100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Is the Bible a reliable moral guide? | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Ruth34611
on
Mon 11/21/11 07:06 PM
|
|
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-lose/bible-reliable-moral-guide_b_1097800.html
I'm not sure how many people are going to actually read the article, but I thought it was very good. Here the paragraph I found most interesting: So back to our original question: Is the Bible a reliable moral guide? If with this question we are asking whether we can look to the Bible as a kind of divine or ancient reference book, finding direct answers to today's moral questions, I'll offer a definitive "no." But if we instead wonder whether reading the Bible can lead to useful reflection on the moral life and aid one in making ethical decisions, then I'll advance a "yes" that is simultaneously bold and cautious. Bold because I believe that the Bible can be a profound guide to life, but cautious in that I want to acknowledge that that guidance often comes to us "sideways." That is, the Bible is most interested in inviting us to understand the meaning of this mysterious life we share by inviting us into relationship with God, a relationship that in turn offers counsel regarding the variety of moral choices before us. So mystery and meaning, I would argue, come before morality on the pages of Scripture. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, to honestly answerer this question in terms of morals you may want to steer clear of the old testament. If you want to know why please feel free to message me back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I appreciate that you shared that article. thanks Ruth. I thought it was very interesting, expecially as it tends to server as my own confirmation bias.
The following quote, in general, encapsulates my own feelings about how the Bible would be better viewed by everyone. Further, I'd argue that when faced with a compilation as diverse and complex as the Bible, all interpreters -- whether professional scholars, Sunday preachers, or everyday readers, and from the most conservative viewpoint to the most liberal -- are guided by what they believe to be the central and most important passages of their sacred texts. We all, that is, pick and choose to a certain extent from the variety of moral instruction in the Bible in relation to what we think is at the heart of the biblical witness. The only way to be accountable in this kind of practice is to admit that we are engaging in it in the first place in order that we can make a case for choosing one passage as primary over another and be willing to enter into conversation about, and perhaps reconsider, those choices. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's greatest value is the moral guide provided by the life of jesus rather than any inherent value as dogma
it's all there: the good, the bad & the ugly and how to deal with them and of course the commandments are in my opinion the only moral guide anyone needs and the sermon on mercy, the sermon on the mount - about the meek, the merciful etc the teachings about the children and stumbling blocks and don;t be hiding that light under a bushel Ruth!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
considering that some of the greatest atrocities of mankind were commited by chritians who swore that their despicable actions, the crsades, inquisition, salem witch trials, etc., were done "in the name of god" and then excused as "god's will" the bible doesn't measure up to my standards as a moral guide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Ruth34611
on
Tue 11/22/11 06:28 AM
|
|
I appreciate that you shared that article. thanks Ruth. I thought it was very interesting, expecially as it tends to server as my own confirmation bias. The following quote, in general, encapsulates my own feelings about how the Bible would be better viewed by everyone. Further, I'd argue that when faced with a compilation as diverse and complex as the Bible, all interpreters -- whether professional scholars, Sunday preachers, or everyday readers, and from the most conservative viewpoint to the most liberal -- are guided by what they believe to be the central and most important passages of their sacred texts. We all, that is, pick and choose to a certain extent from the variety of moral instruction in the Bible in relation to what we think is at the heart of the biblical witness. The only way to be accountable in this kind of practice is to admit that we are engaging in it in the first place in order that we can make a case for choosing one passage as primary over another and be willing to enter into conversation about, and perhaps reconsider, those choices. I'm glad you enjoyed the article! I thought it made some really good points and brought up a lot of interesting questions. This was the quote that stood out the most to me and is pretty much how I read the Bible: That is, the Bible is most interested in inviting us to understand the meaning of this mysterious life we share by inviting us into relationship with God, a relationship that in turn offers counsel regarding the variety of moral choices before us. So mystery and meaning, I would argue, come before morality on the pages of Scripture. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sure it can be, but just don't take it literally, There are great stories in there love storie like the book of Tobit great poetry like Canticles. Remember, it's a reflection of the understanding that the people of the times in which each book was written. I feel the problem is that way, and I mean way too many people focus on the Hell and retribution and not on the Love contained within it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Ruth for sharing this. I enjoyed reading it all. From reading it all like I have read the Bible all many times has been a enjoyable experience for me. One of my favorite places in the Bible is the Land Of Nod. The Bible really doesn't say much about it except that it was east of Eden. But one of my favorite authors who wrote, "Alice in Wonderland" also wrote about it.
Stevenson, Robert Louis (1850–1894). A Child’s Garden of Verses and Underwoods. 1913. 18. The Land of Nod FROM breakfast on through all the day At home among my friends I stay, But every night I go abroad Afar into the land of Nod. All by myself I have to go, 5 With none to tell me what to do— All alone beside the streams And up the mountain-sides of dreams. The strangest things are there for me, Both things to eat and things to see, 10 And many frightening sights abroad Till morning in the land of Nod. Try as I like to find the way, I never can get back by day, Nor can remember plain and clear 15 The curious music that I hear. Which makes me beg the question, "How far is Wonderland from the Land of Nod?" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Ruth for sharing this. I enjoyed reading it all. From reading it all like I have read the Bible all many times has been a enjoyable experience for me. One of my favorite places in the Bible is the Land Of Nod. The Bible really doesn't say much about it except that it was east of Eden. But one of my favorite authors who wrote, "Alice in Wonderland" also wrote about it. Stevenson, Robert Louis (1850–1894). A Child’s Garden of Verses and Underwoods. 1913. 18. The Land of Nod FROM breakfast on through all the day At home among my friends I stay, But every night I go abroad Afar into the land of Nod. All by myself I have to go, 5 With none to tell me what to do— All alone beside the streams And up the mountain-sides of dreams. The strangest things are there for me, Both things to eat and things to see, 10 And many frightening sights abroad Till morning in the land of Nod. Try as I like to find the way, I never can get back by day, Nor can remember plain and clear 15 The curious music that I hear. Which makes me beg the question, "How far is Wonderland from the Land of Nod?" Good question!  Thanks for reading the article. When I made this post I wasn't so much asking the question as I was posting the title of the article I found interesting and worth discussing. I love reading the Bible, too, and have gotten so much out of it. It speaks to me differently every time I read it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Ruth for sharing this. I enjoyed reading it all. From reading it all like I have read the Bible all many times has been a enjoyable experience for me. One of my favorite places in the Bible is the Land Of Nod. The Bible really doesn't say much about it except that it was east of Eden. But one of my favorite authors who wrote, "Alice in Wonderland" also wrote about it. Stevenson, Robert Louis (1850–1894). A Child’s Garden of Verses and Underwoods. 1913. 18. The Land of Nod FROM breakfast on through all the day At home among my friends I stay, But every night I go abroad Afar into the land of Nod. All by myself I have to go, 5 With none to tell me what to do— All alone beside the streams And up the mountain-sides of dreams. The strangest things are there for me, Both things to eat and things to see, 10 And many frightening sights abroad Till morning in the land of Nod. Try as I like to find the way, I never can get back by day, Nor can remember plain and clear 15 The curious music that I hear. Which makes me beg the question, "How far is Wonderland from the Land of Nod?" Good question! Thanks for reading the article. When I made this post I wasn't so much asking the question as I was posting the title of the article I found interesting and worth discussing. I love reading the Bible, too, and have gotten so much out of it. It speaks to me differently every time I read it. I know if I read the Bible for a long time it doesn't take me long to get to the Land Of Nod. So I would judge by that reckoning that Wonderland couldn't be that far away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, my understanding has always been that the Land of Nod wasn't really a land, but a way of saying that Cain was to be a wanderer as would his descendents.
Of course, he did end up building a city and naming it after his son, so he must have stopped wandering eventually.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
RainbowTrout
on
Tue 11/22/11 06:55 PM
|
|
Well, my understanding has always been that the Land of Nod wasn't really a land, but a way of saying that Cain was to be a wanderer as would his descendents. Of course, he did end up building a city and naming it after his son, so he must have stopped wandering eventually. It makes me wonder sometimes if I might be a spiritual Cain. As you know he had this mark on him that was supposed to be real noticeable. I don't know how many times I have tried to make deals and it was like that they must have seen me coming. And it wasn't like that I was nodding off or anything; I was wide awake when it happened. I was a wanderer for many years wondering about a lot of stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
considering that some of the greatest atrocities of mankind were commited by chritians who swore that their despicable actions, the crsades, inquisition, salem witch trials, etc., were done "in the name of god" and then excused as "god's will" the bible doesn't measure up to my standards as a moral guide. that is weak |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is the Bible a reliable moral guide? For me, the key term in that question is indeed the word "reliable". As some others have suggested, if the Old Testament is included (which is must necessarily be), then my answer would be no, it is not a reliable moral guild. I personally feel that the very notion of a God who solved his problems using via punishing people with suffering and sorrow (such as in the case of cursing women with sorrowful childbirth for having disobeyed him), is an extremely poor moral message. For me that teaches us that violence and punishment are divine solutions to problems. I also feel that placing women (as part of Eve's punishment) to be ruled over by their husbands, is also a poor moral standard, IMHO. I could continue with other objections. But I think I've made sufficient points thus far concerning the God of the Old Testament. ~~~~ Concerning the specific teachings of Jesus, I don't see anything immoral there, but the teachings of Jesus most certainly do not equate to the teachings of the entire Bible, so that's moot point. ~~~~ Finally, I'd like to rephrase the question of the thread slightly differently just to make a point. Is the Bible a reliable moral guide more so than other religious or spiritual texts? As soon as the question is phrased this way my answer would be that there are many other religious and spiritual texts that I personally feel are more reliable in terms of teaching high moral values. Some of the texts associated with various Eastern mystical religions such as Buddhism, and Taoism come to mind. I would even venture to say that something like the Wicca Rede is a more reliable source of moral values. It may be brief, but the point is to not harm others, including the environment. Well, if that simple ideal was followed that would already represent the highest moral values possible IMHO. So what would be the point in having a God model and condone violent punishments for disobedience, and endorsing inequality in marriage, if the only true morality that is required is to simply love another and not harm each other or our planet? ~~~~ The best morals possible are quite simple, and simply do not require a large historical cannon of stories to convey. That's my view on that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Tue 11/22/11 08:44 PM
|
|
considering that some of the greatest atrocities of mankind were commited by chritians who swore that their despicable actions, the crsades, inquisition, salem witch trials, etc., were done "in the name of god" and then excused as "god's will" the bible doesn't measure up to my standards as a moral guide. that is weak How is that weak? If the bible has inspired anyone into performing violent acts then how can it be said to be a reliable source of moral values? If this book had convinced people to believe that people had sold their souls to a demon, and their ensuing fear had them burning innocent women alive on stakes, then how could the book be said to be a reliable source of moral values? What's reliable about a book that causes people to become hideously violent and petrified with superstitions and fears in the name of "God", and in the name of a "Demon"?  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
considering that some of the greatest atrocities of mankind were commited by chritians who swore that their despicable actions, the crsades, inquisition, salem witch trials, etc., were done "in the name of god" and then excused as "god's will" the bible doesn't measure up to my standards as a moral guide. that is weak How is that weak? If the bible has inspired anyone into performing violent acts then how can it be said to be a reliable source of moral values? If this book had convinced people to believe that people had sold their souls to a demon, and their ensuing fear had them burning innocent women alive on stakes, then how could the book be said to be a reliable source of moral values? What's reliable about a book that causes people to become hideously violent and petrified with superstitions and fears in the name of "God", and in the name of a "Demon"? Because if one is inspired to do things such as mentioned, then they are not listening to what they read out of the bible. For the bible in absolutely no way promotes actions such as these. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The bible is a reliable source for me. I wont speak on what others receive (or dont) from it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: Because if one is inspired to do things such as mentioned, then they are not listening to what they read out of the bible. For the bible in absolutely no way promotes actions such as these. It most certainly does when individual interpretations run rampant as in the case of the authors of the Malleus Maleficarum. It may be your personal interpretation that the bible could not support such actions. But clearly the authors of the Malleus Maleficarum would vehemently have disagreed with you. Moreover, the entire Christian community and churches went along with this. They didn't proclaim that the Bible could not support such things. So it runs far deeper than just the views of the authors of the Malleus Maleficarum. This sort of thing was actually supported by churches and Christian individuals for hundreds of years. So again, the question of whether the Bible is a reliable source or moral values has historically been proven to be untrue. Perhaps a different question may yield a different answer? "Could the Bible be a reliable source for moral values is Cowboy was appointed Pope and everyone turned to Cowboy to interpret the Bible for them?" Maybe so. We don't have any historical evidence concerning that hypothetical situation to draw from. All we have is the reality that humans in the past have indeed been inspired by the Biblical text do do horrible things. Therefore I see no other possible conclusion but to acknowledge that the book has already been historically proven to be an undependable source of good moral values. Apparently, at best, the moral values that a reader of the Bible ultimate obtains, are the moral values that the reader him or herself puts onto the Bible via their own personal interpretations. Hitler also used the Bible as an excuse to kill heathens. After all, the Old Testament God commanded men to kill heathens, and the New Testament proclaims Jesus to be saying that he did not come to change the laws, and not one jot nor one title shall pass from law till heaven and Earth pass. Even I can see where someone could easily argue that we should still be killing heathens today, if they wanted to argue that. Most Christians would not support such arguments simply because they would prefer to push their own higher moral standards onto the Bible and proclaim that such an interpretation itself appears to be "immoral" to them. Yet, left up to the book alone, the interpretations is WIDE OPEN. So where do the moral values truly come from? The book? Or the people who are determined to push their moral standards onto the book? Personally I would prefer religious doctrines that simply don't allow for such wild interpretations. Even "An ye harm none, do as thou wilt", leaves less room for harming other people than does the entire Biblical cannon. Funny how one small sentence can trump an entire cannon of stories in its clarity of moral values. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: Because if one is inspired to do things such as mentioned, then they are not listening to what they read out of the bible. For the bible in absolutely no way promotes actions such as these. It most certainly does when individual interpretations run rampant as in the case of the authors of the Malleus Maleficarum. It may be your personal interpretation that the bible could not support such actions. But clearly the authors of the Malleus Maleficarum would vehemently have disagreed with you. Moreover, the entire Christian community and churches went along with this. They didn't proclaim that the Bible could not support such things. So it runs far deeper than just the views of the authors of the Malleus Maleficarum. This sort of thing was actually supported by churches and Christian individuals for hundreds of years. So again, the question of whether the Bible is a reliable source or moral values has historically been proven to be untrue. Perhaps a different question may yield a different answer? "Could the Bible be a reliable source for moral values is Cowboy was appointed Pope and everyone turned to Cowboy to interpret the Bible for them?" Maybe so. We don't have any historical evidence concerning that hypothetical situation to draw from. All we have is the reality that humans in the past have indeed been inspired by the Biblical text do do horrible things. Therefore I see no other possible conclusion but to acknowledge that the book has already been historically proven to be an undependable source of good moral values. Apparently, at best, the moral values that a reader of the Bible ultimate obtains, are the moral values that the reader him or herself puts onto the Bible via their own personal interpretations. Hitler also used the Bible as an excuse to kill heathens. After all, the Old Testament God commanded men to kill heathens, and the New Testament proclaims Jesus to be saying that he did not come to change the laws, and not one jot nor one title shall pass from law till heaven and Earth pass. Even I can see where someone could easily argue that we should still be killing heathens today, if they wanted to argue that. Most Christians would not support such arguments simply because they would prefer to push their own higher moral standards onto the Bible and proclaim that such an interpretation itself appears to be "immoral" to them. Yet, left up to the book alone, the interpretations is WIDE OPEN. So where do the moral values truly come from? The book? Or the people who are determined to push their moral standards onto the book? Personally I would prefer religious doctrines that simply don't allow for such wild interpretations. Even "An ye harm none, do as thou wilt", leaves less room for harming other people than does the entire Biblical cannon. Funny how one small sentence can trump an entire cannon of stories in its clarity of moral values. It may be your personal interpretation that the bible could not support such actions. But clearly the authors of the Malleus Maleficarum would vehemently have disagreed with you. Moreover, the entire Christian community and churches went along with this. They didn't proclaim that the Bible could not support such things. So it runs far deeper than just the views of the authors of the Malleus Maleficarum. This sort of thing was actually supported by churches and Christian individuals for hundreds of years. This passage all by itself proves you wrong my friend. Matthew 7 1Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: Because if one is inspired to do things such as mentioned, then they are not listening to what they read out of the bible. For the bible in absolutely no way promotes actions such as these. It most certainly does when individual interpretations run rampant as in the case of the authors of the Malleus Maleficarum. It may be your personal interpretation that the bible could not support such actions. But clearly the authors of the Malleus Maleficarum would vehemently have disagreed with you. Moreover, the entire Christian community and churches went along with this. They didn't proclaim that the Bible could not support such things. So it runs far deeper than just the views of the authors of the Malleus Maleficarum. This sort of thing was actually supported by churches and Christian individuals for hundreds of years. So again, the question of whether the Bible is a reliable source or moral values has historically been proven to be untrue. Perhaps a different question may yield a different answer? "Could the Bible be a reliable source for moral values is Cowboy was appointed Pope and everyone turned to Cowboy to interpret the Bible for them?" Maybe so. We don't have any historical evidence concerning that hypothetical situation to draw from. All we have is the reality that humans in the past have indeed been inspired by the Biblical text do do horrible things. Therefore I see no other possible conclusion but to acknowledge that the book has already been historically proven to be an undependable source of good moral values. Apparently, at best, the moral values that a reader of the Bible ultimate obtains, are the moral values that the reader him or herself puts onto the Bible via their own personal interpretations. Hitler also used the Bible as an excuse to kill heathens. After all, the Old Testament God commanded men to kill heathens, and the New Testament proclaims Jesus to be saying that he did not come to change the laws, and not one jot nor one title shall pass from law till heaven and Earth pass. Even I can see where someone could easily argue that we should still be killing heathens today, if they wanted to argue that. Most Christians would not support such arguments simply because they would prefer to push their own higher moral standards onto the Bible and proclaim that such an interpretation itself appears to be "immoral" to them. Yet, left up to the book alone, the interpretations is WIDE OPEN. So where do the moral values truly come from? The book? Or the people who are determined to push their moral standards onto the book? Personally I would prefer religious doctrines that simply don't allow for such wild interpretations. Even "An ye harm none, do as thou wilt", leaves less room for harming other people than does the entire Biblical cannon. Funny how one small sentence can trump an entire cannon of stories in its clarity of moral values. It may be your personal interpretation that the bible could not support such actions. But clearly the authors of the Malleus Maleficarum would vehemently have disagreed with you. Moreover, the entire Christian community and churches went along with this. They didn't proclaim that the Bible could not support such things. So it runs far deeper than just the views of the authors of the Malleus Maleficarum. This sort of thing was actually supported by churches and Christian individuals for hundreds of years. This passage all by itself proves you wrong my friend. Matthew 7 1Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Gods word teaches us to be passive, and in no way can someone be passive and burning witches at the stake. Matthew 5:39 39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. |
|
|
|
|
