What Good is the Bible

[Craig4]

This is an idea that occurred to me reading and commenting on the slavery thread. The only time you would really need the Bible to justify anything is if you wanted to do something immoral. You don't need a Bible to justify being nice to people, not owning slaves, not engaging in sex acts with minors, not taking their stuff... In our present society the immorality of these things is self evident. So, we're left with not needing the Bible for moral guidance unless we want to do something that is self evidently immoral to most people.

 

[MG1962]

This is an idea that occurred to me reading and commenting on the slavery thread. The only time you would really need the Bible to justify anything is if you wanted to do something immoral. You don't need a Bible to justify being nice to people, not owning slaves, not engaging in sex acts with minors, not taking their stuff... In our present society the immorality of these things is self evident. So, we're left with not needing the Bible for moral guidance unless we want to do something that is self evidently immoral to most people.

And where do you think that came from?

 

[Craig4]

The evolutionary nature of moral standards. It was once okay to stone your son to death for disobedience. Human values changed over time and that stopped being okay. The practice was not successful so it eventually stopped.

 

[HansMustermann]

And where do you think that came from?

What do you think _opposition_ to those was based on? Hint: the same bible. E.g., for the topic of owning slaves, the support for it in the OT actually helped delay abolitionism and was _the_ #1 argument against abolitionism or emancipation.

 

[bluskool]

If you treat it as literature, I think the bible is certainly useful. So much of western culture (theatre, literature, etc.) wouldn't make sense without a decent knowledge of the bible.

 

[Craig4]

If you treat it as literature, I think the bible is certainly useful. So much of western culture (theatre, literature, etc.) wouldn't make sense without a decent knowledge of the bible.

I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be read. It should only be read for the reasons you stated. I'm just saying it's of no moral value for someone living today.

 

[!Kaggen]

If you treat it as literature, I think the bible is certainly useful. So much of western culture (theatre, literature, etc.) wouldn't make sense without a decent knowledge of the bible.

As a farmer the idea of throwing seeds on fertile ground rather than on rocky soil is nice

 

[bluskool]

I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be read. It should only be read for the reasons you stated. I'm just saying it's of no moral value for someone living today.

Nope.

 

[Cainkane1]

And where do you think that came from?

The bible doesn't have self evident morality unless you think its moral to abandon your familys and follow you like Jesus said for the diciples to do or if you are against rape or child abuse the bible isn't the place to go for guidence unless you feel that its ok for bears to shred children to death for making fun of some bald headed guy or if you think its ok to carry off virgin girls after you've murdered their mothers and fathers, married sisters and brothers.

 

[Wowbagger]

I don't think people who claim to get their morals from the Bible really do so.

They get their morals from the same place as everyone else. They just don't realize it.

Morality is a complex interaction of societal expectations, innate human concepts, and the need to justify past actions.

But, to unravel how this all plays out gets rather complicated. So, the human mind will often like to think that there must be an Ultimate Source for where morality comes from.

Saying "Do this because The Book says so" is a lot easier than "Do this because the emergent behavior of human societies has lead us to think this is the best course of action for our own health and self-interests and such like that; though it could change as these factors continue to evolve."

That is what the Bible is "good" for.

 

[mactonite]

The evolutionary nature of moral standards. It was once okay to stone your son to death for disobedience. Human values changed over time and that stopped being okay. The practice was not successful so it eventually stopped.

I also think that people in the past started questioning these biblical ethics, even when in danger of being persecuted or worse by authoritative figures. For example, medieval times.

 

[Dani]

Wow, bagger, you really summed it up pretty well!

I agree with you. It's funny to see that the disagreements regarding moral questions among people from the same religion can be as strong as it would be expected among non religious people.

Simplicity is an important factor of the success of moral absolutism.

 

[bluskool]

I don't think people who claim to get their morals from the Bible really do so.

They get their morals from the same place as everyone else. They just don't realize it.

Exactly, and this is why the bible mentions homosexuality maybe three times, yet evangelical Christians seem to think it's God's number 1 concern. You don't selfishness or excess showing up on too many ballot initiatives.

 

[MG1962]

What do you think _opposition_ to those was based on? Hint: the same bible. E.g., for the topic of owning slaves, the support for it in the OT actually helped delay abolitionism and was _the_ #1 argument against abolitionism or emancipation.

Could you reference me something on that please?

 

[SumDood]

This is an idea that occurred to me reading and commenting on the slavery thread. The only time you would really need the Bible to justify anything is if you wanted to do something immoral. You don't need a Bible to justify being nice to people, not owning slaves, not engaging in sex acts with minors, not taking their stuff... In our present society the immorality of these things is self evident. So, we're left with not needing the Bible for moral guidance unless we want to do something that is self evidently immoral to most people.

I always thought the whole 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' is a pretty darn good rule of thumb.

 

[mactonite]

Could you reference me something on that please?

Yes. I would like a reference too. I am not saying Hans' point is false, its just a mighty big statement that needs backup.

 

[Lanzy]

I comes in handy when I find one in a hotel, it helps balance the desk by putting it under the wobbly leg.

 

[I Ratant]

I always thought the whole 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' is a pretty darn good rule of thumb.

.
Most every culture on the planet runs starts at that square.
It was law before there were Hebrews.

 

[TimCallahan]

Once when I was a hospital corpsman in the Navy, I was giving a guy ultrasound treatments to break up a ganglion, in this case a swollen jumble of nerve cells, not to be confused with the ordinary functional ganglia in the nervous system. The doctor who ordered the treatment told me that in the old days the cells were dispersed in a rather ungentle manner, namely that the doctor would clobber the ganglion with a large relatively heavy object - usually, particularly in frontier households, the family Bible. Hence, it was called the "Bible cure."

So, you see, there is - or at least was - a use for the Bible.

 

[mactonite]

Once when I was a hospital corpsman in the Navy, I was giving a guy ultrasound treatments to break up a ganglion, in this case a swollen jumble of nerve cells, not to be confused with the ordinary functional ganglia in the nervous system. The doctor who ordered the treatment told me that in the old days the cells were dispersed in a rather ungentle manner, namely that the doctor would clobber the ganglion with a large relatively heavy object - usually, particularly in frontier households, the family Bible. Hence, it was called the "Bible cure."

So, you see, there is - or at least was - a use for the Bible.

Now there is good use of the bible.