Thank you Mr. Irwin. There are those who would take their personal interpretation of Biblical verse to be the basis for an absolute moral code which they would impose on everyone; this comes down to a personal decision. There are also those who would draw similar conclusions about morality basing their absolute code on the Quran. To someone observing these two groups of absolutists from outside their ideologies, they appear identical. They each consider the questioning of their respective belief systems to be morally repugnant.

But, to one living outside the constricted belief systems of religious fundamentalism, where deep questions are not repugnant, but are thought to be a proper and necessary human endeavor, one is likely to view morality much as Mr. Irwin has presented it. It's good to be good. We can work to explain it with logic, with dissertations on consciousness and conscience, or with divine sparks, but it's simply a fact: the moral person knows right from wrong and it's not necessary to find confirmation in a book. One should be mindful to avoid putting too much faith in one's book and too little in one's human nature.

Posted by: FrankLloydLeft

February 6, 2012 at 11:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Arrests for viewing child pornography are still a miniscule fraction of the public. The production of child pornography has clear victims. There is no groundswell of people thinking this is OK nor is there likely to be.
On the other hand, the Bible presents slavery as OK, but the "new majority" since about two centuries ago (starting with the Abolitionists) has decided that it is not OK.

Posted by: Coralie

February 6, 2012 at 5:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

It also seems important to be clear about what part of the Bible you are using. Per Jesus, the Old Testament is obsolete yet you constantly hear preachers "cherry picking" it to make some point or other even when it conflicts with Jesus' prime commandment. Jesus' teachings were a paradigm shift in a positive direction so don't mix in the old with the new...that just spoils the new.

Posted by: ajm

February 7, 2012 at 8:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

AJM: "Per Jesus, the Old Testament is obsolete...">>

That's not entirely clear. Jesus said:

"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Have heaven and earth passed away? Is all fulfilled?

AJM: "make some point or other even when it conflicts with Jesus' prime commandment.">>

Prime commandment? Which one was that? Curiously Jesus kind of confused the issue at Mark 10:19, when he brings up a yet unknown commandment (do not defraud) and leaves out many of the original ten:
"Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, honour thy father and mother."

AJM: "don't mix in the old with the new...">>

We are told Jesus is one (via the trinity) with his father, the God of the Hebrew scriptures. We are also told God doesn't change. This should apply to his moral laws (or are they arbitrary and He just makes them up?). If slavery and genocide are wrong today, they were wrong when God approved them a few thousand years ago.

The treasure of the Bible, (setting aside all of the nonsense about it's miraculous claims being literally true) is that it gives us a note for note timeline of the development of human morals. Our morality has evolved way past that of these bronze age goat herders. Again, many if not most of the laws and morals in the Bible are now illegal. And with good reason. Consider just the morality and behavior of perhaps the greatest Bible hero of the Hebrew scriptures, King David:

http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/kin...

Truly a monster by today's standards.

D.
---------------
Rascal quotes Camus with a variation of Pascal's Wager. I like Ingersoll better:

"It has always seemed absurd to suppose that a god would choose for his companions, during all eternity, the dear souls whose highest and only ambition is to obey."
"Belief is not a voluntary thing. A man believes or disbelieves in spite of himself. They tell us that to believe is the safe way; but I say, the safe way is to be honest." --Robert Ingersoll, Some Reasons Why

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 7, 2012 at 11:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MrD--

RE "When and where does it say that God approved, condoned, or said that slavery was or is right?"

Doesn't your dim corner of the Internet have The Google?

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 7, 2012 at 12:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Alpha, don't you know? MrD likes to have his Bible instruction spoon fed to him, just like in church.

MrD: "When and where does it say that God approved, condoned, or said that slavery was or is right?">>

As you have been shown repeatedly:

1) The Bible condones slavery.
Although supposedly a book of morals it never says anything against slavery. Yahweh instituted slavery at Exod. 21:2. Leviticus 25:44 explains where to get slaves and that you can hand them down to your children. Exod. 21:21 allows a slave owner to beat a slave to death, as long as it is an unintentional result of the severe beating. Ephesians 6:5 has: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ." Colossians 3:22 says: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it,… with sincerity of heart and reverence for the LORD."

Let's review again some of the other areas where the Bible has atrocious morals:

2. The Bible supports polygamy.
Yahweh gave David many wives and would have given him more: "Thus says the LORD,... I gave you your master's house, and your master’s wives… if this were too little, I would add to you as much more." (2 Sam 12:7-8). His son Solomon is the only person in the Bible specifically described as being loved by Yahweh. He had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3).

3. The Bible has condoned and even required human sacrifice.
"…and they hanged them in the hill before the LORD: and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest… And after that God was intreated for the land." (2 Sam. 21:1-14; see also Exod. 22:29-30; Lev. 27:28-29; Ezek. 20:24-26)

4. The Bible has supported mass genocide.
"So Joshua… utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded." (Joshua 10:40)
"…do not leave alive anything that breathes." (Deut. 20:16)
"…Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." (1 Samuel 15:3)

5. The Bible teaches that women have an inferior status to men.
Wives be in subjection to your own husbands, as unto the LORD,… as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their husbands in everything. (Ephesians 5:22-24)

6. The Bible says a woman must marry her rapist.
…she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her… (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

Your sense of morality, tuned by our secular society, tend to make you cringe at such horrific moral behavior. Only years of indoctrination can make anyone defend such barbarity. Fortunately, Christians don't pay much attention to the morals in the Bible, they just pick and choose the ones that work for them. For this we can all be thankful.

D.
------------
Don't forget MrD, only 272 days until election day. If the good president doesn't lose by the greatest margin in history, you've agreed to pay me $100. http://tinyurl.com/76d3nea

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 7, 2012 at 7:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

P5: "most of us know that those laws and commandments are no longer binding on us today.">>

Most Christians believe they're not binding (see exception below), but they sure do like to make a lot of noise about putting up graven images (oops) of the (non binding) Ten Commandments don't they?

It seems God's understanding of what is moral and not moral changes over time perfectly inline with how our understanding does. Curious. As one fellow noticed about 350 years ago:

"If a triangle could speak, it would say, that God is eminently triangular, while a circle would say that the divine nature is eminently circular." --Baruch Spinoza, philosopher (1632-1677)

Christianity was a useful update to some earlier very bad ideas attributed to God but since it's been 1,900 years or so, perhaps it's time for another update? Until then, we can do what has already been happening since at least the enlightenment anyway: reinterpret!

D.
---------------
This Christian I had an interaction with didn't get the note about the Hebrew Scriptures not being binding:

“Yeah, I'm a CR [Christian Reconstructionalist]. And I do believe that if a person is caught in adultery, they should be stoned. Active, practicing homosexuals should be stoned. And non-Christians should be evangelized to, but not allowed to practice their faith openly. If they did practice their non-Christian faith openly, they should be punished by execution for worshipping(sic) false gods.
As far as the heretics go, I want the civil government to have the power and the will to execute heretics and blasphemers. It's what God's law calls for - and its the only viable model for civil government.
I do not advocate beating homosexuals. I advocate stoning *practicing* homosexuals. There is a difference. The prior is a violation of God's Law. The latter is a faithful application of God's Law. Witches should also be put to death, as you have said correctly.”
--Sam Krishna. Christian Reconstructionalist, Fayetteville, AR (Oct. 1995)

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 8, 2012 at 1:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Good exchange of ideas. I shut my mother up about homosexuals when I told her I was twice divorced and also condemned in the same verse as the condemnation of the homosexual. Now she is praying for my absolution. No thanks. I'll just muddle on by myself with my third wife.

Posted by: Mikeej

February 8, 2012 at 4:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )