[ETWolverine]

The bible does not teach morality, it teaches and embraces the worst immorality. It's no moral compass for anything.

Good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things but if you want good people to do bad things you need religion.

Really?

What Bible have you been reading?

The Old Testament Bible gives a clear set of rules to live by. It also teaches morality lessons by telling stories of those who lived by those rules and prospered, and those who BROKE those rules and suffered harsh consequences.

The Israelites who had sexual relations with the Moabite women acted immorally. The consequence was a PLAGUE.

Elijah the prophet lived by the Law, and as a consequence, G-d protected him from attack by evil soldiers.

When David took Bethsheba by causing Uria to be killed in battle, the consequence was the death of his first child from Bethsheba.

Moses hit the rock instead of speaking to the rock to bring water. He disobeyed G-d in doing so. His punishment was to never enter the Land of Israel, to die in the desert.

All of these are morality lessons... those who do good prosper, those who do evil suffer the consequences of their actions. All of them teach the lesson that actions have consequences, both for good and for bad. The pattern of these lessons is clear throughout the entire Bible (at least in the Old Testament... being Jewish, I cannot comment on the New Testament).

Which part of the OT Bible do you believe DOESN'T follow that pattern?

Elliot

[jakester]

Really?

What Bible have you been reading?

The Old Testament Bible gives a clear set of rules to live by. It also teaches morality lessons by telling stories of those who lived by those rules and prospered, and those who BROKE those rules and suffered harsh consequences.

The Israelites who had sexual relations with the Moabite women acted immorally. The consequence was a PLAGUE.

Elijah the prophet lived by the Law, and as a consequence, G-d protected him from attack by evil soldiers.

When David took Bethsheba by causing Uria to be killed in battle, the consequence was the death of his first child from Bethsheba.

Moses hit the rock instead of speaking to the rock to bring water. He disobeyed G-d in doing so. His punishment was to never enter the Land of Israel, to die in the desert.

All of these are morality lessons... those who do good prosper, those who do evil suffer the consequences of their actions. All of them teach the lesson that actions have consequences, both for good and for bad. The pattern of these lessons is clear throughout the entire Bible (at least in the Old Testament... being Jewish, I cannot comment on the New Testament).

Which part of the OT Bible do you believe DOESN'T follow that pattern?

Elliot

Elliot - I totally agree with you. Judging by cadillac's quote (by Bertrand Russell, no less), the bible is morally repugnant because of its language regarding punishment and sin... probably the Law of Moses, where stoning was required for certain sins. These are the kinds of things people like Bertrand Russell point to when they charge the bible as being the worst societal evil facing mankind.

But I suspect that sentiment runs deep like that because Bertrand Russell liked his moral depravity and hated to hear anything that would call his life into shame... at our worst, people are very petty and hate when people tell them they are wrong.

You may or may not agree with me on that but I think it is why people can find it plausible to believe that the "...bible does not teach morality, it teaches and embraces the worst immorality."

[galveston]

John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and an author of the landmark "Federalist Papers": "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers - and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation - to select and prefer Christians for their rulers".

The Supreme Court in 1892: "Our lives and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian."

American jurisprudence in 1947, for the first time used a phrase coined by Thomas Jefferson about a "wall of separation between church and state" and was used to deny some specific religious expression - contrary to Jefferson' s intent with that statement.

[cadillac59]

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion." - Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in physics

If you're going to quote someone, please reference properly, thanks. I think I agree with the point he tried to make when saying that, though.

However it's important to note that religion can also make bad people do good things, if only through the fear of god.

(Not that I really subscribe to the view of identifying 'good' or 'bad' people)

Thanks for the reference. I heard Christopher Hitchens say this while he was quoting Weinberg, but he left out the reference himself.

[cadillac59]

Elliot - I totally agree with you. Judging by cadillac's quote (by Bertrand Russell, no less), the bible is morally repugnant because of its language regarding punishment and sin...probably the Law of Moses, where stoning was required for certain sins. These are the kinds of things people like Bertrand Russell point to when they charge the bible as being the worst societal evil facing mankind.

But I suspect that sentiment runs deep like that because Bertrand Russell liked his moral depravity and hated to hear anything that would call his life into shame...at our worst, people are very petty and hate when people tell them they are wrong.

You may or may not agree with me on that but I think it is why people can find it plausible to believe that the "...bible does not teach morality, it teaches and embraces the worst immorality."

I could spend many hours I suppose digging out examples of immorality in the bible (it's acceptance of slavery and genocide come to mind) but I think you know where I am going with this. It all seems to come down to the supposed moral lesson of "do as god tells you or else", which isn't a moral lesson at all. It's a lesson of totalitarianism. It's a confusion over the distinction between morality and power.

You mentioned stoning people for supposed "sins"-- offenses toward the totalitarian god in the sky. That's immorality. There's no moral lesson there.

Other moral confusion (no surprise since it is coming out of bronze age Palestine): the 10 Commandments. Sure, only a fool needs to be told it's wrong to steal and lie. But where's the moral offense to covetousness? There's nothing wrong with wanting something someone else has.

[inthebox]

Gosh, I couldn't disagree more. I think our morality evolved in spite of Christianity and Judaism, not because of it.

Please cite proof that morality evolved? I linked to an article showing what parts of the brain are involved in "morality," but tell me what specific genes are involved in morality and how over 10s and 100s of thousands they developed and what were the selective factors for them? Just a theory right?

Now if morality truly "evolved," how can we judge as bad, the actions of a sociopath, that does not have a developed part of the brain?





G&P

[inthebox]

I could spend many hours I suppose digging out examples of immorality in the bible (it's acceptance of slavery and genocide come to mind) but I think you know where I am going with this. It all seems to come down to the supposed moral lesson of "do as god tells you or else", which isn't a moral lesson at all. It's a lesson of totalitarianism. It's a confusion over the distinction between morality and power.

You mentioned stoning people for supposed "sins"-- offenses toward the totalitarian god in the sky. That's immorality. There's no moral lesson there.

Other moral confusion (no surprise since it is coming out of bronze age Palestine): the 10 Commandments. Sure, only a fool needs to be told it's wrong to steal and lie. But where's the moral offense to covetousness? There's nothing wrong with wanting something someone else has.

Yes there is immorality in the bible, but bad behavior is possible by ALL people are at times good and at times bad, regardless of belief. David in the OT is an example, Romans 7 speaks of this also.

It is truly tyrannical to think that a "good" person will always do good, and a "bad" people will always do bad.

A truly tyrant of a God, would either not care enough of us to make his presence known, or just damn us all from the start. But the God of the OT and NT loves his people, to teach, to discipline and to use his power to save.






G&P

[cadillac59]

Yes there is immorality in the bible, but bad behavior is possible by ALL people are at times good and at times bad, regardless of belief. David in the OT is an example, Romans 7 speaks of this also.

It is truly tyrannical to think that a "good" person will always do good, and a "bad" people will always do bad.

A truly tyrant of a God, would either not care enough of us to make his presence known, or just damn us all from the start. But the God of the OT and NT loves his people, to teach, to discipline and to use his power to save.






G&P

No. A tyrant of a god would expect and demand obedience, convict you for your mere thoughts, conduct a 24 hour invigilation of everything you do and say, never leave you alone, never allow you to be free of him and condemn you to everlasting torment for not believing in him. This is the god of the bible.

On top of that the entire salvation myth is childish rubbish: god the father sacrifices god the son (never mind the convoluted nonsense of the trinity) so he can feel himself able to forgive mankind. Does that make any sense? Ah. No.

[simoneaugie]

Without the contrast of good and bad, neither would exist. Morality wouldn't matter. If good and bad did not exist we would be unable to experience them.

If the ego were not so terrified of death, would we even care about morality? I believe that death is a reward, not a final punishment. If this is true then killing one another is the giving of a gift. This discussion is intellectual. Thinking is only one of our capabilities.

Morality does not spring from the mind.

[cadillac59]

Without the contrast of good and bad, neither would exist. Morality wouldn't matter. If good and bad did not exist we would be unable to experience them.

If the ego were not so terrified of death, would we even care about morality? I believe that death is a reward, not a final punishment. If this is true then killing one another is the giving of a gift. This discussion is intellectual. Thinking is only one of our capabilities.

Morality does not spring from the mind.

Morality serves a purpose and furthers the peaceful coexistence of persons. You can analyze it as a conflict of desires, as Bertrand Russell does, or see it as evolving to further the collective good. One thing is certain is that it comes from the mind, it doesn't come from some external god in the sky. We don't need god to be moral or to know right from wrong. In fact, quite to the contrary, we are far more likely to be moral and act morally when we leave religion out of it.

[ETWolverine]

I could spend many hours I suppose digging out examples of immorality in the bible (it's acceptance of slavery and genocide come to mind) but I think you know where I am going with this. It all seems to come down to the supposed moral lesson of "do as god tells you or else", which isn't a moral lesson at all. It's a lesson of totalitarianism. It's a confusion over the distinction between morality and power.

First of all, slavery as described in the bible is not the same a slavery during the civil war era. A "slave" in the bible was a man-servant and emplyess, not a whipping boy. The Bible actually talks about the protections of "slaves", and the responsibility of the "master" toward his slave... including punishments for the master is the slave was hurt in any way. The morality lesson there, which you miss, is about the responsibility of an employer toward his employee, regardless of their relative status within the community.

As for "genocide", please keep in mind that the only group that was to be fully destroyed was the Amalekites... and that was their punishment for attempting genocide against the Israelites as they were leaving Egypt. Again, this is a morality lesson completely lost on you... the lesson that you reap what you sow.

You mentioned stoning people for supposed "sins"-- offenses toward the totalitarian god in the sky. That's immorality. There's no moral lesson there.

Actually, I didn't mention stoning. You did. However since you brought it up...

If you take a look at the offenses for which stoning was required as punishment, every single one of them was something that threatened the continuation of the Israelite people, either physically or spiritually. For instance, adultery, gay relationships, and other sexual sins were actually offenses against the Israelites' existence because they threatened the safety of women, threatened the ability of men and women to create future generations of Israelites, or broke apart marriages which are the basic foundation of Jewish life. To threaten any of these is to threaten the future of the nation. These were offenses against the NATION, not against G-d. And they were punishable by death for that reason.

Similarly, idol-worship was a direct threat to the CULTURAL FUTURE of Israel. To worship false gods is to attack the Jewish Identity at its core. Again, this was an existential threat to the Israelite people, and was treated as such. Those who worshiped idols were stoned, not because they offended G-d, but because they were a threat to the Israelite PEOPLE. And they were punishable by death for that reason.

Again, these are moral lessons that have been lost on you... the fact that certain actions ARE threats to our way of life, and that such actions have consequences.

Other moral confusion (no surprise since it is coming out of bronze age Palestine): the 10 Commandments. Sure, only a fool needs to be told it's wrong to steal and lie. But where's the moral offense to covetousness? There's nothing wrong with wanting something someone else has.

There is if it causes you to take ACTION to take it from him.

Oh... did you think that they were just talking about wanting the same car as your next door neighbor? There's no sin in that.

No... the problem is with wanting your next door neighbors car... not one like it, that specific one, and planning to manipulate the situation so that it falls into your hands. THAT is where the sin lies.

Wanting the same things that someone else has is actually a good thing... it motivates you to try harder, to accomplish more. The problem is when you want that specific thing (not just one like it) and are willing to do whatever it takes to make sure it comes into your possession, no matter how unethical.

A good example is a con man. Con men, the real pros, the "grifters", take pride in never "stealing" anything. Their victims GIVE them whatever they want. They manipulate the victims into doing their bidding and making the victim think that it is in their own best interest to do so, oftentimes without telling a single lie in the process. They manipulate situations. Con men are covetous people. They haven't "stolen" anything... everything they get has been given to them. But they are manipulators, and they are thieves nonetheless.

When a man becomes so desirous that he is willing to do ANYTHING to get what he wants... that is a sin.

But you missed that moral lesson as well. All because you are convinced that it was never there in the first place.

The Bible is full of moral lessons. The very things you point out as being immoral are the very moral lessons you are missing.

Elliot

[galveston]

Morality serves a purpose and furthers the peaceful coexistence of persons. You can analyze it as a conflict of desires, as Bertrand Russell does, or see it as evolving to further the collective good. One thing is certain is that it comes from the mind, it doesn't come from some external god in the sky. We don't need god to be moral or to know right from wrong. In fact, quite to the contrary, we are far more likely to be moral and act morally when we leave religion out of it.

Then perhaps you would be so kind as to explain the Bolshivek revolution and the nation that sprang from it?

God, Bible, and all religion was abolished there, and the results are there in history for all to see. Human life had no value unless it was to the advantage of the state. Freedom did not exist. You charge that the Bible endorsed slavery, yet all citizens of the USSR, an Atheistic country, were slaves.

Is that moral?

Would you rather live in a Communist country, where no God is acknoledged, or in this one where 70% of the people say they are Christians?

Give us your HONEST answer.

[ETWolverine]

Morality serves a purpose and furthers the peaceful coexistence of persons. You can analyze it as a conflict of desires, as Bertrand Russell does, or see it as evolving to further the collective good.

Really?

After all I have mentioned about the moral system of the Asatru, the Huns, the Mongols, etc. you are going to tell us that the purpose of morality is for us to live in peace?

Pure BS. And demonstrably so, based on history. Morality and peace have RARELY co-existed. The only points in history in which they did are part of the judeo-christian moral system and history.

One thing is certain is that it comes from the mind, it doesn't come from some external god in the sky. We don't need god to be moral or to know right from wrong. In fact, quite to the contrary, we are far more likely to be moral and act morally when we leave religion out of it.

Actually, you are the first person in this thread to mention G-d. Everyone else here has mentioned RELIGION and CULTURE as the source of morality. But you are the first one to mention G-d as the source of morality.

Note the OP: "Morality and RELIGION", not "Morality and G-d".

There's a HUGE difference between "religion" and "God". One is an entity. The other is a set of tools to try to connect with that entity.

What we are talking about is using those tools to develop a system of morality. YOU are talking about the ENTITY creating that moral system.

Seems to me that you are trying to prove we are wrong about something we didn't even say. None of us have said that morality came from G-d any more than any of us said that morality came from Odin or Budha or Ra. That's YOUR interpretation, and it is an incorrect one.

My argument, going back to the OP, is that without RELIGION, morality as we know it would not exist. My proof is that under other religions, different moral systems developed that were very dissimilar from our own system. Others have argued that in places and times where there was no religion, morality was either very different or non-existent.

Can you refute any of these points? Do you have anything to add to that discussion? Or are you still so angry at G-d that you need to harp on his supposed lack of morality (despite having had the morality of the Bible shoved in your face) to prove we are wrong about something we never even said?

Elliot

[cadillac59]

First of all, slavery as described in the bible is not the same a slavery during the civil war era. A "slave" in the bible was a man-servant and emplyess, not a whipping boy. The Bible actually talks about the protections of "slaves", and the responsibility of the "master" toward his slave... including punishments for the master is the slave was hurt in any way. The morality lesson there, which you miss, is about the responsibility of an employer toward his employee, regardless of their relative status within the community.

As for "genocide", please keep in mind that the only group that was to be fully destroyed was the Amalekites... and that was their punishment for attempting genocide against the Israelites as they were leaving Egypt. Again, this is a morality lesson completely lost on you... the lesson that you reap what you sow.



Actually, I didn't mention stoning. You did. However since you brought it up...

If you take a look at the offenses for which stoning was required as punishment, every single one of them was something that threatened the continuation of the Israelite people, either physically or spiritually. For instance, adultery, gay relationships, and other sexual sins were actually offenses against the Israelites' existence because they threatened the safety of women, threatened the ability of men and women to create future generations of Israelites, or broke apart marriages which are the basic foundation of Jewish life. To threaten any of these is to threaten the future of the nation. These were offenses against the NATION, not against G-d. And they were punishable by death for that reason.

Similarly, idol-worship was a direct threat to the CULTURAL FUTURE of Israel. To worship false gods is to attack the Jewish Identity at its core. Again, this was an existential threat to the Israelite people, and was treated as such. Those who worshiped idols were stoned, not because they offended G-d, but because they were a threat to the Israelite PEOPLE. And they were punishable by death for that reason.

Again, these are moral lessons that have been lost on you... the fact that certain actions ARE threats to our way of life, and that such actions have consequences.



There is if it causes you to take ACTION to take it from him.

Oh... did you think that they were just talking about wanting the same car as your next door neighbor? There's no sin in that.

No... the problem is with wanting your next door neighbors car... not one like it, that specific one, and planning to manipulate the situation so that it falls into your hands. THAT is where the sin lies.

Wanting the same things that someone else has is actually a good thing... it motivates you to try harder, to accomplish more. The problem is when you want that specific thing (not just one like it) and are willing to do whatever it takes to make sure it comes into your posession, no matter how unethical.

A good example is a con man. Con men, the real pros, the "grifters", take pride in never "stealing" anything. Their victims GIVE them whatever they want. They manipulate the victims into doing their bidding and making the victim think that it is in their own best interest to do so, oftentimes without telling a single lie in the process. They manipulate situations. Con men are covetous people. They haven't "stolen" anything... everything they get has been given to them. But they are manipulators, and they are theives nonetheless.

When a man becomes so desirous that he is willing to do ANYTHING to get what he wants... that is a sin.

But you missed that moral lesson as well. All because you are convinced that it was never there in the first place.

The Bible is full of moral lessons. The very things you point out as being immoral are the very moral lessons you are missing.

Elliot

I've not missed any moral lesson in the bible because the bible has no moral lessons. It's not a source of moral teachings at all.

You say it doesn't condone slavery, like that of the antebellum South. It's still slavery and it's still immoral, even if it is some kinder gentler form that you claim the bible supports. I don't care what sort of constraints on it there were. Are you seriously arguing that the slaves of the bible were not real slaves, were not subjected to involuntary servitude? Come on.

You mention that only a little genocide was perpetrated and then on the Amalekites, who supposedly deserved it because they had done it themselves. Again, are you serious? You reap what you sow, is THAT the justification for murder (surely every Amalekite hadn't committed genocide-- the little babies too?) Please.

Of course, I could spend a lot of time addressing the absurd justification you came up with for stoning- (any offense that threatens the continuation of the Israelite people), but should I really have to? Take the case of gay relationships (I'm gay incidentally). It was okay to stone gays because they didn't reproduce and threatened the continuation of the Israelite people? First of all, who said they didn't reproduce? Second, and most importantly, how do gay relationships threaten anyone? Are you saying heteros will be converted into gays by simply leaving gay people alone? That's insane. You say the human race will die out because of gay relationships? NONSENSE and you know it! I could go on about adulterers but I'm sure you see the point.

The reason for the bizarre moral code of the bible is the pathetic and irrational fear men of that time and place obviously had that, were a rigid moral code oppressive to women not in place (banning pre-martial and extra-marital sex), god forbid some guy might not know who is true biological daddy was! Oh horrors!

The bible is full of moral lessons? No it isn't. The bible is childish rubbish. It stinks. It belongs in the dark ages of a thankfully bygone era.

[cadillac59]

Then perhaps you would be so kind as to explain the Bolshivek revolution and the nation that sprang from it?

God, Bible, and all religion was abolished there, and the results are there in history for all to see. Human life had no value unless it was to the advantage of the state. Freedom did not exist. You charge that the Bible endorsed slavery, yet all citizens of the USSR, an Atheistic country, were slaves.

Is that moral?

Would you rather live in a Communist country, where no God is acknoledged, or in this one where 70% of the people say they are Christians?

Give us your HONEST answer.

I'm not interested in debating living in the former USSR versus the US. That's not the point of anything I said.

How about living in a really non-religious society, like Denmark? Or The Netherlands? I could go for living in either of them.

Religion, religious beliefs harm people and harm society. They ought to have to post a warning sign in front of churches, "warning: entry into this facility and participation in the activities that take place herein may be hazardous to your physical and mental well-being." Too bad we can't have a federal law in the US mandating that sort of warning.

[cadillac59]

Really?

After all I have mentioned about the moral system of the Asatru, the Huns, the Mongols, etc., you are going to tell us that the purpose of morality is for us to live in peace?

Pure BS. And demonstrably so, based on history. Morality and peace have RARELY co-existed. The only points in history in which they did are part of the judeo-christian moral system and history.



Actually, you are the first person in this thread to mention G-d. Everyone else here has mentioned RELIGION and CULTURE as the source of morality. But you are the first one to mention G-d as the source of morality.

Note the OP: "Morality and RELIGION", not "Morality and G-d".

There's a HUGE difference between "religion" and "God". One is an entity. The other is a set of tools to try to connect with that entity.

What we are talking about is using those tools to develop a system of morality. YOU are talking about the ENTITY creating that moral system.

Seems to me that you are trying to prove we are wrong about something we didn't even say. None of us have said that morality came from G-d any more than any of us said that morality came from Odin or Budha or Ra. That's YOUR interpretation, and it is an incorrect one.

My argument, going back to the OP, is that without RELIGION, morality as we know it would not exist. My proof is that under other religions, different moral systems developed that were very dissimilar from our own system. Others have argued that in places and times where there was no religion, morality was either very different or non-existent.

Can you refute any of these points? Do you have anything to add to that discussion? Or are you still so angry at G-d that you need to harp on his supposed lack of morality (despite having had the morality of the Bible shoved in your face) to prove we are wrong about something we never even said?

Elliot

Okay, fair enough. You don't derive your morality from what you think god says, but from doing things you think pleases god (through religious practice). Is that what you are saying? That's what it sounds like. Because if you believe that it only serves to prove my point: that man creates his own morality. And what you seem to believe is consistent with what Bertrand Russell said about morality: a man may do good things to please god but he may do good things to please himself, or other people or for some other reason.

By the way, what's this "G-d" thing you do? Are you so afraid of your big bad immoral god in the sky that you are afraid to say his name ( I heard that somewhere)? Great religion. Great moral code. Believe that junk if you like, but keep it to yourself. Keep me out of it.

[ETWolverine]

I've not missed any moral lesson in the bible because the bible has no moral lessons. It's not a source of moral teachings at all.

You've made up your mind, facts only serve to confuse you.

You say it doesn't condone slavery, like that of the antebellum South. It's still slavery and it's still immoral, even if it is some kinder gentler form that you claim the bible supports.

A "slave" that is paid for his services and who has to be taken care of by his "master" isn't a slave. He's a "man-servant". A butler, if you will. You can call it slavery if you want, but it ain't what we refer to as slavery today.

I don't care what sort of constraints on it there were. Are you seriously arguing that the slaves of the bible were not real slaves, were not subjected to involuntary servitude? Come on.

That's EXACTLY what I'm saying. "Slaves" were people who took jobs as man-servants or maids in order to pay debts. They were employees. The exception to the rule was those captured in war, which were the minority of slaves... and THEY were under the same protections. But the majority of slaves were fellow Israelites who took jobs as servants to pay off debts. They were paid regular salaries, were protected, and where "freed" after a period of 7 years. If they chose to stay with their "masters" after the 7 year period, they were limited to only another 7 years of service (total of 14 years). They were actually forced OUT of slavery, not into it.

You really should read the Bible before you condemn it. You are stuck on your pre-conceived notions of slavery based on American history, not the facts of what actually happened in 1800 BC in Israel.

You mention that only a little genocide was perpetrated and then on the Amalekites, who supposedly deserved it because they had done it themselves. Again, are you serious? You reap what you sow, is THAT the justification for murder (surely every Amalekite hadn't committed genocide-- the little babies too?) Please.

Actually, every Amalekite HAD committed genocide, or attempted it. Did you think that it was only a few Amalekites who did this? It was every member of the Amalekite nation involved in the war. The men fought. The women were camp followers who supported their husbands and sons and fathers in their war effort. Their children were students of the fathers, learning how to commit acts of genocide as well. The entire nation was corrupt. And if Israel had actually followed through with the commandment to destroy Amalek, we probably would not be facing the problems we see today. It is the fact that Amalek survived the experience that led to the future of Israel's existence... it's destruction as a nation, its exile, the progroms, the Holocaust... all of it was caused by the survival of Amalek. If Amalek had been destroyed completely, as the Israelites were commanded, there would have been no nation that would have been brave enough to fight Israel for CENTURIES after that. The course of history would have changed completely. There never would have been a Persian/Babylonian exile or a Roman exile. Christianity would likely never have been born, because without the Roman exile, there would have been no need for that religion to pop up. Israel would have remained a strong nation with a strong land. The Holocaust would never have occurred. HISTORY CHANGED because Amalek survived.

Of course, I could spend a lot of time addressing the absurd justification you came up with for stoning- (any offense that threatens the continuation of the Israelite people), but should I really have to? Take the case of gay relationships (I'm gay incidentally).

Don't get all insulted with me. So's my brother. Your point?

It was okay to stone gays because they didn't reproduce and threatened the continuation of the Israelite people? First of all, who said they didn't reproduce?

Please tell me that you're not that ignorant of human biology.

Second, and most importantly, how do gay relationships threaten anyone? Are you saying heteros will be converted into gays by simply leaving gay people alone? That's insane.

No... what is insane is your inability (along with just about every other gay person I have ever met, including my brother) to understand that being gay threatens the CONCEPT of traditional marriage on which the entire Jewish cuture is based. If being gay were allowed, it would be a direct threat to the continued existence of the Jewish family, which in turn is a direct threat to the existence of Judaism as a religion and a culture. You may not like that fact, but it is still a fact.

You say the human race will die out because of gay relationships? NONSENSE and you know it! I could go on about adulterers but I'm sure you see the point.

Actually, I don't think that the human race will die out. From a purely sociological perspective, though, it will cause GAYS to die out. If being gay is a genetic thing (as so many gays would like us to believe)... something you are born with, then being in a gay monogamous relationship is DETRIMENTAL TO THE CONTINUATION OF THAT GENETIC FACTOR. Because being gay, you cannot have a child in a monogamous gay relationship. The only way to reproduce is through outside factors. Which means that that genetic factor that makes you gay, whatever it is, ends with YOU.

That's not an argument against you being gay. You want to be gay, be gay. It's an argument that your being gay doesn't matter... because the next generation, if you produce one, won't have that same genetic factor, whatever it is.

That is, of course, assuming that being gay is something you were born rather than a life choice.

But getting back to the Bible, the Bible clearly understood what youy miss... that being gay IS disruptive to a culture at its most basic levels.

The reason for the bizarre moral code of the bible is the pathetic and irrational fear men of that time and place obviously had that, were a rigid moral code oppressive to women not in place (banning pre-martial and extra-marital sex), god forbid some guy might not know who is true biological daddy was! Oh horrors!

The bible is full of moral lessons? No it isn't. The bible is childish rubbish. It stinks. It belongs in the dark ages of a thankfully bygone era.

Like I said, you've made up your mind... we don't want to confuse you with the facts.

The lessons are there if you are willing to see them. I've already proven that they are there. If you choose not to learn those lessons, that's your choice. But don't try to argue that they aren't there.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

Okay, fair enough. You don't derive your morality from what you think god says, but from doing things you think pleases god (through religious practice). Is that what you are saying? That's what it sounds like. Because if you believe that it only serves to prove my point: that man creates his own morality.

Not in a vacuum, he doesn't. It has to come about in a religious/cultural context.

And what you seem to believe is consistent with what Bertrand Russell said about morality: a man may do good things to please god but he may do good things to please himself, or other people or for some other reason.

What Russel continues to be unable to explain is why different forms of morality have come into exitence in different places and in different points of history. If man comes to morality in order to live in peace with his fellow man, as Russel claims, why have we had so little peace in history, despite the number of different forms of morality that have been in existence? And why have those cultures that have been the most non-religious also been the most ammoral (Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Communist China)? Russel seems unable to explain these things.

By the way, what's this "G-d" thing you do? Are you so afraid of your big bad immoral god in the sky that you are afraid to say his name ( I heard that somewhere)? Great religion. Great moral code. Believe that junk if you like, but keep it to yourself. Keep me out of it.

It's a religious thing... you wouldn't understand. It's not about fear. It's about RESPECT.

And I don't have to keep you out of it. You're doing that fine all by yourself.

Elliot

[inthebox]

Morality serves a purpose and furthers the peaceful coexistence of persons. You can analyze it as a conflict of desires, as Bertrand Russell does, or see it as evolving to further the collective good. One thing is certain is that it comes from the mind, it doesn't come from some external god in the sky. We don't need god to be moral or to know right from wrong. In fact, quite to the contrary, we are far more likely to be moral and act morally when we leave religion out of it.

If there is no religious, at least Judeo-Christian, influence on "morality," how do you explain the "peaceful co-existence," of warrior cultures, like ET mentioned?
Did the vikings, or barbarians, or Khan's mongols, or Alexander's Greeks "peacefully co-exist?" Their morality is based on victory, not defeat: on conquest, not submission.
Is it moral for one race to consider itself superior? Certainly they think they are "moral." Does that lead to "peaceful coexistence?" or such things as genocide? Let the history of humans speak for itself - Hitler, Rwanda, Darfur, all speak to "peaceful co-existence?"

How can an atheist like Bertrand Russel speak of morality? If we are chemical accidents, the results of millions of years of genetic mutations and selection, show me the link, the proof of a genetic basis for morality? ET is correct in stating it is a function of the prevailing society and culture, which in the USA, has a Judeo-Christian background.

If there is no god, then why bother with morality? Why bother with right and wrong, good and evil? One culture may determine that stealing is bad and should be punished, one society may encourage rape and pillaging, because to the victor belongs the spoils.

It just so happens that in the USA, we believe that stealing is morally wrong and are laws reflect that, and it just so happens that the first settlers and founding fathers were of Judeo-Christian background, and it just so happens that stealing is a violation of the 8th Commandment.






G&P

[cadillac59]

You've made up your mind, facts only serve to confuse you.



A "slave" that is paid for his services and who has to be taken care of by his "master" isn't a slave. He's a "man-servant". A butler, if you will. You can call it slavery if you want, but it ain't what we refer to as slavery today.



That's EXACTLY what I'm saying. "Slaves" were people who took jobs as man-servants or maids in order to pay debts. They were employees. The exception to the rule was those captured in war, which were the minority of slaves... and THEY were under the same protections. But the majority of slaves were fellow Israelites who took jobs as servants to pay off debts. They were paid regular salaries, were protected, and where "freed" after a period of 7 years. If they chose to stay with their "masters" after the 7 year period, they were limited to only another 7 years of service (total of 14 years). They were actually forced OUT of slavery, not into it.

You really should read the Bible before you condemn it. You are stuck on your pre-conceived notions of slavery based on American history, not the facts of what actually happened in 1800 BC in Israel.



Actually, every Amalekite HAD committed genocide, or attempted it. Did you think that it was only a few Amalekites who did this? It was every member of the Amalekite nation involved in the war. The men fought. The women were camp followers who supported their husbands and sons and fathers in their war effort. Their children were students of the fathers, learning how to commit acts of genocide as well. The entire nation was corrupt. And if Israel had actually followed through with the commandment to destroy Amalek, we probably would not be facing the problems we see today. It is the fact that Amalek survived the experience that led to the future of Israel's existence... it's destruction as a nation, its exile, the progroms, the Holocaust... all of it was caused by the survival of Amalek. If Amalek had been destroyed completely, as the Israelites were commanded, there would have been no nation that would have been brave enough to fight Israel for CENTURIES after that. The course of history would have changed completely. There never would have been a Persian/Babylonian exile or a Roman exile. Christianity would likely never have been born, because without the Roman exile, there would have been no need for that religion to pop up. Israel would have remained a strong nation with a strong land. The Holocaust would never have occured. HISTORY CHANGED because Amalek survived.



Don't get all insulted with me. So's my brother. Your point?



Please tell me that you're not that ignorant of human biology.



No... what is insane is your inability (along with just about every other gay person I have ever met, including my brother) to understand that being gay threatens the CONCEPT of traditional marriage on which the entire Jewish cuture is based. If being gay were allowed, it would be a direct threat to the continued existence of the Jewish family, which in turn is a direct threat to the existence of Judaism as a religion and a culture. You may not like that fact, but it is still a fact.



Actually, I don't think that the human race will die out. From a purely sociological perspective, though, it will cause GAYS to die out. If being gay is a genetic thing (as so many gays would like us to believe)... something you are born with, then being in a gay monogamous relationship is DETRIMENTAL TO THE CONTINUATION OF THAT GENETIC FACTOR. Because being gay, you cannot have a child in a monogamous gay relationship. The only way to reproduce is through outside factors. Which means that that genetic factor that makes you gay, whatever it is, ends with YOU.

That's not an argument against you being gay. You want to be gay, be gay. It's an argument that your being gay doesn't matter... because the next generation, if you produce one, won't have that same genetic factor, whatever it is.

That is, of course, assuming that being gay is something you were born rather than a life choice.

But getting back to the Bible, the Bible clearly understood what youy miss... that being gay IS disruptive to a culture at its most basic levels.




Like I said, you've made up your mind... we don't want to confuse you with the facts.

The lessons are there if you are willing to see them. I've already proven that they are there. If you choose not to learn those lessons, that's your choice. But don't try to argue that they aren't there.

Elliot

It's amazing how homophobia, like other forms of biogry and prejudice. Compels people to believe the most ridiculous things. The first is that gay people don't have offspring. Accoding to some fairly good statistics, something like 24% of gay men were formally married (to women) and amongst them, a good percentage had children. Why? Partly because societal pressures in many places force men into unnatural opposite sex relationships (religion has done a pretty good job of coercing gays and lesbians into trying to be someone or something they are not). Lesbians probably have an even higher rate of childbearing, whether it's through artificial insemination or natural means. So the idea that gay people don't have kids? Untrue. Second, even if gay people didn't have kids, how are they any different in that respect than heteros who, for whatever reason, remain childless?

How do gay relationships (or gay marriage) threaten anybody or anything? You actually never explained this, but merely made the assertion. What, you think it's unseemly for a same sex couple to show affection in public? Is that it? I've already mentioned baby-making, so that can't be the problem. Not seriously. What else is there? You cannot convert a straight person into being gay any more than you can convert a gay person into being straight. So there's no threat that being gay will "catch on" and gain converts, like some religion. So again, what threat are you talking about?

Then of course there's your great bible. It mentions murdering gay people (among others of course). And you wonder why so many gay people want nothing to do with it? If it taught white supremacy would it be a surprise if people of African descent wanted nothing to do with it?

The problem with the bible is that it views the world as being something it simply is not. It presents a distorted and incorrest view of reality. In essence, it teaches that gay people do not exist, instead equating us with adulterers, prostitutes, thieves-- people who have picked up bad habits and only need to change. Wrong. Being gay is a part of our being. It's what makes us who were are. It's normal for us. It's healthy for us to accept being gay, to celebrate it and when we do we thrive. When religious homophobic bigots reading their bibles tell us we are sinners, or doing wrong, it attacks the very essence of who we are. Nothing could be more of an assault, nothing could be more personal.

That the bible is childish rubbish, not a source of morality but an expression of barbarism and immorality, that it's a fairytale invented by ignorant sheepherders in the Middle East who thought the earth was flat should be obvious.

There was one other thing I wanted to leave you with. You said,

"If being gay is a genetic thing (as so many gays would like us to believe)... something you are born with, then being in a gay monogamous relationship is DETRIMENTAL TO THE CONTINUATION OF THAT GENETIC FACTOR. Because being gay, you cannot have a child in a monogamous gay relationship. The only way to reproduce is through outside factors. Which means that that genetic factor that makes you gay, whatever it is, ends with YOU."

That's an odd comment. It reminds of a T-shirt I saw recently in a store in the Castro (the well-known gay neighborhood in San Francisco): "Homosexuals don't create homosexuals, heterosexuals do." Very true. My mom and dad were straight.

But let me elaborate a little. First your argument makes a false assumption. Gay people--maybe most-- do not say that homosexuality is solely the result of genetics. No one knows what causes homosexuality and no one knows what causes heterosexuality. That's the problem. That there is a genetic component is fairly well extablished from identical twin studies (where one identical twin is gay the other has a 50% chance of also being gay), but there are apparently co-factors as well. Those studies of idential twins show that genetics is a strong determining factor, but not the exclusive cause.What this means is that heterosexual people are very likely to and in fact probably in the vast majority of cases produce homosexual children. It doesn't take a gay person to produce another gay person. The genetic factor ( as you call it) that you say makes me gay (or you hypothetically say makes me gay) does not end with me. No. Heteros make gay people and always have. That's why there have always been and always will be gay men and women from every culture and place in the world.

You said, "But getting back to the Bible, the Bible clearly understood what youy miss... that being gay IS disruptive to a culture at its most basic levels."

No. I'd say that the bible is disruptive to being gay in any culture at the most basic levels, and the bible is false on top of that, which gives reason for its repudiation.