[_ Old Earth _] This is SO Sick!! Disgusting!

[Orion]

Great probing, Deep. Wednesday night service, the preacher was talking about morals, and was wanting to make sure that the congregation was paying full attention to what he was saying, as he said that all your morals are found within the pages of the Bible. I couldn't help but to wonder if the preacher had actually read it. :-?

So, I could ask the same thing, . . . .which of the biblical "morals" do you (conservative Christians) choose to ignore?

 

[Deep Thought]

I've asked this question quite a few times along with which parts of the Bible are interpreted literally and which parts aren't.

Unfortunately, I've never got a straight answer from our Creationist friends. Methinks they either have something to hide or they just haven't thought it through enough. Given that most of them haven't read all of the Bible, it does put them in a difficult position.

 

[Paidion]

Deep Thought, I'm going to barge in here and discuss some ideas relating to your questions. First of all, the Bible is not a "book of morals" any more than it is "a book of science." It may contain statements which concur with science, and it may contain statements which concur with morality. Not all intructions given in the Bible should be assumed to be moral instructions. Some instructions accomodated the weaknesses of the hearers. For example, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" was an instruction for the ancient Hebrews. It was not an instruction advocating revenge; rather it was an instruction which served to restrain the desire to give back an even greater hurt than the one you receive. The morality which Jesus taught overrode this restraint rule,

"But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you..." Matthew 5:44

Can you imagine the world in which we would live if everyone followed that moral imperative?

I think that when man first "ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil", he received a "conscience" and passed such on to his progeny. You will notice that throughout the world, there is a set of basic moral principles with which virtually everyone agrees. Then there are principles derived from the basic ones which vary among cultures according to their beliefs. If a belief is not based on reality, then unusual principles can be derived. For example, one tribe believed it was morally right to kill your father when he attained the age of 60. This fact doesn't imply that the people hated their fathers. Rather, it indicated loving concern for their fathers. The act was based on the false belief that at whatever age their father died, that was the age he would remain in the after-life for all eternity. So, in killing their father the tribal people believed they were doing him a favour, so that he could avoid being painfully crippled for eternity.

One example of a basic moral principle on which all agree is the principle of reciprocal treatment. (By the way, it is important to understand that a person might agree that a principle is right, and yet never actually carry out that principle in practice due to self-serving desire.

Sometimes it appears that not everyone agrees with the basic moral principles. But as it turns out, it's not the principle that they question, but the application of it. Here is an example:

Joe borrows Sam's lawn mower, and returns it after use. The following week, Sam asks Joe to loan him his tiller. Joe refuses.

"Well, I loaned you my lawn mower last week," says Sam. Sam is appealing to the principle of reciprocal treatment.

"Well, yeah, " replies Joe. "But that's different. This is my prize tiller, a special piece of equipment which I don't loan to anybody."

Notice Joe doesn't deny the principle of reciprocal treatment. If he had denied it, he would have said, "So? What's that got to do with anything?" Instead, he tries to show why the principle of reciprocal treatment doesn't apply in this case.

So in answer to your last two questions, I say that I attempt to follow all of the moral teaching of the Bible and reject none of them. I do not, however, follow all of the non-moral injunctions.

 

[Deep Thought]

Paidon, thank you for your intelligent reply (wish our resident Creationists were capable of the same thing).

Do you agree that morals evolve with time and particular cultures?

 

[Orion]

When I think of "Biblical Morality" and whether or not morality changes with time, I immediately go back to the "stone the disrespectful son", "kill those who practice witchcraft", "stone the woman who is found to not be a virgin before marriage"...etc., and wonder if those were, in fact, nothing from any deity at all, but laws of men, which were hardly moral, and claimed to be from God. We have the issue of "eye for an eye....", yet Jesus saying to do the complete oposite. This would seem to be evidence that there are sections within the Old Testament that were, in fact, the ideals of MAN, not of any deity, and "the record was set straight" in the New Testament.

So it would seem that what one generation believed to be moral, is considered today to be quite immoral.

 

[BobRyan]

Fine - on what basis do you decide which part of the Bible is the Word of God -- the part "that Jesus quotes"?? The part that "Paul quotes"?

What rule do you use?


Surely given an "evil bible" vs "good Bible" idea as you propose Jesus would have been "somewhat remiss" to quote Moses without also pointing out that there was also - either an evil-Moses or some evil-writings of Moses.

Recall that Jesus is the one in John 5 and Luke 16 that keeps arguing the point "if you don't listen to Moses then you will not listen to me".

Bob