Moral laws of the Bible

[Gnu Ordure]

JWB, I was trying to answer your enquiry:

I'm just wondering at what point do some of you diverge from biblical, particularly NT, moral codes.

... and so I pointed out two underlying principles of Bibilcal morality which I reject:

1. It is fair and just to hold a person responsible for (i.e guilty of) the crimes of another.

2. It's fair and just to punish a person for the crimes of another.

And as Velkyn said, you ignored my point.

If you don't think the above is ethical then say so.

Yes, I think it was unethical to kill David's son for David's crime. Your turn. What do you think?

[nogodsforme]

One of the main problems is that there is not one single, coherent statement in the bible that explains what the real rules are. What laws are to be followed by all people in all times and all places? Which laws are the most important? Which laws are dumb and can be ignored? And if there are laws that are not that important, or not relevant to all people, or are stupid, then why the hell are they in the book?

We know that stupid laws make it onto the books. Apartheid, for example.  It is illegal to whistle while carrying a rhesus monkey in Vermont. (Not a real law that I know of.) You can shoot a gun at someone if they make you nervous in Florida. (Unfortunately, a real law.)

We expect people to make dumb laws and to have to go back and change them later. 'Cause people don't know everything and we make mistakes. That's why the US constitution is so long and complicated.  We keep having to fix mistakes. People spend their legal careers figuring out what it all means for modern people today. But the constitution, a flawed human creation, is still nowhere near as long, pointless, convoluted and ambiguous as the bible.

We don't expect a god with all the knowledge and power in the universe to make mistakes. It makes god sound like a Monty Python character...

God, played by Michael Palin in a funny pope hat: "Kill all witches, gays, rape victims, sabbath-violators and Canaanites. No, scratch that. My bad. There aren't really any witches, and killing rape victims is just horrible. Just kill non-believers. And murderers. And gays. Yeah. That's it. No, wait....don't write that down yet. Let me think...."

Is it any wonder if we are a bit skeptical that the bible was inspired, written or in any way related to an all-knowing, superhuman supernatural being? It's too full of crap.

[velkyn]

indeed, answer Gnu.  he might be the most gentle ear you have here and doesn't ask questions lightly.  Most, if not all, of us do not ask our questions lightly. 

[Gnu Ordure]

he might be the most gentle ear you have here

No I'm not, I have big horns and I'm mean and fierce and... oh, alright. 

[Jstwebbrowsing]

When King David arranged the death of Bathsheba's husband, God punished him by killing his new-born son.

Does that seem ethical to you?

Yes.  The baby suffers no ill effects at all.  In fact, it is really a benefit to the child.  This child will certainly be resurrected onto a paradise earth.  That is a much better beginning that it would have otherwise had.  If I had died as a new born I would be much better off than I am right now.

As for the couple's suffering, I think it is sort of fitting.

In the New Testament?  Jesus is a fairly hoopy frood - in a way that most modern Christians don't bother noticing.  He absolutely, bluntly, tells everyone how to behave, and nobody pays it any attention:  you are supposed to give away all of your possessions and follow him, and God will provide.

Jesus was not teaching that everyone should give away their possessions.  He was teaching that a person must love him more than his riches.  If you have riches and you do love them more than him then yes you should give them away.  "If your eye causes you to sin then pluck it out......".  Obviously, the man in the story loved his riches more and Jesus already knew that.

Now I would like to take Alzael's advice and try to narrow the topic and explain my position.  This may have to wait until tomorrow, however.  For now I have some things to do.

[Omen]

When King David arranged the death of Bathsheba's husband, God punished him by killing his new-born son.

Does that seem ethical to you?

Yes.  The baby suffers no ill effects at all.

Except that whole death thing.

This child will certainly be resurrected onto a paradise earth. ..

Ah so the bible says you will go to heaven if you don't believe?

Or.. are you just making this up to rationalize the story away?

[One Above All]

Yes.  The baby suffers no ill effects at all.  In fact, it is really a benefit to the child.

Religion. Justifying murder since ~200,000 BCE.

[nogodsforme]

Sooo, Jst, that means you are pro-abortion now? Or just pro-miscarriage, since that is god's abortion method of choice?

[jeremy0]

I will refer to this - 'treat others as you would have them treat you'.  Now let's see how many of you can agree on just what morality 'law' that means...  ready, go!

[Omen]

If god is good when he does not kill babies and god is good when he kills babies, then what is good if nothing at all?

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Ah so the bible says you will go to heaven if you don't believe?

No the Bible says that the time is coming in which ALL those in memorial tombs will come out and the dead will rise.  They will not rise into heaven.  They will rise back to the earth.  This child will be among them.  The 1000 year reign of Jesus will begin next.  This will be "Judgement Day".

The Bible does show that there are exceptions to "ALL".

1.  Adam and Eve will not be resurrected.
2.  Those that God has personally destroyed or had destroyed will not be resurrected.
3.  Those that commit the unforgivable sin will not be resurrected.
4.  Those that are destroyed during Armageddon will not be resurrected.
5.  Anyone else that God has for his own reasons deems beyond redemption. 

Everyone else, the good, the bad, the ugly, all those pre-christian except those fitting the rules above will be resurrected.  It should be noted that it is nearly, if not completely, impossible for a nonbeliever to commit the unforgivable sin.  Really, in the greatest sense, ignorance is an excuse for breaking the law unless that ignorance is intentional.

Sooo, Jst, that means you are pro-abortion now? Or just pro-miscarriage, since that is god's abortion method of choice?

No this is not so.  Miscarriages happen because of defects or other accidents.  These defects and accidents exist because man is not under the rulership of God.  Why would God help humans do something that they were never designed to do and cannot do?  In other words why would God help humans fail?  All this death, suffering, war, is all God's evidence that humankind cannot succeed without him.  However the more evidence he allows to gather the more humans come to hate him.  This was prophesied.  But the reason can now be seen to be because people don't understand why there is so much suffering.  At least this is part of the reason.

You need to understand if humankind would just admit failure this would all be over with.  But they won't, not even if humankind was drawing it's last breath.  And this is why God doesn't heal amputees.

 

[Omen]

Ah so the bible says you will go to heaven if you don't believe?

No the Bible says ..

You say the bible says lots of things, I've never seen you back it up.

You need to understand if humankind would just admit failure this would all be over with.  But they won't, not even if humankind was drawing it's last breath.  And this is why God doesn't heal amputees.

This is rhetorical nonsense.  I'm not indoctrinated into your mindless dogma, so I need you to give me a more informative answer then just listing things you've arbitrarily made up.  Your credibility sinks the second you resort to evoking platitudes or spewing out a litany of baseless propaganda.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

You say the bible says lots of things, I've never seen you back it up.

No I haven't.  I was awaiting such time that our understanding of the Bible departed from one another.  I guess that time is now.  This cannot be done in a simple paragraph or two however.

Is there one part from above you would like me to focus on first?

[Jstwebbrowsing]

And I need to make a correction.

1000 year reign begins first and then resurrection.

[Omen]

Is there one part from above you would like me to focus on first?

Last time you promised to do this you started a thread and promptly began lying about science/evolution.

I suggest starting a new thread and beginning with Genesis 1:1.

[One Above All]

Last time you promised to do this you started a thread and promptly began lying about science/evolution.

Yeah. I was promised a debate, Jstwebbrowsing.

[Omen]

And I need to make a correction.

1000 year reign begins first and then resurrection.

No worries.

None of this actually exists in Judaic Messianic Prophecy.  There are no gaps between the messiah arriving, leaving, and coming back again.  It is purely an unrelated completely contradictory bit of christian sophistry, where christians sweep unfulfilled prophecy under the unbiblical 'second coming'.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Is there one part from above you would like me to focus on first?

Last time you promised to do this you started a thread and promptly began lying about science/evolution.

I suggest starting a new thread and beginning with Genesis 1:1.

Understanding what happened in the early part of Genesis is vital to understaning why God allows suffering.  That is a good place to begin.  Give me some time.  May not make it until tomorrow.

[Omen]

Understanding what happened in the early part of Genesis is vital to understaning why God allows suffering.  That is a good place to begin.  Give me some time.  May not make it until tomorrow.

So we can expect you to provide evidence for your claims and account for contradictory evidence?

[kaziglu bey]

Understanding what happened in the early part of Genesis is vital to understaning why God allows suffering.

You see, WE understand what happened in Genesis. God lies, God threatens with death, God is afraid of competition, God decides to punish Adam and Eve for his mistakes, oh yeah and there's a FUCKING TALKING SNAKE!  Please, for the benefit of all of civilization, enroll yourself in a critical thinking course at your local college.

[HAL]

... and there's a FUCKING TALKING SNAKE! 

Right, it's not enough to tell them to not eat from the tree, He (Big Dummy) has to push it with a bad actor. Isn't that what we would call entrapment these days? Proactively trying to get a person to break the law? Shameful behavior.

[Tinyal]

Yes.  The baby suffers no ill effects at all.  In fact, it is really a benefit to the child.  This child will certainly be resurrected onto a paradise earth.  That is a much better beginning that it would have otherwise had.  If I had died as a new born I would be much better off than I am right now.

As for the couple's suffering, I think it is sort of fitting.

The above paragraph is an example of what's sick with religious people - whoever believes such nonsense does't belong in a civilized society, and (in my view) all of us would be a lot better off if people who believe that crap were never to have been born.

I've heard similar sick views expressed by those who've been brainwashed as christian 'home schooled' kids, as well as someone I know who claims he quit doing drugs when the lawd came down and pooped on his head (or some such nonsense).

In my view, it's not many mental steps from that diseased statement to flying airplanes into buildings, or blowing up women & children.

Unthinking, brainwashed, immoral jerks raised in the shallow end of the gene pool - that's what I think of those who post this crap and actually believe it.

(I'm pissed off enough that I probably should stop posting to this....non-human person.  I shall just hope he/she/it never gets the chance to reproduce and infect anyone else with his sick views.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Yeah. I was promised a debate, Jstwebbrowsing.

I'm not sure a debate is the direction I wish to go at this time.  My intent at this time is to present the reasons that God allows suffering according to the Bible.  You could debate my interpretation of the Bible, but I think that would be about it.  My intent is not to prove if a snake talked, etc., etc., god exists.

[Omen]

I'm not sure a debate is the direction I wish to go at this time.  My intent at this time is to present the reasons that God allows suffering according to the Bible.

But you're NOT doing this.  Your rationalizing towards a presupposed contextual belief, having assumed it meaningfully true in the absence of any reason to believe it.  You're just babbling nonsense, delivering platitudes to an audience as if that audience believed you already.  No where have you began to support arguments by constructing valid inferences from justified premises to valid conclusions using evidence or references to biblical text.

You could debate my interpretation of the Bible, but I think that would be about it.  My intent is not to prove if a snake talked, etc., etc., god exists.

Either you can support your position or you can't.  This isn't a 1 sided conversation, as you arrogantly seem to believe it to be.  You don't possess the authority to declare your rationalizations true for anyone else and you will be taken to task for that brutally.  The bible is incredibly vague on many issues, ignoring the fact that evidence disagrees with biblical claims, we don't have to appeal to your own cognitive dissonance.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Yes.  The baby suffers no ill effects at all.  In fact, it is really a benefit to the child.  This child will certainly be resurrected onto a paradise earth.  That is a much better beginning that it would have otherwise had.  If I had died as a new born I would be much better off than I am right now.

As for the couple's suffering, I think it is sort of fitting.

The above paragraph is an example of what's sick with religious people - whoever believes such nonsense does't belong in a civilized society, and (in my view) all of us would be a lot better off if people who believe that crap were never to have been born.

I've heard similar sick views expressed by those who've been brainwashed as christian 'home schooled' kids, as well as someone I know who claims he quit doing drugs when the lawd came down and pooped on his head (or some such nonsense).

In my view, it's not many mental steps from that diseased statement to flying airplanes into buildings, or blowing up women & children.

Unthinking, brainwashed, immoral jerks raised in the shallow end of the gene pool - that's what I think of those who post this crap and actually believe it.

(I'm pissed off enough that I probably should stop posting to this....non-human person.  I shall just hope he/she/it never gets the chance to reproduce and infect anyone else with his sick views.

Don't talk to me about sick.  The only wars faithful witnesses for Jehovah have ever fought are recorded in the OT.  All the other came from your people.  We could talk about two world wars to begin with. 

[One Above All]

Unless "your people" means "everyone who isn't a JW", you're wrong.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Omen:  So then I must actually begin with "Does God Exist?"

[Omen]

All the other came from your people.  We could talk about two world wars to begin with. 

Going to have to add a complete ignorance of history to that list of things you don't know.  There has never been a war for or by 'atheism' and atheism is not a belief system that can be reasonably assigned to a conflict.

[Omen]

Omen:  So then I must actually begin with "Does God Exist?"

If you think you can without building poor arguments and lying about science again.

More correctly it should be, does A god exist, it should also include what a god is.. not to mention explain how you would know any of this.