100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Is the Bible a reliable moral guide? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
The bible is a reliable source for me. I wont speak on what others receive (or dont) from it. I'm a reliable source of moral values for me. Why push my high morals onto the Bible just in an attempt to proclaim that is' a reliable source for me. ~~~~~ Here's a question for you: If you, yourself have no clue what is moral, then how could you possibly be in a position to judge the moral values of the Bible? On the other hand, if you feel that you are a good enough judge of moral values to see that the Bible is a reliable source of moral values, then from whence are those moral values truly emanating from? The Bible? Or you own sense of what's moral? ~~~~ In short, does it even make any sense for a person to say, "I have no clue what constitutes a moral value, but I think the bible is a reliable source of moral values" That's the whole problem right there. If a person needs to be able to recognize what's moral and what's immoral before they read the Bible, then what would even be the point of having such a book in the first place? ~~~~~ I a very real sense the whole question is a paradoxical question. If a person needs to assess the morality of the Bible in order to answer the question, then clearly they must have had their own idea of what it even means to be moral in the first place. And that very notion right there shows that the Bible itself would be a totally useless thing. People who already have good moral values wouldn't need it. People who don't already have a good sense of morality would come away with immoral interpretations anyway. Leaving the book to be virtually useless as a reliable "guide" for moral values. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The bible is a reliable source for me. I wont speak on what others receive (or dont) from it. I'm a reliable source of moral values for me. Why push my high morals onto the Bible just in an attempt to proclaim that is' a reliable source for me. ~~~~~ Here's a question for you: If you, yourself have no clue what is moral, then how could you possibly be in a position to judge the moral values of the Bible? On the other hand, if you feel that you are a good enough judge of moral values to see that the Bible is a reliable source of moral values, then from whence are those moral values truly emanating from? The Bible? Or you own sense of what's moral? ~~~~ In short, does it even make any sense for a person to say, "I have no clue what constitutes a moral value, but I think the bible is a reliable source of moral values" That's the whole problem right there. If a person needs to be able to recognize what's moral and what's immoral before they read the Bible, then what would even be the point of having such a book in the first place? ~~~~~ I a very real sense the whole question is a paradoxical question. If a person needs to assess the morality of the Bible in order to answer the question, then clearly they must have had their own idea of what it even means to be moral in the first place. And that very notion right there shows that the Bible itself would be a totally useless thing. People who already have good moral values wouldn't need it. People who don't already have a good sense of morality would come away with immoral interpretations anyway. Leaving the book to be virtually useless as a reliable "guide" for moral values. If you, yourself have no clue what is moral, then how could you possibly be in a position to judge the moral values of the Bible? No one has the right to judge someone elses morals. One may think such and such is moral when another thinks differently. "Morals" are more or less an opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The bible is a reliable source for me. I wont speak on what others receive (or dont) from it. I'm a reliable source of moral values for me. Why push my high morals onto the Bible just in an attempt to proclaim that is' a reliable source for me. ~~~~~ Here's a question for you: If you, yourself have no clue what is moral, then how could you possibly be in a position to judge the moral values of the Bible? On the other hand, if you feel that you are a good enough judge of moral values to see that the Bible is a reliable source of moral values, then from whence are those moral values truly emanating from? The Bible? Or you own sense of what's moral? ~~~~ In short, does it even make any sense for a person to say, "I have no clue what constitutes a moral value, but I think the bible is a reliable source of moral values" That's the whole problem right there. If a person needs to be able to recognize what's moral and what's immoral before they read the Bible, then what would even be the point of having such a book in the first place? ~~~~~ I a very real sense the whole question is a paradoxical question. If a person needs to assess the morality of the Bible in order to answer the question, then clearly they must have had their own idea of what it even means to be moral in the first place. And that very notion right there shows that the Bible itself would be a totally useless thing. People who already have good moral values wouldn't need it. People who don't already have a good sense of morality would come away with immoral interpretations anyway. Leaving the book to be virtually useless as a reliable "guide" for moral values. If you, yourself have no clue what is moral, then how could you possibly be in a position to judge the moral values of the Bible? No one has the right to judge someone elses morals. One may think such and such is moral when another thinks differently. "Morals" are more or less an opinion. But God being righteous, we can be reassured his morals are of the greatest standards. There is nothing nor anyone more moral or more righteous then our great God. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: This passage all by itself proves you wrong my friend. You're pushing specific verses in an effort to push your own personal moral interpretations. The question isn't about your personal interpretations. The question is whether or not the Bible is reliable in terms of teaching humanity as a whole good moral values. History has already proven that it is not. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: But God being righteous, we can be reassured his morals are of the greatest standards. There is nothing nor anyone more moral or more righteous then our great God. So, in other words, your stance is simply as follows: The Bible is the word of God. Therefore it must be moral. Period amen. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
CowboyGH
on
Tue 11/22/11 10:56 PM
|
|
Cowboy wrote: This passage all by itself proves you wrong my friend. You're pushing specific verses in an effort to push your own personal moral interpretations. The question isn't about your personal interpretations. The question is whether or not the Bible is reliable in terms of teaching humanity as a whole good moral values. History has already proven that it is not. I'm pushing nothing. This verse doesn't necessarily need "interpretation". It specifically spells it out. 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. Burning witches at the stakes would not be turning the other cheek, would be taking offensive actions towards them. So with that said the BIBLE is a reliable term of teaching humanity... if they listened to the verse(s), which in the witch burnings they obviously were doing quite the opposite. Again, the bible in no way promotes the witch burnings. I couldn't care less if they people doing the burnings used the bible as support for their actions. By no means does it support such a thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: But God being righteous, we can be reassured his morals are of the greatest standards. There is nothing nor anyone more moral or more righteous then our great God. So, in other words, your stance is simply as follows: The Bible is the word of God. Therefore it must be moral. Period amen. The bible in itself is not "moral" it is an inadament object. But the teachings therein are. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Tue 11/22/11 11:08 PM
|
|
As we prepare for Thanksgiving - the secular version of a religiously
inspired offering of humility, kindness to our fellow human beings, and gratefulness to God for the world and our sustenance in all ways... I would like to say that I enjoyed the following part of the article: =-=-=-=-= David Lose Author, 'Making Sense of Scripture' Is the Bible a Reliable Moral Guide? What, then, are those who read the Bible to do? Shall we just pick and choose the laws and commandments that appeal to us and disregard the others? Curiously, I'm tempted to answer a qualified "yes." I do so largely because I suspect the Bible was never intended to serve primarily as a moral reference. Rather, I think that the Bible comes to us as a collection of confessions of faith of the ancient Israelites and Christians about the nature and character of God and was intended to invite readers into relationship with that God. From that relationship flows a commitment to leading a certain kind of life. Theology, that is, precedes morality, as one's view of God -- angry or loving, judgmental or gracious -- greatly influences how one relates to neighbor and world. Even a cursory read of the Bible, however, reveals that these confessions, written over more than a thousand years, also display tremendous variety in their portrayals of God. Therefore, readers must exercise both discernment and discretion regarding which testimonies seem most helpful and trustworthy, as these critical decisions decisively shape the way one navigates and negotiates the moral instruction of the Bible. Ultimately, the passages that have been most helpful in describing the character of God fashion the critical lens through which readers make sense of and interpret the various and sundry moral commands contained throughout Scripture. While this may sound complicated to some and dubious or even unfaithful to others, I'd contend that it has been the dominant approach to interpreting the Bible since, well, biblical times. Time and again the prophets choose one passage by which to interpret others. Amos, for instance, declares that the Lord despises all of Israel's solemn assemblies and religious sacrifices -- regarding which there are numerous laws and regulations -- because of its neglect for the poor (Amos 5:21-24). Simply put, Amos believes the passages about caring for the poor are just plain more important than those about proper worship and sacrifice. =-=-=-=-=-= and furthermore the conclusion: =-=-=-=-=-= 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. In light of this, it may seem to many that reading the Bible for moral guidance often appears a dicey venture at best. But I nevertheless believe that those willing -- whether particularly religious or not -- to stay with this most peculiar and complicated of books and wrestle with the good, the bad, and the sometimes ugly things we find on its pages will be surprised by the relevance of the Bible not only to our moral concerns, but to all the dimensions of our complex and mysterious lives. =-=-=-=-=-= And I say, Let us offer Thanks as we consider our blessings this year and I wish everyone a very Happy and fulfilling holiday season! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Happy Holiday
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As we prepare for Thanksgiving - the secular version of a religiously inspired offering of humility, kindness to our fellow human beings, and gratefulness to God for the world and our sustenance in all ways... I would like to say that I enjoyed the following part of the article: =-=-=-=-= David Lose Author, 'Making Sense of Scripture' Is the Bible a Reliable Moral Guide? What, then, are those who read the Bible to do? Shall we just pick and choose the laws and commandments that appeal to us and disregard the others? Curiously, I'm tempted to answer a qualified "yes." I do so largely because I suspect the Bible was never intended to serve primarily as a moral reference. Rather, I think that the Bible comes to us as a collection of confessions of faith of the ancient Israelites and Christians about the nature and character of God and was intended to invite readers into relationship with that God. From that relationship flows a commitment to leading a certain kind of life. Theology, that is, precedes morality, as one's view of God -- angry or loving, judgmental or gracious -- greatly influences how one relates to neighbor and world. Even a cursory read of the Bible, however, reveals that these confessions, written over more than a thousand years, also display tremendous variety in their portrayals of God. Therefore, readers must exercise both discernment and discretion regarding which testimonies seem most helpful and trustworthy, as these critical decisions decisively shape the way one navigates and negotiates the moral instruction of the Bible. Ultimately, the passages that have been most helpful in describing the character of God fashion the critical lens through which readers make sense of and interpret the various and sundry moral commands contained throughout Scripture. While this may sound complicated to some and dubious or even unfaithful to others, I'd contend that it has been the dominant approach to interpreting the Bible since, well, biblical times. Time and again the prophets choose one passage by which to interpret others. Amos, for instance, declares that the Lord despises all of Israel's solemn assemblies and religious sacrifices -- regarding which there are numerous laws and regulations -- because of its neglect for the poor (Amos 5:21-24). Simply put, Amos believes the passages about caring for the poor are just plain more important than those about proper worship and sacrifice. =-=-=-=-=-= and furthermore the conclusion: =-=-=-=-=-= 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. In light of this, it may seem to many that reading the Bible for moral guidance often appears a dicey venture at best. But I nevertheless believe that those willing -- whether particularly religious or not -- to stay with this most peculiar and complicated of books and wrestle with the good, the bad, and the sometimes ugly things we find on its pages will be surprised by the relevance of the Bible not only to our moral concerns, but to all the dimensions of our complex and mysterious lives. =-=-=-=-=-= And I say, Let us offer Thanks as we consider our blessings this year and I wish everyone a very Happy and fulfilling holiday season! Just want to make a quick note cause I noticed some verses he referred to was from the Old Testament. When speaking of "morals" for the people coming from the scriptures of the bible, you MUST remain either in the old or new testament, cause if you go back and forth you will loose the context of the words and meaning(s). For example, in the old testament people on Earth carried out the judgement for breaking God's laws. These can be seen as the peoples "morals" if taken out of context. Old testament says eye for an eye, NT says turn the other cheek. Would seem two different "morals". When in all reality they are not. For the eye for an eye was a JUDGEMENT, not specifically a "moral". But since that covenant's completion and giving us of a new one which does contain "morals" we are to abide by. As their is no "judgement" on our part in the new testament. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: Again, the bible in no way promotes the witch burnings. I couldn't care less if they people doing the burnings used the bible as support for their actions. By no means does it support such a thing. You may not care less but other people do. If there exist people who are holding the bible up to support their violence, then clearly they must be convinced that the Bible can indeed support their views, otherwise it wouldn't make any sense for them to hold the bible up as supporting their views. So the proof is in the pudding Cowboy. There exist people who are inspired by the Bible to do immoral things. Therefore the bible cannot be depended upon to be a reliable source of morals since not all humans see it as such. It's not reliable if it inspires anyone into violent acts. And that was the crux of the question. Is the bible a reliable source of moral values. The answer to that is necessarily, "No it is not", and the proof is carved in the history of humanity in quite many instances. In fact, it's continuing to be carved into history to this very day. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: Again, the bible in no way promotes the witch burnings. I couldn't care less if they people doing the burnings used the bible as support for their actions. By no means does it support such a thing. You may not care less but other people do. If there exist people who are holding the bible up to support their violence, then clearly they must be convinced that the Bible can indeed support their views, otherwise it wouldn't make any sense for them to hold the bible up as supporting their views. So the proof is in the pudding Cowboy. There exist people who are inspired by the Bible to do immoral things. Therefore the bible cannot be depended upon to be a reliable source of morals since not all humans see it as such. It's not reliable if it inspires anyone into violent acts. And that was the crux of the question. Is the bible a reliable source of moral values. The answer to that is necessarily, "No it is not", and the proof is carved in the history of humanity in quite many instances. In fact, it's continuing to be carved into history to this very day. How could it promote violence? People try to use the bible to "flour coat" there actions. They feel their actions will be more "accepted" by society. Again, that verse of turning the other cheek and many more. So in all reality the bible doesn't truly cover anything up like that, they just feel it makes them appear less "evil" maybe? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Wed 11/23/11 12:27 AM
|
|
Cowboy wrote: How could it promote violence? People try to use the bible to "flour coat" there actions. They feel their actions will be more "accepted" by society. Again, that verse of turning the other cheek and many more. So in all reality the bible doesn't truly cover anything up like that, they just feel it makes them appear less "evil" maybe? You'd have to ask the people who use it to promote violence. ~~~~ I already posted earlier how the Bible can easily be used to justify the killing of heathens. 1. The Old Testament has God commanding people to seek out and kill heathens. 2. The New Testament has Jesus proclaiming that he did not come to change the laws and that not one jot nor one title shall pass from law until heaven and Earth pass. ~~~~ So there you go. You and I may judge the killing of heathens to be an immoral act. But that doesn't mean that the Bible cannot be used to justify such an act. Moreover, if we should judge the killing of heathens to be an immoral act then we are ultimately claiming that the God of the Old Testament was an immoral God. So it's riddled with paradox and contradiction anyway. If you're going to argue that the God of the Old Testament was a moral God then you'd have to argue that killing heathens is also a moral thing to do. ~~~~~ You keep pointing to Jesus because you personally judge the things that Jesus stood for to be moral. You basically ignore the Old Testament God because you personally aren't interested in supporting those things because you feel that they are obviously immoral. So clearly you're deciding for yourself what you would like to support as being 'moral' and what you would like to support as being 'immoral'. How could the killing of heathens be immoral if the God of the Old Testament commanded men to do it? And if it wasn't immoral back then, then how could it have suddenly become immoral later? You'd have a God who changes his mind about what he considers to be moral. ~~~~ In fact, this very line of reasoning is precisely what someone could offer when they proclaim that Jesus himself supported that he did not come to change those original laws. So their argument that Jesus did not change the law is profound. They would (and have) argued that when Jesus was talking about turning the other cheek he was speaking to believers and how they should treat other believers. NOT how people should treat heathens. That's a perfectly sound argument that you could not argue against. I mean there you are pointing to the words of Jesus, and here these other guys are saying to you, "So what? Jesus was clearly speaking to believers about how believers should treat other believers, he wasn't referring to how we should treat heathens" That leaves you standing there with a bunch of verses that are utterly useless to point to. These other people just got done telling you that, as far as they are concerned, Jesus wasn't talking about heathens because God had clearly said that heathens should be killed. ~~~~~ I mean, seriously Cowboy, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on in an argument against someone who was claiming that they see the Bible as giving a green light for killing heathens. Your arguments simply don't hold water in the face of their objections. It's all suddenly reduced to personal opinions again, and the book itself is utterly worthless in terms of settling these kinds of arguments. Your arguments simply don't hold up in the face of their interpretations. They would just claim that Jesus never meant for anyone to turn the other cheek to a heathen. They claim that Jesus was speaking about how believers should treat other believers. God clearly had already commanded us to kill heathens, and Jesus himself said that not one jot nor one title shall not pass from law. So they'd just push you aside as being the one who doesn't understand the Bible. Their interpretations are right and yours are wrong. Period. That would be their stance. Point to those verses all you want. They don't care. You just have the wrong understanding of them is all, as far as they are concerned. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Happy Holiday Seasons Greetings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Happy ThanksGiving to Everyone Here!!! You All Are Always in My Thoughts and Prayers!!! Love You Alll...So Does God!!! Enjoy Your Thanksgiivng Now. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Happy Holiday Seasons Greetings. Oh that's right. It's Thanksgiving. I better run over to town and buy a couple cans of cranberry sauce. Happy Thanksgiving everyone! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As we prepare for Thanksgiving - the secular version of a religiously inspired offering of humility, kindness to our fellow human beings, and gratefulness to God for the world and our sustenance in all ways... I would like to say that I enjoyed the following part of the article: =-=-=-=-= David Lose Author, 'Making Sense of Scripture' Is the Bible a Reliable Moral Guide? Thanks for reading the article. I'm actually sorry now that I posted this at all. This has now just become another argument going nowhere. This was supposed to be a discussion about the article, but as often happens, people are only responding the title. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What would be the point in reading an article that is addressing a question that has already been answered? I could go read the article, but I'm quite sure that the article cannot change the things in the Bible that I consider to be immoral. So what would be the point to it? Unless the article has already concluded that the Bible is not a reliable source of morality. In that case, I agree with that conclusion. |
|
|
|
|
