Morality

[undercoverbrother]

I would like to keep the conversation going.  But look at the above quote and tell me who was being 'snarky'.  You called me an 'outsider' which I took to mean that I could not possibly know what I'm talking about since I know nothing about being christian.  I will be happy to compare my bible study against you or any of your typical christians.  I have been to many churches and was the board president of one for a year and vp for another year. Your other comment--"I don't expect anything out of you." I took to mean that I was probably too dense or biased to understand anyway.  That quote above did not seem to be any kind of conversation starter or displaying a wish to continue. 

Since you don't think my comments were accurate, please tell me why.

That is a lot to infer from what so wrote, but I assure you that I have not looked at you in the way you've described.

The reason I said I don't expect anything out of you is because of your comment saying, "Do you expect me..."

As far as the "outsider" statement goes, consider it a compliment. It is taken from the book "Why I Became an Atheist."

I don't have time now, but I will address the inaccuracies later.

Have a good day.

[Solomon Zorn]

Don't underestimate the importance of this question to the foundations of religious liberty, including the freedom to do without a religion.

It is the belief that the Bible is infallible, which motivates the followers of the right wing of Christianity to try to impose their dogmas on the rest of the world.  Their greatest thinkers on the subject, teach that objective morality is from God, via the Bible. It is our responsibility to dissuade them of this notion, in the name of our own freedom.

I see three parts to this:

1. Show the Bible is imperfect.
2. Show the real nature and origin of morality.
3. Show a humanist morality is more workable than a Biblical one.

I think we have covered it well.

But there is one more thing that we haven't discussed: immorality, by which I mean when a person goes against his conscience and does the wrong thing, knowing it is wrong. I think, for the majority, this is what happened in Germany. Not that their morals were so out of whack, but that they were motivated to override their consciences (in many cases by fear, no doubt).

[undercoverbrother]

Since you don't think my comments were accurate, please tell me why.

The reason I chimed in on your slavery comment in the first place is because it does not show a full reading of the Scripturesâ€"only showing the negative aspects of it. At least one of the reasons for slavery in the Bible was to provide a means of credit transactions in an undeveloped world. Slavery back in those days was not altogether like it in the USA's recent past.

Regarding my comment about you being close to committing a genetic fallacy, a genetic fallacy is when all data is rejected from a source that has been shown to be faulty and honest in the past. In other words, don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Brushing aside any merit Christianity has in favor of your highly polarized position does not represent the reality of Christianity in the real world and what the Bible really has to say.

Let me put this another way. To say that  the Bible does not forbid slavery leaves one very susceptible to import the modern meaning of slavery in the the old form of it.

Speaking obviously here, slavery there in ancient Israel is not the same kind of slavery that was going on in the American South. Just saying.

[Solomon Zorn]

I'm bored, Stealthy One, so I'm butting in on your discussion:

At least one of the reasons for slavery in the Bible was to provide a means of credit transactions in an undeveloped world.

Your talking about indentured servitude. I agree the whole “Bible supports slavery” case is weak, from a logical perspective, but since when do Christians use logic?

To say that  the Bible does not forbid slavery leaves one very susceptible to import the modern meaning of slavery in the the old form of it.

This is exactly what the slave owners were doing, in the American south, to  justify their economy. Subjectively interpreting the scripture. Bad scholarship? No kidding. But that's how they used the “objective bible” to support their unconscionable morality.

Brushing aside any merit Christianity has in favor of your highly polarized position does not represent the reality of Christianity in the real world and what the Bible really has to say.

There is no objective Christianity. So what the Bible really has to say is subjective. In the real world it is a  lot of different sects with different subjective opinions about the Bible as well as different Bibles. My favorite Bible is the Skeptic's Annotated N.I.V., which lists over 400 self contradictions in the N.I.V.

[aitm]

Speaking obviously here, slavery there in ancient Israel is not the same kind of slavery that was going on in the American South. Just saying.

hey look we found one! Remember when ole jebus promised that not all of those of his generation would die before he returned? Well, I'll be got dammed this old charley is one of the originals. He must be because he claims to know how the slaves back in the day when you could kill your kid for being stubborn were treated….well, we must admit that the proof of one who was actually there must be acknowledged eh? So please tell us old man, how many times could you rape and beat your slave before you had to set her free?

[undercoverbrother]

hey look we found one! Remember when ole jebus promised that not all of those of his generation would die before he returned? Well, I'll be got dammed this old charley is one of the originals. He must be because he claims to know how the slaves back in the day when you could kill your kid for being stubborn were treated….well, we must admit that the proof of one who was actually there must be acknowledged eh? So please tell us old man, how many times could you rape and beat your slave before you had to set her free?

I'm so glad I read that.

[undercoverbrother]

I'm bored, Stealthy One, so I'm butting in on your discussion:
Your talking about indentured servitude. I agree the whole “Bible supports slavery” case is weak, from a logical perspective, but since when do Christians use logic?

This is exactly what the slave owners were doing, in the American south, to  justify their economy. Subjectively interpreting the scripture. Bad scholarship? No kidding. But that's how they used the “objective bible” to support their unconscionable morality.

There is no objective Christianity. So what the Bible really has to say is subjective. In the real world it is a  lot of different sects with different subjective opinions about the Bible as well as different Bibles. My favorite Bible is the Skeptic's Annotated N.I.V., which lists over 400 self contradictions in the N.I.V.

I was surprised to find the Skeptic's Annotated Bible was not that great. I would never tacitly authorize all 400 contradictions in that Bible. When I read it last time, it seemed like it was inaccurate way too much. I found many apparent contradictions that where not contradictions at all. The author does not even know how to read the creation narrativeâ€"a simple task really. If the Bible appears wrong in the slightest, it calls out, "Contradiction!" With no apparent forethought.

[Solomon Zorn]

Some of his contradictions are weak, but you can't just dismiss all of them. I'm willing to modify the number of actual contradictions.

And please explain to us this special way of reading the creation narrative.

[Mike Cl]

I was surprised to find the Skeptic's Annotated Bible was not that great. I would never tacitly authorize all 400 contradictions in that Bible. When I read it last time, it seemed like it was inaccurate way too much. I found many apparent contradictions that where not contradictions at all. The author does not even know how to read the creation narrativeâ€"a simple task really. If the Bible appears wrong in the slightest, it calls out, "Contradiction!" With no apparent forethought.

Ah!  You have really piqued my interest with your comment about the creation narrative.  I see them as two totally different stories.  How do you reconcile them?  Don't be afraid to give me homework.  You can list a bible edition and a list of verses to read if you like and I'll do it.  I'm willing to look more deeply into any subject and see if there is any reason for me to change my mind.

[undercoverbrother]

Ah!  You have really piqued my interest with your comment about the creation narrative.  I see them as two totally different stories.  How do you reconcile them?  Don't be afraid to give me homework.  You can list a bible edition and a list of verses to read if you like and I'll do it.  I'm willing to look more deeply into any subject and see if there is any reason for me to change my mind.

I'm not an advocate for bible study anymore.

[missingnocchi]

Fear of legal ramifications is the only thing that keeps me from my lifelong dream of being a serial killer. It's that dratted original sin, dontchaknow.

[Mike Cl]

I'm not an advocate for bible study anymore.

Really???!  Then the document that you derive your morals from you don't study????  Pardon me, but that doesn't make sense to me.

[undercoverbrother]

Really???!  Then the document that you derive your morals from you don't study????  Pardon me, but that doesn't make sense to me.

That's because you don't read very carefully. You must think I'm a Christian because only Christians get their morals from the Bible. I'm not a Christian at all. Christianity doesn't make any sense to me and I have a lot of gripes about it.

I guess I have a right to be annoyed with you, but whatever. Just read me more carefully.

[Sal1981]

I see a problem here.  Remember that Group B consists of people who have interacted together and belief that the holocaust is morally right.  For this group of people, they sincerely believe that there is NO harm being done to the Jewish people.  Since the Jewish people, are not really 'people' in their eyes.  However, Group A has interacted together and believes that there IS harm being done to the Jewish people.  We have two groups here.  One says there is harm being done (A), and one says there is no harm being done (B).  Which group then should we take sides on?

Wrong. Harm is a very real & quantifiable metric.  That you choose to ignore it and simply equivocate "harm" with your obtuse "morals" is your loss.

Also, in psychotherapy (at least some of the theories within psychotherapy), Pain is a very real metric, same as Harm. Again, that you fail to acknowledge it is not my problem.

[Qchan]

Wrong. Harm is a very real & quantifiable metric.  That you choose to ignore it and simply equivocate "harm" with your obtuse "morals" is your loss.

Also, in psychotherapy (at least some of the theories within psychotherapy), Pain is a very real metric, same as Harm. Again, that you fail to acknowledge it is not my problem.

Harm is quantifiable? Let me ask this question then, so I can _measure_ where your morals lie...

A train is speeding down a track. Further up the track, there are 5 people stuck on the rail and cannot get free. However, several hundred feet between the train and the people, you and a very large man are standing on a platform above the rail. Here are your choices.

1) Push the man in front of the train, forcing it to slow down or stop, and thus saving the 5 people.
2) Do nothing and let the train kill the 5 people.

Those are the only choices. Which one would you choose?