Morality based on the bible is immoral.

cyberjesus

sorry i hit enter too soon.

The following video explains it in a clear manner. enjoy....(or not)

http://www.youtube.com/user/QualiaSoup?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/6/hSS-88ShJfo

Too much to rebut for what I feel like writiing about at the moment, but a
few brief examples:
- Execute homosexuals: doesn't distinguish it's a conservative interpretation
(which I think is wrong)
- The differences prerogative and intervention make
- The Christian interpretation of the OT followers as only having been brought
along so far

I'll Copy and Paste my response to 4:03. There are others available on the
Internet:

Isaiah 14:21-23

Some have characterized the God of the OT as in this passage as showing a
cruel contradiction with Deut.24:16 (God doesn't want children put to death for
the sins of their fathers--a person shall be put to death for his own sin; also
see Ezek.18:2,19-20).

21 "Prepare for his sons a place of slaughter Because of the iniquity of their
fathers. They must not arise and take possession of the earth And fill the face
of the world with cities." 22 "I will rise up against them," declares the LORD
of hosts, "and will cut off from Babylon name and survivors, offspring and pos-
terity," declares the LORD. 23 "I will also make it a possession for the hedge-
hog and swamps of water, and I will sweep it with the broom of destruction," de-
clares the LORD of hosts. (NASB)

This means God intended that the rulers of Babylon, who took Israel into cruel
captivity, would fall, and the descendants of the rulers wouldn't take power,
either. A few points about it in context:

- Ezekiel 18 refers to God not killing a son because of the guilt of his fa-
ther's sin.

- Ezekiel 13:10-16, 19 indicate God may want to kill sinful people who nurture
crime and kill others unjustly.

- Isaiah 14:12-16 refers to Satan, so the following verses about his "chil-
dren" refer to the subsequent Babylonian leaders as undesirable, not that the
literal human children of fathers were guilty because of what their fathers did.

- Isaiah 14:21-23 God judges against the "children," subsequent Babylonian
leaders, because He knew they'd intend to persist in the ways of their "fathers"
(as the leaders of many countries would continue as before despite the death of
a leader), not just for being the children of their fathers--for being subse-
quent leaders who did the same things.

- Jer.18:7-8 NKJV: "The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a
kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 'if that nation against
whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I
thought to bring upon it.'"

- the rulership of Babylon in Isaiah's day eventually "died," ended, but not
because God's followers literally slaughtered the leaders. You would need to
use a broader figurative interpretation regarding the Babylonian leadership end-
ing over several generations.
http://www.biblequery.org/isa.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Babylonian_Empire

Knowsnothing

Quick rebuttal:

Leviticus 20:13NIV

13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Doesn't seem 'conservative' to me....

The Sabbath breaking truly is a victimless crime. The only reason they (Hebrews) accepted it was because Yahweh told them so (there is nothing inherrently moral about the Sabbath, unless you count unquestioning obedience to God as morality).

cyberjesus

"This means God intended that the rulers of Babylon, who took Israel into cruel
captivity, would fall, and the descendants of the rulers wouldn't take power,
either."

By the moral action of .... killing their sons.... yes lets justify that killing...

glenster

By the moral action of .... killing their sons.... yes lets justify that
killing...

? I have no ambition to do that. See the bit below the quoted part of my
post.

Lev.20:13

As I mentioned, the critic doesn't distinguish that they're referring to a
conservative interpretation (which I think is wrong). People of Abrahmic
religions don't all have the same opinions about everything so reference
should be made to the idea being orthodox, conservative, or liberal where
there are important differences. A few liberal interpretations of Lev.20:13:
http://hoperemains.webs.com/leviticus2013.htm
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/leviticus.html

If the conservative interpretation is chosen, the reference I made to the
Christian interpretation of OT followers only being brought along so far (such
as regarding many rules dropped later, things thought to refer more to older
religious culture than subsequent liberal Christian ideas about God) comes into
play. My post, and DarioKehl's, on the issue is on the page at the next link:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/social/humour/216927/1/homosexuality

The problem is that the critic in the clip is like a JWs writer writing about
non-JWs stances on distinctive JWs rules. They omit pertinent evidence and
force points. You need to hear what both sides say before judging, but they
want you to agree with them without knowing the responses so you have to
research to find out what those are. It's like someone pressuring you to be
their librarian except you don't get paid for hours of clerical work. I could
have used a newspaper staff to help me just collate it all for the expose I
wrote on the JWs leaders, and the prospect of doing it again for this critic
seems tiresome.

This critic is like a JWs leader only branching out to a different marketing
group.

Again, check the Internet for responses, possibly called apologetics--I'd
prefer liberal interpretations--before deciding about these things.

glenster

PS: I'm pretty sure that video has appeared here, with rebuttals, before.

It's like the JWs leaders "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" or any number
of other things like that where they make their case for their distinctive doc-
trines with dozens of verses saying "We say this--they say that." And you're
reading this thinking, "No it's not. That's not what they say." It's like a
court case where the plan is to give their side and a derogatory version of the
other side with no appearance by the other side on the stand. Anybody would win
a case that way.

This video is like that--like there's nothing anyone has to say about the
criticisms about dozens of verses. The Bible has been poured over by conserva-
tives, liberals, non-believers for hundreds of years--there's something others
say for any of it than the impressions that video intends for them. It reminds
me of a volume of common Bible questions and answers without the answers.

It gives names of books, chapters, verses--just plug them into Google search
as I did for the information in my first post. For another example, I searched
for "Bible cannibalism" and found this on the first page:
http://tektonics.org/af/cannib.html

sizemik

The only problem with most rebuttals is that they miss the main point of the whole video . . .

In order to resolve the Cognitive Dissonance . . . you must remove the false precept . . . a perfectly moral God.

That means ONLY ONE point needs to be valid . . . and you've lost your perfect precept . . . perfection being an ABSOLUTE.

So what else does he suck at? Cause he's just dipped out on morality.

tec

I didn't watch the video. I'm pretty sure I've seen it before, or one similar to it. But God did not send us the bible to show us the Truth. He sent us His Son. So rebutting parts of the bible to make a case for or against the perfection or morality of God is kind of moot, at least imo.

I get that the title of this thread is morality based on the 'bible' is immoral. I guess that would depend on how you view that bible. All parts being equal? Or as it is written... and ending - pointing to Christ, and Christ being the Truth? I mean, if that is the main point in the bible, if that is what the bible sums up, then Christ trumps everything else written before or even after Him.

Peace,

Tammy

Morality based on the bible is immoral.

cyberjesus

cyberjesus

unshackled

glenster

Knowsnothing

cyberjesus

glenster

glenster

sizemik

tec

Share this