100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Is the Bible a reliable moral guide? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
yes - I think you are a more religious person than I am because of how u state things & I am kind of 50-50 on the prophecies....
but yes - jesus was sent to teach a new way and that is what we follow I agree so I sometimes say something about this to people who dredge up tribal practices from 2000 years ago and hold them up as examples of christianity... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. Ah yes, reliability... From the colored words above, I can reliably state that your reliability concerning the Bible's reliabilty is severely unreliable. Care to show me where it says that Eve was "punished" for "disobedience"? Genesis 3: [7] And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. [8] And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. [9] And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? [10] And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. [11] And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? [12] And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. [13] And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. [14] And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: [15] And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. [16] Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. I have no clue how you interpret this story Peter, but as far as I can see it's crystal clear that the God is delving out punishments, first to the Serpent, then to Eve. The God in this story even refers to his own punishments toward the serpent as being a "curse". He turns to the woman immediately afterward and curses her with greatly multiplied sorrow in conception and childbirth. And also places her under the rule of her husband, (clearly as part of this punishment). Anyone who doesn't recognize what's going on in this story form the context had certainly better never mention the word 'context' to me ever again.  Clearly this God is punishing Eve with greatly multiplied sorrow in conception and childbirth, and place her under the rule of her husband as part of this punishment. And of course, this is taken to be a punishment that stands then for all human women. Eve is just being used to represent women in general in these fables. And yes, I most certainly call them fables, because as far as I'm concerned that's precisely what they are. I don't believe in a God who would behave in the way that these stories suggest. Besides, if Adam ultimately went along with her and ate the apple too then why should the woman be placed under him as a punishment? He's just as guilty as she is. It makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. Well, sure, as a FABLE it does. But I mean in terms of expecting me to believe that some genuinely all-wise God would have behaved in the manner these stories suggest? No way. As far as I'm concerned these Hebrew fables have absolutely no more merit than any of the Greek fables. I see absolutely no reason to give these stories any merit at all. A God cursed a serpent to crawl on its belly for the rest of its days? And that's why snakes crawl on their bellies? Oh please. Gimmie a break. The mythological nature of these stories is blatantly obvious IMHO. We may as well be talking about Santa Claus and Rudolf with his nose so bright as far as I'm concerned. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy, MsHarmony, Morning, and PeterPan...
 I disagree with some of your positions but often appreciate and respect the approach you take to dialog. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. Ah yes, reliability... From the colored words above, I can reliably state that your reliability concerning the Bible's reliabilty is severely unreliable. Care to show me where it says that Eve was "punished" for "disobedience"? Genesis 3: [7] And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. [8] And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. [9] And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? [10] And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. [11] And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? [12] And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. [13] And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. [14] And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: [15] And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. [16] Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. I have no clue how you interpret this story Peter, but as far as I can see it's crystal clear that the God is delving out punishments, first to the Serpent, then to Eve. The God in this story even refers to his own punishments toward the serpent as being a "curse". He turns to the woman immediately afterward and curses her with greatly multiplied sorrow in conception and childbirth. And also places her under the rule of her husband, (clearly as part of this punishment). Anyone who doesn't recognize what's going on in this story form the context had certainly better never mention the word 'context' to me ever again. Clearly this God is punishing Eve with greatly multiplied sorrow in conception and childbirth, and place her under the rule of her husband as part of this punishment. And of course, this is taken to be a punishment that stands then for all human women. Eve is just being used to represent women in general in these fables. And yes, I most certainly call them fables, because as far as I'm concerned that's precisely what they are. I don't believe in a God who would behave in the way that these stories suggest. Besides, if Adam ultimately went along with her and ate the apple too then why should the woman be placed under him as a punishment? He's just as guilty as she is. It makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. Well, sure, as a FABLE it does. But I mean in terms of expecting me to believe that some genuinely all-wise God would have behaved in the manner these stories suggest? No way. As far as I'm concerned these Hebrew fables have absolutely no more merit than any of the Greek fables. I see absolutely no reason to give these stories any merit at all. A God cursed a serpent to crawl on its belly for the rest of its days? And that's why snakes crawl on their bellies? Oh please. Gimmie a break. The mythological nature of these stories is blatantly obvious IMHO. We may as well be talking about Santa Claus and Rudolf with his nose so bright as far as I'm concerned. Besides, if Adam ultimately went along with her and ate the apple too then why should the woman be placed under him as a punishment? He's just as guilty as she is. No he is not. She was the one that ate of the fruit first, she is the one that tempted Adam into doing it as well. She did to wrongs right there. Yes, not stating Adam is perfect, because he is not, he ate of the fruit as well. But who's to say he ever would have if the woman would not it. There is no recorded time span between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve, but Adam was God abiding till Eve came into the picture. Not blaming Eve for it entirely, cause Adam did in fact still eat of the fruit as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
personally I do not account for the opinions of non christians because their agenda is fairly clear but not reliable- as reliable tho, I think the bible is - it has withstood a great deal more in the test of time
those above who persist to insist on including the old testament are wrong and showing their lack of understanding the old testament has fundamentally little to do with christian moral behavior or whatever u want to call it those who persist with that I simply cannot take seriously old testament has some rocking good stories tho |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: No he is not. She was the one that ate of the fruit first, she is the one that tempted Adam into doing it as well. She did to wrongs right there. Yes, not stating Adam is perfect, because he is not, he ate of the fruit as well. But who's to say he ever would have if the woman would not it. There is no recorded time span between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve, but Adam was God abiding till Eve came into the picture. Not blaming Eve for it entirely, cause Adam did in fact still eat of the fruit as well. What do you mean by, "But who's to say he ever would have if the woman would not it." What's the difference? Who's to say that Eve would have ever eaten the fruit if it hadn't have been for the serpent? In fact, this is yet another objection I have to this whole fable. If the whole idea is supposed to be that humanity fell from grace from their creator, they why would there even need to be an evil serpent in the story in the first place? I often ask the question, "Would humans have ever actually chosen to disobey this God on their own?" What's the point in even bringing a serpent into the fairytale if the humans are supposed to be choosing to disobey God on their own? That's just yet another huge flaw in this whole fable. The whole story is riddled with so many totally senseless things like this that I truly stand in absolute amazement that any modern person still clings to them. The only thing that makes any sense to me is that a lot of people desperately need to have a myth to believe in, because without a myth they have nothing to cling to. They simply can't imagine a spiritual life, or anything grand and mystical unless they have a myth that makes them promises along those lines. That's all I can figure. I guess if a person see atheism as being the only alternative to mythologies then it makes sense that they will cling to myths with all their might. On the other hand, people who have no need for myths can imagine mystical things without them. This whole idea that Adam was an innocent by-stander who merely got sucked into an evil deed by Eve is nothing more than male-chauvinism unbridled. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: No he is not. She was the one that ate of the fruit first, she is the one that tempted Adam into doing it as well. She did to wrongs right there. Yes, not stating Adam is perfect, because he is not, he ate of the fruit as well. But who's to say he ever would have if the woman would not it. There is no recorded time span between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve, but Adam was God abiding till Eve came into the picture. Not blaming Eve for it entirely, cause Adam did in fact still eat of the fruit as well. What do you mean by, "But who's to say he ever would have if the woman would not it." What's the difference? Who's to say that Eve would have ever eaten the fruit if it hadn't have been for the serpent? In fact, this is yet another objection I have to this whole fable. If the whole idea is supposed to be that humanity fell from grace from their creator, they why would there even need to be an evil serpent in the story in the first place? I often ask the question, "Would humans have ever actually chosen to disobey this God on their own?" What's the point in even bringing a serpent into the fairytale if the humans are supposed to be choosing to disobey God on their own? That's just yet another huge flaw in this whole fable. The whole story is riddled with so many totally senseless things like this that I truly stand in absolute amazement that any modern person still clings to them. The only thing that makes any sense to me is that a lot of people desperately need to have a myth to believe in, because without a myth they have nothing to cling to. They simply can't imagine a spiritual life, or anything grand and mystical unless they have a myth that makes them promises along those lines. That's all I can figure. I guess if a person see atheism as being the only alternative to mythologies then it makes sense that they will cling to myths with all their might. On the other hand, people who have no need for myths can imagine mystical things without them. This whole idea that Adam was an innocent by-stander who merely got sucked into an evil deed by Eve is nothing more than male-chauvinism unbridled. If the whole idea is supposed to be that humanity fell from grace from their creator, they why would there even need to be an evil serpent in the story in the first place? Because "Satan" has always been around. Remember? He was God's most powerful angel. He became so powerful he thought himself to be greater and more powerful then God himself. That is why Satan runs around doing this and that, he's trying to sway people away from God to show the authority he thinks he has over us. This whole idea that Adam was an innocent by-stander who merely got sucked into an evil deed by Eve is nothing more than male-chauvinism unbridled. He wasn't an innocent by-stander by no means. He still in fact ate of the fruit. He is the one responsible for his own actions. It is still his own fault. You can get off that "male-chauvinism" trip you been on. No one's blaming any woman, no one's putting the fault on the woman. Guess what, the woman is equal here :o. She is equally responsible for her own actions as much as Adam is responsible for his own actions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy, MsHarmony, Morning, and PeterPan... I disagree with some of your positions but often appreciate and respect the approach you take to dialog.  the feeling is mutual,,respect and maturity have no religion,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Be Ye Wise As Serpents!
Funny thing that the Serpent is the Symbol of Wisdom in nearly every Culture except in the Christian One! Strange! Even stranger is that Beings,who were created perfect all of a sudden became evil! Please don't tell me about that "Free Will"! If you are Perfect you can't even become evil while exercising that Free Will! And I am not talking primarily about Adam and Eve,but about that Angel who suddenly became the embodiment of Evil,while the "Creator" when he rested,saw that everything he had created was Good! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The most reliable moral guide is intelligence......... The ability to think and act!   Not exactly. What one person "THINKS" to be good, may not be what another person "THINKS" to be good. What one "KNOWS" is moral, another may "KNOW" differently. so the bible that some "KNOW" to be a good moral guide is not "KNOWN" to be a good moral guide to more than two thirds of the world's population indeed making intelligence the ONLY moral guide. and of course no two people possess the same level of intelligence or morality. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy, MsHarmony, Morning, and PeterPan... I disagree with some of your positions but often appreciate and respect the approach you take to dialog. (((((((((((  Massagetrade))))))))) (((((((( and Everyone else here))))))))))) Massagetrade....May You and Everyone here,have a Most Wonderful Day now.... I Pray this Day is filled with Much Love ,Joy, Peace, and Thanksgiving .... for All |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. Ah yes, reliability... From the colored words above, I can reliably state that your reliability concerning the Bible's reliabilty is severely unreliable. Care to show me where it says that Eve was "punished" for "disobedience"? Genesis 3: [7] And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. [8] And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. [9] And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? [10] And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. [11] And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? [12] And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. [13] And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. [14] And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: [15] And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. [16] Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. I have no clue how you interpret this story Peter, but as far as I can see it's crystal clear that the God is delving out punishments, first to the Serpent, then to Eve. The God in this story even refers to his own punishments toward the serpent as being a "curse". He turns to the woman immediately afterward and curses her with greatly multiplied sorrow in conception and childbirth. And also places her under the rule of her husband, (clearly as part of this punishment). Anyone who doesn't recognize what's going on in this story form the context had certainly better never mention the word 'context' to me ever again. Clearly this God is punishing Eve with greatly multiplied sorrow in conception and childbirth, and place her under the rule of her husband as part of this punishment. And of course, this is taken to be a punishment that stands then for all human women. Eve is just being used to represent women in general in these fables. And yes, I most certainly call them fables, because as far as I'm concerned that's precisely what they are. I don't believe in a God who would behave in the way that these stories suggest. Besides, if Adam ultimately went along with her and ate the apple too then why should the woman be placed under him as a punishment? He's just as guilty as she is. It makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. Well, sure, as a FABLE it does. But I mean in terms of expecting me to believe that some genuinely all-wise God would have behaved in the manner these stories suggest? No way. As far as I'm concerned these Hebrew fables have absolutely no more merit than any of the Greek fables. I see absolutely no reason to give these stories any merit at all. A God cursed a serpent to crawl on its belly for the rest of its days? And that's why snakes crawl on their bellies? Oh please. Gimmie a break. The mythological nature of these stories is blatantly obvious IMHO. We may as well be talking about Santa Claus and Rudolf with his nose so bright as far as I'm concerned. Curious as to where exactly is the proof of your claim? Nothing you posted in any way says that Eve was punished for disobedience. I don't know how you interpret that, but to me, it lacks evidence of your premises. I understand why you call it fairy tales and fables, because you and others make things up that simply aren't there... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Tue 11/29/11 06:35 PM
|
|
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. Ah yes, reliability... From the colored words above, I can reliably state that your reliability concerning the Bible's reliabilty is severely unreliable. Care to show me where it says that Eve was "punished" for "disobedience"? Genesis 3: [7] And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. [8] And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. [9] And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? [10] And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. [11] And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? [12] And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. [13] And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. [14] And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: [15] And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. [16] Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. I have no clue how you interpret this story Peter, but as far as I can see it's crystal clear that the God is delving out punishments, first to the Serpent, then to Eve. The God in this story even refers to his own punishments toward the serpent as being a "curse". He turns to the woman immediately afterward and curses her with greatly multiplied sorrow in conception and childbirth. And also places her under the rule of her husband, (clearly as part of this punishment). Anyone who doesn't recognize what's going on in this story form the context had certainly better never mention the word 'context' to me ever again. Clearly this God is punishing Eve with greatly multiplied sorrow in conception and childbirth, and place her under the rule of her husband as part of this punishment. And of course, this is taken to be a punishment that stands then for all human women. Eve is just being used to represent women in general in these fables. And yes, I most certainly call them fables, because as far as I'm concerned that's precisely what they are. I don't believe in a God who would behave in the way that these stories suggest. Besides, if Adam ultimately went along with her and ate the apple too then why should the woman be placed under him as a punishment? He's just as guilty as she is. It makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. Well, sure, as a FABLE it does. But I mean in terms of expecting me to believe that some genuinely all-wise God would have behaved in the manner these stories suggest? No way. As far as I'm concerned these Hebrew fables have absolutely no more merit than any of the Greek fables. I see absolutely no reason to give these stories any merit at all. A God cursed a serpent to crawl on its belly for the rest of its days? And that's why snakes crawl on their bellies? Oh please. Gimmie a break. The mythological nature of these stories is blatantly obvious IMHO. We may as well be talking about Santa Claus and Rudolf with his nose so bright as far as I'm concerned. Curious as to where exactly is the proof of your claim? Nothing you posted in any way says that Eve was punished for disobedience. I don't know how you interpret that, but to me, it lacks evidence of your premises. I understand why you call it fairy tales and fables, because you and others make things up that simply aren't there... Well, I'm certainly open to hearing why you think God turned to Eve and said, "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children" If this wasn't some form of punishment then what else could have it been? Idle chatter? God just felt like being mean to Eve for no apparent reason? Do you have an alternative explanation for why this God would greatly multiple Eve's sorry in conception and in childbirth? Also, why it would be written into this story in the context it was written if it had nothing to do with Eve's failure to refrain from eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? God had just finished cursing the serpent for his part in this. Clearly that was punishment. Why should I think that when God then turned to Even and cursed her with sorrowful conception and childbirth he wasn't just continuing to delve out punishments for this? I'm more than prepared to hear your views and alternative explanations for this. Otherwise, I see no reason not to conclude that you are simply in denial of what these stories are actually saying. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. Ah yes, reliability... From the colored words above, I can reliably state that your reliability concerning the Bible's reliabilty is severely unreliable. Care to show me where it says that Eve was "punished" for "disobedience"? Genesis 3: [7] And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. [8] And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. [9] And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? [10] And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. [11] And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? [12] And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. [13] And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. [14] And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: [15] And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. [16] Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. I have no clue how you interpret this story Peter, but as far as I can see it's crystal clear that the God is delving out punishments, first to the Serpent, then to Eve. The God in this story even refers to his own punishments toward the serpent as being a "curse". He turns to the woman immediately afterward and curses her with greatly multiplied sorrow in conception and childbirth. And also places her under the rule of her husband, (clearly as part of this punishment). Anyone who doesn't recognize what's going on in this story form the context had certainly better never mention the word 'context' to me ever again. Clearly this God is punishing Eve with greatly multiplied sorrow in conception and childbirth, and place her under the rule of her husband as part of this punishment. And of course, this is taken to be a punishment that stands then for all human women. Eve is just being used to represent women in general in these fables. And yes, I most certainly call them fables, because as far as I'm concerned that's precisely what they are. I don't believe in a God who would behave in the way that these stories suggest. Besides, if Adam ultimately went along with her and ate the apple too then why should the woman be placed under him as a punishment? He's just as guilty as she is. It makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. Well, sure, as a FABLE it does. But I mean in terms of expecting me to believe that some genuinely all-wise God would have behaved in the manner these stories suggest? No way. As far as I'm concerned these Hebrew fables have absolutely no more merit than any of the Greek fables. I see absolutely no reason to give these stories any merit at all. A God cursed a serpent to crawl on its belly for the rest of its days? And that's why snakes crawl on their bellies? Oh please. Gimmie a break. The mythological nature of these stories is blatantly obvious IMHO. We may as well be talking about Santa Claus and Rudolf with his nose so bright as far as I'm concerned. Curious as to where exactly is the proof of your claim? Nothing you posted in any way says that Eve was punished for disobedience. I don't know how you interpret that, but to me, it lacks evidence of your premises. I understand why you call it fairy tales and fables, because you and others make things up that simply aren't there... Well, I'm certainly open to hearing why you think God turned to Even and said, "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children" If this wasn't some form of punishment then what else could have it been? Idle chatter? God just felt like being mean to Eve for no apparent reason? Do you have an alternative explanation for why this God would greatly multiple Eve's sorry in conception and in childbirth? Also, why it would be written into this story in the context it was written if it had nothing to do with Eve's failure to refrain from eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? God had just finished cursing the serpent for his part in this. Clearly that was punishment. Why should I think that when God then turned to Even and cursed her with sorrowful conception and childbirth he wasn't just continuing to delve out punishments for this? I'm more than prepared to hear your views and alternative explanations for this. Otherwise, I see no reason not to conclude that you are simply in denial of what these stories are actually saying. idle chatter? God just felt like being mean to Eve for no apparent reason? There was reason, she was disobedient. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
idle chatter? God just felt like being mean to Eve for no apparent reason? There was reason, she was disobedient. Peter Pan says no. Peter Pan says that I'm wrong to conclude that God was punishing Eve for disobedience. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
CowboyGH
on
Tue 11/29/11 06:49 PM
|
|
idle chatter? God just felt like being mean to Eve for no apparent reason? There was reason, she was disobedient. Peter Pan says no. Peter Pan says that I'm wrong to conclude that God was punishing Eve for disobedience. Punishment for the serpent- 14And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life Punishment for woman- 16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee Punishment for man- 17And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life 18Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return Genesis 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Tue 11/29/11 08:03 PM
|
|
Peter Pan wrote: Curious as to where exactly is the proof of your claim? Nothing you posted in any way says that Eve was punished for disobedience. I don't know how you interpret that, but to me, it lacks evidence of your premises. I understand why you call it fairy tales and fables, because you and others make things up that simply aren't there... Well there you go Peter. Even Cowboy is convinced that Eve was being punished for disobedience. I would be interested to hear your interpretations. If this isn't why God greatly multiplied her sorrow in conception and childbirth, then why do you think God did such a mean thing? Surely you must have an alternative explanation? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Pan wrote: Curious as to where exactly is the proof of your claim? Nothing you posted in any way says that Eve was punished for disobedience. I don't know how you interpret that, but to me, it lacks evidence of your premises. I understand why you call it fairy tales and fables, because you and others make things up that simply aren't there... Well there you go Peter. Even Cowboy is convinced that Eve was being punished for disobedience. I would be interested to hear your interpretations. If this isn't why God greatly multiplied her sorrow in conception and childbirth, then why do you think God did such a mean thing? Surely you must have an alternative explanation? LOL! Couldn't come with the exact words so you question my interpretation??? Tell you what... You admit that your interpretation is flawed and I'll offer another interpretation... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Pan wrote: LOL! Couldn't come with the exact words so you question my interpretation??? Tell you what... You admit that your interpretation is flawed and I'll offer another interpretation... I don't question your interpretation. I have no clue what it might even be. I haven't heard it yet. I can't very well admit that my interpretations is flawed. As far as I can see it's not. Neither can I even imagine an alternative explanation to replace it with. This is why I would be interested to here your alternative interpretation. Evidently Cowboy has the same interpretation as I do. So I haven't yet seen an alternative interpretation to even consider. Why should I admit that my interpretation is flawed when I can't even imagine an alternative? You'll have to offer me an alternative interpretation before I can have an alternative interpretation to consider.  As far as I'm concerned there isn't much to interpret. It seems pretty straight-forward and clear to me. God was delving out punishments. Period. Like I say, if you have an alternative explanation for why this God would be so mean to Eve why not share it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Pan wrote: LOL! Couldn't come with the exact words so you question my interpretation??? Tell you what... You admit that your interpretation is flawed and I'll offer another interpretation... I don't question your interpretation. I have no clue what it might even be. I haven't heard it yet. I can't very well admit that my interpretations is flawed. As far as I can see it's not. Neither can I even imagine an alternative explanation to replace it with. This is why I would be interested to here your alternative interpretation. Evidently Cowboy has the same interpretation as I do. So I haven't yet seen an alternative interpretation to even consider. Why should I admit that my interpretation is flawed when I can't even imagine an alternative? You'll have to offer me an alternative interpretation before I can have an alternative interpretation to consider. As far as I'm concerned there isn't much to interpret. It seems pretty straight-forward and clear to me. God was delving out punishments. Period. Like I say, if you have an alternative explanation for why this God would be so mean to Eve why not share it? If you can't admit that your interpretation is flawed, then where exactly does it say that Eve was punished for disobedience? Your 1st flaw is failure to admit that it was an interpretation and that the words are NOT in there... Your 2nd flaw is believing that "punishment" interpretation just because someone told you that was what it meant... Your 3rd flaw is thinking that your interpretation is flawless because you can't think of an alternative... It doesn't matter if Coyboy agrees or not. I do not care if the Pope agrees with you or not (I'm sure he does). The fact is, those words are not there and are only encountered through interpretation. If you can't admit the flaws in your interpretation, then you have no need of mine. |
|
|
|
|
