to take pride in your, say, crafting skills and the work that went into honing those skills, instead of thanking the Lord for giving unworthy little you that gift.

Ditto for other of those sins. It was at times argued that it's the major sin of lust even to, you know, make love to your wife for the fun of it, as opposed to just doing your duty. Based also on Onan's transgression.

And ditto for commandments. E.g., a lot of the modern expressions like "by golly" appeared because it was really that great and unforgivable a blasphemy to say "by god's body." They really took the part about not taking the Lord's name in vain that seriously.

Sure, the actual people weren't that holy, and it got watered down even more over time (if you want to talk about Dante's times), but the church originally went for the guilt trip in a big way. Just about anything you did for yourself was a major sin that you had to beg (or buy) forgiveness for.

Zounds! And, dare I say it, 'Ods bodkins. Actually, in England anyway, I think the proscriptions against swearing were probably at least as strict, if not stricter, in the Renaissance than in the Middle Ages, what with the Reformation and all.

[PingOfPong]

In the interests of fairness -- Jewish law and custom has always recognized that the commandments can go hang when there's really important stuff in the balance. The usual formulation is that you can break almost any of the commandments to save a life; if you need to go to the hospital on Saturday morning, call a taxi and take money to pay the driver.

In fact, this is more or less what Jesus said elsewhere (Matthew 12:12) -- "it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath day."

We can argue about whether or not the Gospel counts as something important enough to ignore the commandments for.

It's easy to explain the Bible's craziness if you add new ideas to it ex post facto. I guess the Bible just needs a little more work. Let me know if you need help. I could make up a few new chapters for you. I have to warn you that the first sentence I write would be: "Ignore Leviticus. Really, let's pretend that never existed."

Realistically, christians believe that the Bible comes from one source, God. You may claim something different to which I would ask, "Is the book sacred to you?" If anything that God said or did needs some 'splainin' that leads to many interpretations, well, that raises some serious questions about God's competence.

I was raised to be christian. Let me tell ya, if you honestly look at the Bible as the collective ramblings of lunatics, it suddenly starts to make a whole lot more sense as to why it doesn't make much sense at all.

[Eyeron]

Seriously, read it. It's got more death and wanton destruction per page than <insert your favourite horror novel>. So what's not to like

Dude, my entire family is made up of Christians and even my mother believes she has spoken in tongues. Don't assume a person hasn't read the Bible for asking a question.

And I don't agree that because there are some atrocious morality in the Bible that it discredits each and every single Morality mentioned is discredited. It's actually a combination of things, for example guilt by association and collective judgments.

(One bad moral discredit all bad morals)

So, and I can't agree with that. Here's an example. Let's say someone who states that is married. The Bible has a commandment that says not to commit adultery, or one must not cheat on their wife. By that logic, their morality is discredited because it is associated with the Bible. So then why should he be loyal to his wife? To justify otherwise is nothing more than a double standard. For if a morality is discredited then it should not be practiced, correct? So therefore, because adultery is discredited in the Bible there is no reason to not go out and cheat on his wife. Because it is a bad moral thanks to all the other bad morals in the Bible. One bad moral discredits all morality.

But remember, people always concentrate more on what is bad than what is good. When a couple divorce they remember all the bad arguments more than they remember the good times.

[HansMustermann]

Nobody said that morals are discredited by also being in the bible. Just as love didn't get discredited for being in the Star Wars prequels. And, as Bob is my witless, that was almost as bad as the Bible ;)

I am however saying: a book which justifies and rationalizes more atrocities than Mein Kampf, I'm not taking that as a source of morals. I'll take my luck and follow my own moral compass, thank you very much.

[Piscivore]

Thou shalt not covey...

"Thou shalt not organise thy life in detail in an extensively noted little calandar book"?

[Piscivore]

Why is coveting a "bad moral"? To me, this commandment is the very definition of thought-crime, something I strongly disagree with.

Not only that, "coveting" is the basis for a healthy economic system.

[Marduk]

This story brightened up my Monday morning.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/091019/entertainment/portugal_literature_religion

the Bible is just a book, its the way that some people interpret it thats bad
;)

[Darth Rotor]

No. But it does make it difficult to rely on the bible as a perfect moral source.
This is at least somewhat correct. Being obsessively rule bound is a great way to perpetuate absurdities. (See the elevator Kosher thread for a great discussion on that).

Any number of our secular laws do that, often unwittingly.

DR

[Sun Countess]

I love this commandment which includes a "wife" among a male neighbor's other possessions:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
IMO, the Golden Rule is by far better than anything in the bible, and it's not contaminated by all the raping, genocide, slavery, and oppression of women that's rampant in the OT.

[Achán hiNidráne]

BAd morals?

Substitutional atonement?
Slavery?
Genocide?
Racism?

Killing your kids for backtalk?

Those are bad morals? How so?

And what about killing all the men, women and boys but keeping the virgin girls for yourselves?


Homosexuality is an "abomination."
Women as subservient chattle to men?
"Love thy enemy?" (There's an act that makes "love" meaningless.)

[qayak]

Exodus 20:17

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."

As for myself I can see why this could be a bad thing and don't really see how this can be considered a thought crime.

To covet something is to desire it, not to take it. It is a thought crime because coveting is simply a thought and not an action.

Whenever I think of the term "Thought crime" I tend to think of in terms of things like censorship, and hate crime legislation, or of countries in which there is no such thing as free speech.

Those are not thought crimes. You can think anything you want, you just can't act upon those thoughts.

Admiring a person's things and wife is one thing and so is wanting such an item for yourself, but wanting to take them for yourself is coveting.

Wanting to take them and taking them are two completely different things. One is a thought, the other is a crime, except in the case of the wife.

Someone else's wife is completely different from their property. Wifes are able and, in progressive countries, allowed to decide to be with someone else. Property cannot make that choice so taking someone's wife is not a crime while taking their property is.

And yes, I've read the Bible at least once. My mom is a lifelong Christian and my entire family is Christian. But I am not.I an atheist. However, I do agree with some of the morality expressed in the Bible.

I can see the bible's influence on your attitude toward women.

[qayak]

the Bible is just a book, its the way that some people interpret it thats bad
;)

Strongly disagree. The majority of the bible is bad no matter how you interpret it.

[qayak]

Dude, my entire family is made up of Christians and even my mother believes she has spoken in tongues. Don't assume a person hasn't read the Bible for asking a question.

Can you explain how your family being christian and your mother believing that she has spoken in tongues lends any weight to your claim that you have read the bible?

[ORUgrad]

BAd morals?

Substitutional atonement?
Slavery?
Genocide?
Racism?

Killing your kids for backtalk?

Those are bad morals? How so?

And what about killing all the men, women and boys but keeping the virgin girls for yourselves?

Hey! You have been reading my posts!!! :)

If the only thing keeping people from stealing and murdering is a book that tells them not to steal and murder or god will punish them, then they are already immoral.

[Marduk]

Strongly disagree. The majority of the bible is bad no matter how you interpret it.

then you should try interpreting it from an anthropological perspective, which is the only way it should be looked at.
It contains many stories which are just repackaged mesopotamian mythology, the mesopotamian mythology isn't bad, but when its repackaged you can understand a lot about the people who wrote it.
;)

[hamelekim]

Apparently Eyeron has only read Bible verses on church signs and not the book itself.

Apparently the lessons in the Bible are lost on you. Including the reasons for Jesus dying on the cross and what it means for sinners.

Clueless people shouldn't comment on things they don't understand.

[Marduk]

Clueless people shouldn't comment on things they don't understand.

Et tu, Brute
:D

[drkitten]

That was not the medieval interpretation of it, at least.

No, of course not. The references I gave to Dante were all from his later work, the stuff he wrote in the late 19th century.

:rolleyes:

You can check if you like here: (http://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Italian/DantPurg15to21.htm#PurgCantoXVII70)


He began: ‘Son, neither creature nor Creator, was ever devoid of love, natural or rational, and this you know. The natural is always free of error: but the rational may err because of an evil objective, or because of too much or too little energy.

While it is directed towards the primary virtues, and moderates its aims in the secondary ones, it cannot be the cause of sinful delight, but when it is turned awry, towards evil, or moves towards the good with more or less attention than it should, the creature works against its Creator. So you can understand, that love is the seed of each virtue in you, and its errors the seeds of every action that deserves punishment.

Sorry that the translation bites.

[qayak]

Apparently the lessons in the Bible are lost on you. Including the reasons for Jesus dying on the cross and what it means for sinners.

Actually, you are the lost one. Some make believe, psychotic hippie who was dumb enough to get nailed to a cross 2000 years ago, has no bearing on the evil you do today.

[drkitten]

It's easy to explain the Bible's craziness if you add new ideas to it ex post facto.

Yes, that's exactly what I did.

I added a new chapter ex post facto. No one before me ever considered the possibility that the book of Matthew might be part of the Bible.

Wow. This may be the single largest theological breakthrough of the past two thousand years. The Gospels are part of the Bible! My fame and fortune are made!

:rolleyes:

[joobz]

Sorry that the translation bites.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that translation seems to put the natural world as "more holy" than the works of man. That the natural world is never in error and only when man attempts to apply reason, do things become in error.

It's a passage that seems rife with naturalistic woo. That because something can be labeled as 100% natural means it must be good.

I do not wish to derail this thread, I'm just wondering if that was a common thought back then as well.

[Paulhoff]

Dude, my entire family is made up of Christians and even my mother believes she has spoken in tongues.
That is one the biggest mis-quote and misunderstandings of sayings around. The real speaking in tongues means that one can speak in front of any group of people, from any county and they can speak tongue, and they would hear you in their tongue.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Paulhoff]

Apparently the lessons in the Bible are lost on you. Including the reasons for Jesus dying on the cross and what it means for sinners.
A so-called god does not die, so your Jesus lost nothing.

Paul

:) :) :)

[drkitten]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that translation seems to put the natural world as "more holy" than the works of man. That the natural world is never in error and only when man attempts to apply reason, do things become in error.

Yeah, as I said, the translation bites.

They're using "natural" not in the sense of leaves and trees and flowers, but in the sense of "God-created properties." I.e. God gave us the desire and appreciation for food, therefore food is good. Sinful man (and foodies) created gluttony.



It's a passage that seems rife with naturalistic woo. That because something can be labeled as 100% natural means it must be good.

I do not wish to derail this thread, I'm just wondering if that was a common thought back then as well.

Not really. What is more typically medieval is the doctrine of signatures and its variants. Everything created is good (unless marred by sin), but what it's good for is not necessarily clear. So it takes a certain amount of discernment, guided by the signs God has left for our enlightenment, to realize that arrow shaped leaves are good for battle wounds and plants that look like willies must be an appropriate treatment for impotence....

The idea that just because arrow-shaped leaves are "natural," they must be good for impotence would have been laughed at.

[Achán hiNidráne]

Apparently the lessons in the Bible are lost on you. Including the reasons for Jesus dying on the cross and what it means for sinners.

Riiiiiiight, an allegedly omnipotent being is born mortal so he can sacrifice himself TO himself in atonement for a "sin" committed by a mythological couple because a TALKING SNAKE suggested that they eat a piece of fruit.

Also, two days after his grisly, apocryphal execution this man/god being comes back from the dead. Not only that, he get's to physically translated to "heaven" to become co-ruler of the universe with himself. (Don't pull this "Holy Trinity" crap on me. It's just polytheism trying desperately to pretend it's mono.)

That's not much of a sacrifice.

Clueless people shouldn't comment on things they don't understand.

No, fanatics shouldn't assume ignorance from their opponents. Many of us here were Christians of one breed of another at one time in their lives, myself included. We know the dogma, Ham. We just had the brains to pull our heads out of our rectums and apply reason to the Bronze-to-Iron Age myths you are peddling. They don't make sense to us, nor should they to anyone else.

[HansMustermann]

No, of course not. The references I gave to Dante were all from his later work, the stuff he wrote in the late 19th century.

:rolleyes:

You can check if you like here: (http://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Italian/DantPurg15to21.htm#PurgCantoXVII70)



Sorry that the translation bites.

Actually, late 13'th / early 14'th century which is very late middle ages, and for Italy that's actually borderline Renaissance. He died within 9 years of when Petrarca (also in Italy) coined the term "Dark Ages" for the middle ages.

So, yes, I wouldn't take Dante to be a particularly representative data point of the medieval christian way of thinking.

Not to mention that it's a data sample of one anyway.

Incidentally your choice of quote, however, doesn't go _that_ far from the medieval way of thinking though. Unless you wish to use an equivocation around "natural", which I gather that you don't.

The focus doesn't seem to be as much around "whatever is natural is good", but, as you correctly mention about that word, that basically "whatever is given by God is good". Something very much in line with the Christian thinking ever since Augustine Of Hippo, where everything was good as given by god, and everything evil was only from people exercising their misguided free will.

But therein is the first kink with "natural" or "god given". It meant something different back then than it means for me and (I would assume) you. A storm or a Black Death outbreak would be for us something natural and as much God-given as anything else. For them it wasn't. Europe eventually ended up with witch hunts to punish whoever caused a storm or a plague outbreak, because bad things _had_ to be not natural, not given by God, and only caused by human evil.

So any text from the time making a case for "natural is good", really just means, "whatever we decided is good, is good".

So far so confusing.

The reference to Love, also IMHO ought to be understood through the concept of christian love at the time, which might or might not be what you'd call love. And when he makes it the seed of all virtues, IMHO that again goes back to medieval christian thinking. Whatever you do out of pure christian love of god or others (not to be confused with lust) is a virtue, and whatever you do for yourself is bad.

The reference to delight, too, doesn't automatically mean anything along the lines of "if it feels delightful, by all means, keep boning your neighbour's wife" ;)

And the further qualifications put around the "how" of how you do things, again, isn't necessarily convincing me. What today means "in moderation" is a very different concept from what "in moderation" meant back in the christian middle ages. There was also a very clear expectation that it would also be in line with the prescriptions and norms, some of which were really just based on nothing more than obsessions with the various numbers in the bible.

Just to illustrate the difference, asking for 10% more for your wares because there's been a bit of inflation or even just because you think the market is perfectly willing to pay more, nowadays would count as just "normal" and pretty much by definition "in moderation." I mean, if it weren't moderate enough, someone else would undercut you and it wouldn't matter.

But back then peasants asking for more money for their grain, because there _had_ been an inflation, were presented as some kind of super-villains by contemporary authors.

Now again, Dante was pretty much at the end of the middle ages and borderline start of Renaissance. And we know that in at least one aspect his ideas differed from the church enough to get one of his books burned. So I wouldn't peg _his_ particular convictions that clearly anywhere, and much less based on so short a quote. But just saying that any quote from that age, you really have to put it in the perspective of the way of thinking at the time. Just because it uses apparently simple words like "natural" or "love" or "moderation", doesn't mean that their meaning was exactly the same as nowadays. There was a whole baggage associated with some words and notions.

[GrandMasterFox]

Strongly disagree. The majority of the bible is bad no matter how you interpret it.

So you are saying that Mother Thereasa was bad?!?

Many people have used the bible as an excuse to do both great good and great evil.

It's the people who are good or evil, the book is just a book.

[IMST]

So you are saying that Mother Thereasa was bad?!?

Many people have used the bible as an excuse to do both great good and great evil.

It's the people who are good or evil, the book is just a book.

Mother Thereasa WAS bad, but with excellent PR. But that's another thread.

[HansMustermann]

So you are saying that Mother Thereasa was bad?!?

Many people have used the bible as an excuse to do both great good and great evil.

It's the people who are good or evil, the book is just a book.

... unlike his talking about the book not the people too? Even as emotional non-sequiturs go, this seems particularly bad.

[PingOfPong]

Yes, that's exactly what I did.

I added a new chapter ex post facto. No one before me ever considered the possibility that the book of Matthew might be part of the Bible.

Wow. This may be the single largest theological breakthrough of the past two thousand years. The Gospels are part of the Bible! My fame and fortune are made!

:rolleyes:

The bible as it exists today, with the gospels, has been around for a while now and yet there are still many interpretations. Clearly, it still needs some work. I'm curious, which part of the NT overrides this:

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

[drkitten]

Sorry about the length, folks, but there's quite a bit I need to unpack here....


Similarly, the words you're using don't mean what you think they mean. We are supposed to appreciate God's world (after all, God Himself pronounced it "good"); things like greed and gluttony become sinful when they become excessive. This is a point well understood by nearly all theologians of all of the Abrahamic religions.... and if you want a very well expressed description, I suggest you look at Dante's Purgatorio.

God created the world and made it worthy of appreciation -- but not to the point where our appreciations become perverted and evil in themselves, or even to the point where our appreciations distract us from greater things worthy of deeper appreciation. Avarice is specifically an unhealthy desire for material things,

That was not the medieval interpretation of it, at least.


So, yes, I wouldn't take Dante to be a particularly representative data point of the medieval christian way of thinking.

Except that in this case, he is:


Incidentally your choice of quote, however, doesn't go _that_ far from the medieval way of thinking though. Unless you wish to use an equivocation around "natural", which I gather that you don't.

The focus doesn't seem to be as much around "whatever is natural is good", but, as you correctly mention about that word, that basically "whatever is given by God is good". Something very much in line with the Christian thinking ever since Augustine Of Hippo, where everything was good as given by god, and everything evil was only from people exercising their misguided free will.

Bingo. The doctrine that "sin is nature perverted" or however you want to phrase -- that whatever God gave us, which includes sex and food, is good, but that it only becomes evil and sinful when we twist it with our free will -- is a classic medieval belief.

Sex is good and therefore the desire for sex in accordance with God's will is also good. The desire for sex beyond or outside or against God's will is when it becomes the sin of lust. There's direct Biblical support for this, in the story of Genesis among others. And while I'm aware that you can find nutcase clerics to espouse almost any lunatic doctrine (the medieval period was almost the Golden Age, or at least the Silver Age, of heretics), mainstream clerical opinion was very much in favor of sex. per se was evil, just as it took the Victorians to turn the virtue of sobriety into the Temperance movement.]

In this case, there's a very specific heresy against which the Dantean view is orthodoxy. I refer of course to Manicheanism, the idea that the world itself was (at least partially) created by Satan and thus inherently evil, and that the only moral course of action is therefore to withdraw from the world and its "pleasures" as much as possible. Under this view, for example, sex (and food) are inherently evil and to be avoided to the greatest extent compatible with survival.


But therein is the first kink with "natural" or "god given". It meant something different back then than it means for me and (I would assume) you.

Well, you're right that the meaning of "natural" has shifted. I don't believe I used that actual word, for precisely that reason. But, again, in this context I'm using it in the medieval setting, in which "natural love" was good by definition, as "natural" meant "created by God and therefore good."


The reference to Love, also IMHO ought to be understood through the concept of christian love at the time, which might or might not be what you'd call love. And when he makes it the seed of all virtues, IMHO that again goes back to medieval christian thinking. Whatever you do out of pure christian love of god or others (not to be confused with lust) is a virtue, and whatever you do for yourself is bad.

The reference to delight, too, doesn't automatically mean anything along the lines of "if it feels delightful, by all means, keep boning your neighbour's wife" ;)

No, of course not. But, again, happiness itself is not evil or something to be avoided -- that's another post-Victorian legacy.

That, again, is the point. It should be possible (and in the medieval mindset explicitly was possible) to peel a potato out of the pure christian love of God. That is, of course, exactly the mindset the various monks were encouraged to assume and to help others to achieve. And peeling a potato to the Greater Glory of God -- which implicitly suggests doing it to as close to absolute perfection as possible -- is a Good Thing.

But by the same token, you can plow a field, saw a board, steer a ship,... and, yes, bone your wife to the Greater Glory of God and rejoice in your skill at doing so. And that's not pride.

There are, however, some things that you can't do to the greater glory of God,... and many more that you will not do to God's greater glory, because you lack the proper frame of mind. I'm not sure what frame of mind, for example, you would need to be in to bone your neighbor's wife to the greater glory of god, and I'd be happy accepting that as a blanket impossibility. (I'd suggest that killing someone to the greater glory of God is also a non-starter, except a hell of a lot of crusaders seem to think they managed it. Bearing false witness "for the greater glory of God" seems to be a trade skill of modern creationists....)


And the further qualifications put around the "how" of how you do things, again, isn't necessarily convincing me. What today means "in moderation" is a very different concept from what "in moderation" meant back in the christian middle ages.

Yes, language has shifted. No, this doesn't mean that the shift in meaning means that love of material things "in moderation" was sinful. Quite the opposite; the whole point of the discussion and analysis was to establish what appropriate norms of "moderation" were.


Now again, Dante was pretty much at the end of the middle ages and borderline start of Renaissance. And we know that in at least one aspect his ideas differed from the church enough to get one of his books burned. So I wouldn't peg _his_ particular convictions that clearly anywhere, and much less based on so short a quote. But just saying that any quote from that age, you really have to put it in the perspective of the way of thinking at the time. Just because it uses apparently simple words like "natural" or "love" or "moderation", doesn't mean that their meaning was exactly the same as nowadays.

No. But I nevertheless have no problem presenting that particular quote -- which has the advantage of being both accessible and well-documented -- a a good summary of the general medieval position about the cardinal sins. Cain's statement about "wrath within the law," for example, would be almost meaningless from a medieval point of view, precisely because the word "wrath" didn't mean the same thing. A feeling became "wrath" at exactly the point where it crossed the line that separated the normal revulsion and disgust that good feels for sin and instead "become eager for revenge, and so are forced to wish another’s harm. This is Wrath." (Dante).

This is part and parcel of another concept that a lot of people have difficulty with, the whole "hate the sin, love the sinner" approach that Fred Phelps seems to get confused about. No, God does not hate fags. But in the nuanced view, God may well hate what they choose to do. The difference? It's right there in Dante : "wish another's harm"..... I think that Phelps wants gays to burn in Hell. I think Dante's (and the medieval) version of God would prefer that they repented and turned away from their "unnatural" sin.

[HansMustermann]

Well, "wrath" is perhaps a bad example, because, yes, it meant something entirely different to start with. I don't see it as much of a matter of proving nuance, as simply of something that was meaning something different to start with. Whatever other beef you had with someone, would fall under another domain anyway.

But yes, as I was saying, I wouldn't take Dante as the representative of medieval christian thinking. Yes, in some aspects he's not progressed much, but... let's just say that while he's not exactly Italian reason re-awoken, he's around the point of Italian reason desperately hitting the snooze button ;)

For a start even his list is not the list that existed through the middle ages.

The original 8 deadly sins version from the 3'rd century, for example, lists even sorrow as a deadly sin. Even if you want to play the "nuances" card, it's thought crime, condemning someone for being basically depressed or desperate. And incidentally includes vanity in _addition_ to pride. Pride was pretty clearly defined as what I described, namely having a non-humble opinion of oneself, not as the excess of vanity.

Envy for example didn't even make the list until 590 AD. And "lust" is even later, replacing "luxuria" (added 590 AD too), often translated as "extravagance", but really you only needed to buy more luxury goods than thought right for your station to qualify. E.g., a peasant only needed some better coat to qualify for that deadly sin.

Incidentally once lust did make the list, Matthew 5:27 - 28 takes it to the logical conclusion, and if you think that people needed the Victorian age to notice those two verses... you have more faith in humanity than warranted ;)

Sloth too, although it makes the list nowadays and it did make the list for Dante, was actually just "discouragement" in the original list from 590 AD, so again it's piling a guilt trip and blaming a major sin on somene for just being depressed or discouraged.

So, yes, again: Dante's list isn't really the (only) one that Dark Ages used, and the views used to be somewhat more odious IMHO. Sorry, I can't take those thought crimes as anything but an abomination.

[drkitten]

For a start even his list is not the list that existed through the middle ages.

The original 8 deadly sins version from the 3'rd century, for example, lists even sorrow as a deadly sin. Even if you want to play the "nuances" card, it's thought crime, condemning someone for being basically depressed or desperate. And incidentally includes vanity in _addition_ to pride. Pride was pretty clearly defined as what I described, namely having a non-humble opinion of oneself, not as the excess of vanity.

Envy for example didn't even make the list until 590 AD.

Hey, if you're not going to give me Dante and 14th century Florence as an a definitive example of "medieval thought," I can raise many of the same complaints against dragging in lists of deadly sins from the 3rd century, and with much greater force. Historian's usual markers for "the middle ages" are the fall of the Western Roman empire in the 5th century until the fall of Constantinople in 1453 (or sometimes even later; I've seen Martin Luther used as the cutoff).

Okay, the Middle Ages were not a static and uniform culture. Stipulated.

Does that make any of the following modernist criticism valid, ... or indeed, anything other than a complete misunderstanding both of the medieval and modern mainstream theological positions?


Gluttony. If you eat too much and gain weight then pride will help you get thin again. If it wasn't for lust we wouldn't be here. Greed is merely wanting more than you have. If you wrk hard you get slotful at the end of the workday. Envy is seeing something we want and working toward getting it. Averice is sometimes justified if someone wrongs us. Wrath within the law is what happens when a criminal needs to be punished.

Sorry, I can't take those thought crimes as anything but an abomination.

Again, "sin" does not equal "crime."

[HansMustermann]

So the official list by the Pope from 590 AD would still be medieval enough, yes? My math could be wrong at this hour, but I fancy it's a bit over a century after Augustulus got deposed by Odoacer in 476, and comfortably before the fall of Constantinople ;)

That original list -- which incidentally was a list of sinful _thoughts_ -- was as background, plus it _was_ still the list for the first hundred years or so of the actual middle ages. But ok, let's discard it. Let's stick to the medieval one.

That list -- incidentally still the official list at the time when Dante did his own revision -- still made it a major sin to be depressed. That's what I called a thought crime there.

And we're not talking just "sin", but major sins which destroy the very connection to God and _require_ a confession and a priest's absolution. That's why they were called "deadly sins." It's stuff you'll burn in Hell for ever, unless a priest gets you off the hook.

So if you wouldn't call something that warrants eternal torture as punishment a crime, dunno, what would you call it? Yes, technically one is against God and the other against secular authorities, but other than that I'm drawing blanks.

And yes, it seems to me abject to try to get someone with threats, guilt trips and stuff that lowers their self-worth, when they're depressed.

And it seems to me like a lot of the others are crimes against nobody else too. Duly noted, with the exception of Wrath.

E.g., even after morphing depression into "sloth", it's God's problem, or even a problem of morals... why? We're not even necessarily talking about stealing by sleeping on a paid job, but just generally being lazy. Why is that anyone else's problem, if it's not stealing from anyone? Whatever bad effects laziness has on others, could very well be framed in terms of that harm to others, instead of damning it generally.

E.g., buying luxuries above one's station was a mortal sin... why? Other than artifficially reserving the luxuries for the rich, so those pesky middle class wouldn't drive the price up with extra demand on the same items, what's it supposed to solve? Why is that anything but a bad moral lesson?

Etc.

[HansMustermann]

But OK, let's discuss Dante's list too, if you really like that one. In the end, I have no trouble with discussing his version too.

It goes like this:

- Lust is bad because it's excessive love of others, which leads to less love of God

- Gluttony is bad because it makes one a slave to base animal needs, and distracts from the spiritual life

- Greed is bad because it makes one pursue worthless material rewards in this life, instead of focusing on the jackpot in the afterlife

- Sloth is bad because... it's failure to notice God's great works and thus to give God enough love (Dante's time still wasn't entirely past its definition as depression.)

- Wrath is... "love of justice perverted to revenge and spite". Which is a pretty piss-poor definition, because for example it misses wrath that isn't based on avenging an actual wrong, but blames those who have indeed been victims and are angry about it. Don't get me wrong, on the whole Wrath is probably the only one I'd actually accept as we're better off without. But Dante's take on it is somewhat counter-productive, due to his obsession with explaining everything in relation to that christian love concept.

- Envy is... "love of one's own good perverted to a desire to deprive other men of theirs." Again this seems pretty counter-productive, because it condemns a lot of stuff where that "depriving" isn't unlawful or anything. But ok, I guess Dante's version isn't the worst.

- Pride is... OK in his version, I'll concede, but is something where Dante pulled his own milder definition out of his own rear. The qualifier that it only becomes a problem when it's turned into hatred and contempt for others, is something which not only wasn't doctrine at the time, but _still_ isn't part of the official church position. E.g., the Catholic Encyclopedia makes no mention of such a requirement, and only discusses one's pride in relationship to one's Creator and/or just having an exceedingly good self-image: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12405a.htm

So we have 4 out of 7 which do the completely counter-productive hash of, basically, that it leaves you with less time or inclination to love God, instead of focusing on any actual damage done. And in the process, yes, creates thought crimes, because you don't need to actually act on that Lust or Gluttony or Sloth to nevertheless be left with less time in your head for God because of them.

And 1 which is basically his own redefinition, because the real doctrine _was_ one of inherent thought crime.

Leaving only 2 out of 7 where he actually has a case, or would have, except he makes a hash out of those as well.

I'm sorry, but even if I were to drop the "thought crime" charge, it still doesn't sound to me like a particularly useful moral system. The actual harm in all 7 -- and I mean where there was actual harm, and not "sky daddy will be sad if you spend less time loving sky daddy" kind of imaginary crimes -- was better treated from humanist and utilitarian positions than the hash he makes of it.

Ironically, it's a realization that must have dawned upon Dante himself as he was progressing through it. Because he starts from a stance of, basically, "it's bad because you spend less time loving sky daddy" and gradually ends up inserting more and more of a "to the extent of being detrimental to others" theme as he progresses. To the point where he ends up basically doing an almost complete redefinition of the last one because of it.

[GrandMasterFox]

Mother Thereasa WAS bad, but with excellent PR. But that's another thread.

Okay, I'll fully admit that I know not much about her only random stories here and there and as I never fact checked I will not argue that statement and simply assume you are correct and know more of the subject.

However, I'm sure we can find plenty of good people by your criterias that say they were influenced by the book.

... unlike his talking about the book not the people too? Even as emotional non-sequiturs go, this seems particularly bad.

Let me try and explain it this way.
I remember an old debate once about the moral of the X-men cartoon.
Most people said that it's about equality and not to be afraid of those who are different. A couple of people said that it goes to show how the government is out to get you.

Go figure. Anyone can interpert almost any book any way he\she likes it.

And in the case of the bible, the book is so self contradictary that it is simply impossible to give a clear list of what morals the book has one way or the other.

So yes, I say blame the people and not he book.

[HansMustermann]

Well, that the book is self-contradictory is already not exactly recommending it as something to learn morals from.

But what made me call it a non-sequitur is that you were actually answering to this: "The majority of the bible is bad no matter how you interpret it."

The relevance of Mother Theresa there is at best dubious. I doubt that she based her good works on such things as the genocides and rapes in there, or that she'd find them good and worth taking your morals from. At best she did what almost every Christian does, namely ignore some 80% of the damned thing, and find any inspiration in the rest.

Honestly, I've never heard of any charities who claim they drew their inspiration from a biblical atrocity.

Or I don't think many congregations would find their inspiration and morals in Deuteronomy 21:10-14 or 21:18-21. Especially if they're the literalist kind.

And that some people would be delusional enough to interpret something in a surrealistic way... well, I guess _technically_ it contradicts his "no matter how you interpret it" but I think that the main message still stands. Sure, someone who's got a bad case schizophrenia can think that Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is really about UFO's or about condoning pot, but that's not particularly useful or interesting.

[qayak]

So you are saying that Mother Thereasa was bad?!?

Yes, disturbingly so.

Many people have used the bible as an excuse to do both great good and great evil.

It's the people who are good or evil, the book is just a book.

No, sorry. If you bought a new television with an instruction manual that told you how to turn it on but really you were changing the channel and when it said how to change the channel the volume went through the roof, you would look at the manual and know that it was the books fault.

The bible is the instruction manual for christians. Accordingly, it provides them with answers about how they are to behave and do things. The bible tells them how to treat people outside their group and a lot of that treatment is pretty nasty.

The manual is F'd up.

[GrandMasterFox]

The bible is the instruction manual for christians.


Ah, but this is where we differ.
I don't consider the bible to be the instruction manual as it wasn't ment to be one. The book itself was never ment to be a single piece as it constantly makes references to external sources. We also know the book was edited over time. And as mentioned it contridicts itself on every other page.

Let me ask you a similar example, if I write a book about programing and title it: "Must kill all bugs". A long time afterwards long after I died, someone picks up the book and says it is the holy instruction manual that says we should eradicate all insects from earth.
Does that mean the book is evil? Does that mean the original author is evil?
Of course not. It's basically people putting a meaning into something that was never there.

The bible isn't an instruction manual, it's several writing that were merged together. Some of it are stories, poetry, supposed history etc.

It is the *CHURCH* that claims the book is a manual and *THEY* are at fault, not the book. The bible is no different than the Lord of the Rings. Some geeks live their lives by it. Others don't really give a damn about it.

At best she did what almost every Christian does, namely ignore some 80% of the damned thing, and find any inspiration in the rest.

Okay, I'll stop you there because I think the issue here is that we disagree about terminology rather than context.

I am not talking about whether or not the characters in the book itself are good or bad. I'm talking about the moral of the story itself.

You can have a stroy about horrible characters and have good morals if, for example, the moral is to "not be like that".

If we are talking about something like an aesop tale where the story teller tells you what the moral is in the end, then we can talk about it being good or bad.

But when we don't have a clearly written moral then it is up to us to see what we want. So my answer to your original analogy would be "yes".

If someone reads the lifestory of Al Capone and decides to be inspired to donate to charity then it is a good moral.

If someone reads the lifestory of Al Capone and decides to be a gangster then it's a bad moral.

It's the people who make the choice, not the book.

[HansMustermann]

Hmm? Now you got me curious.

Which part of the Lord's being pleased by a murder of a man and woman in their home -- to the extent of lifting a plague as a reward -- in Numbers 25 is supposed to tell me "don't be like the murderer"? Which part of its being the murder of two people who _weren't_ among those who angered the Lord by switching religion, is supposed to tell me "be more just than that"? I mean, if even the Lord liked it a _lot_, it's not exactly a hint that it's wrong.

Or which part of Deuteronomy 21:18-21, since I mentioned that part -- you know, the part where you're commanded to execute a child dead if he disobeys -- says "don't be like that"?

Which part of 10-14, where you're explicitly told to take a woman you fancy from a conquered city, shave her head and keep her locked naked in the house for a month, then you're free to rape her, tells you "don't do that, kids, rape is always wrong"? Then you can keep her as your wife against her will, or kick her to the street, as you wish, btw. Exactly which verse (chapter and number, please) tells you that if I went and did exactly the same in Afghanistan nowadays, it would displease the Lord?

Which part of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 tells you "don't be a sexist pig like that"? Because it seems to me like is says explicitly that that's what the woman's place is: shut up, don't teach or have a management job ever, don't even try to look good (braided hair or jewellery are a big no-no), just make kids. That's your ticket to salvation. So how _do_ you get "don't be like that" from there?

Etc, etc, etc.

Basically even as apologetics go, this one seems to me... surrealistic.

[HansMustermann]

Or for that matter, since we're talking horrible characters, how about Lot who offered his unmarried (which usually meant pre-teen in that age) daughters to be gang-raped. Horrible character that one, says my moral system. Given that he's the one saved by the angels there, while the rest of the city is annihilated... what's my hint to not be like him? Again, chapter and verse number, please.

[qayak]

Ah, but this is where we differ.
I don't consider the bible to be the instruction manual as it wasn't ment to be one. The book itself was never ment to be a single piece as it constantly makes references to external sources. We also know the book was edited over time. And as mentioned it contridicts itself on every other page.

Which has no bearing on much of anything.

Let me ask you a similar example, if I write a book about programing and title it: "Must kill all bugs". A long time afterwards long after I died, someone picks up the book and says it is the holy instruction manual that says we should eradicate all insects from earth.
Does that mean the book is evil? Does that mean the original author is evil?

Yes, the book is a bad book and the people who follow it are idiots . . . pretty much like we have with the bible.

Of course not. It's basically people putting a meaning into something that was never there.

Of course the meaning was always there! The bible has been edited for sure but the major message is still there.

The bible isn't an instruction manual, it's several writing that were merged together. Some of it are stories, poetry, supposed history etc.

Kids who misbehave must be killed. Do not suffer a witch to live. Men who lie with men as they do women, must die. Not an instruction manual? I beg to differ.

It is the *CHURCH* that claims the book is a manual and *THEY* are at fault, not the book. The bible is no different than the Lord of the Rings. Some geeks live their lives by it. Others don't really give a damn about it.

Once again, we fundamentally disagree. Regardless of what the church did and what individuals do, the bible is a bad book that glorifies immoral acts that it spins into what it calls "good" moral lessons. In my opinion, you are the one putting meaning into the bible that was never there. The bible was never meant as a fictional "story" as you seem to think. It was an instruction manual for how followers are supposed to behave.

[Hux]

There are those, surely who believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God? There are those surely who see the Bible as a strict moral code?

As far as I can make out, the OT at least seems to be made up of the plaintiff cries of an entire nation that wondered what the hell it had ever done to be 'chosen'?

Part of the ethos of the OT is, I think, that God's goodness comes from the suffering of His people. But no one seems to address the fact that God places all this suffering on His people in revenge for them 'losing their faith in Him'. He always forgives them and takes them back into the fold but not until He has visited to most terrible punishments on them both individually and as a nation. And like any abused child, these people rationalised it as God's love for them that caused Him to do these terrible things and they deserved it all.

There is a morality in there but it is base, cruel and unjustified. Whilst the denizens of the OT are being smacked by the vicissitudes of nature and other humans, they keep blaming themselves and not a few wingnuts kept coming forward to remind them they were worthless and loved equally.

Its just a story of probable real people trying to make sense of the cruelty of this world and trying to find justice where, in nature, there is none. Its not the kind of morality that should be promoted by modern people.