Morality based on the bible is immoral.

by cyberjesus 33 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  NewChapter

  I've said this before, I'll say it again. Jesus never contradicted the OT. He read from it, he made constant reference to it, and he completely agreed with it. He would say, it is written . . . and then he would say, "today I tell you"--------------but he never said any of it was wrong. Simply that he was introducing a new way without criticizing the old way. In other words, when the Law of Moses was in full force, it was completely right. Now I'm giving you a new law.

  Christ doesn't claim to trump everything so much as redirect. He doesn't redirect because the thinks the course was wrong, but because he says we have entered a new era. He was never recorded as denouncing the bloody acts of his god or that god's people.

  NC
• 

  sizemik

  I guess that would depend on how you view that bible. All parts being equal? . . . tec

  I guess that's where I run into problems Tammy. Just what is the relative value and message of each part in relation to another part? Who decides? It tends toward cherry-picking relative meaning if not the seperate parts themselves. If it's main purpose is a signpost, then it seems to be very contradictory in itself . . . a signpost is normally unambiguous . . . on account of it's purpose.

  Just how it's various accounts relate to the true nature of God, is open to a certain amount of conjecture . . . and attracts plenty. But at best, the OT depiction is extremely cryptic in it's portrayal of human morality and justice.

  Whatever your take . . . there is truth in the thread title.
• 

  cyberjesus

  very simple, if you base your morals in the bible... not cherry picking but the whole bible.... the your are inmmoral... if you just pick the verses that you think are good.... then thats dishonest.... ergo immoral.
• 

  cantleave

  Tec, in order to understand fully what someone is saying you really need to watch the video, in it's entirety.

  The fact that Jesus venerated the god of the old testament, who apprently inspired this vile filth, would make his credibility questionable.
• 

  cyberjesus

  Good point. If the Jesus of the bible existed.... he was immoral... another Harold Camping
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  Jesus does not mention homosexuality, not even once.

  For New Chapter:

  Mathew 23: 23 & 24 - “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

  I don't think the Bible is heaven sent. I also don't think we can rely on quotes from Jesus to be accurate. Afterall, look at how Fox News twists the words of anyone they don't see as conservative enough or meeting their conservative agenda. But one thing I do believe is that God is love. And I believe the definition of love as God sees it is found at 1st Corinthians 13:4-8. I do not believe that Jesus is God. I do believe he is God's son (we are all God's children). And I believe he was concerned with love, justice based on love, mercy and practicing those.

  1st John 4:8 "God is love."

  1st Corinthians 13:4-8: 4 "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8 Love never fails...."
• 

  NewChapter

  But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former

  What would you say "not neglecting the former" means? Jesus here is agreeing with stoning disobediant children and adulterers and those that don't rest on the sabbath. That was justice. Mercy? Forgive your neighbor 99 times---but not of adultery. We cannot neglect the former law, which required stoning the sinner to death--but that forgiveness and mercy would have been reserved for crimes that were not capital offenses. This former law insisted that parents had to cast the first stone against a disobedient child. So none of that can be neglected---or denied.

  Now the pharisees made up all kinds of extra rules and intensified rules already in existence (straining gnats)---so they weren't practicing this justice, mercy and faithfulnes. So I think in this context we understand that Jesus was in complete agreement with the barbaric laws of the past. He was good with slavery. He was good with allowing a rapist to buy his victim from her father. He was good with all of it. Just don't be so mean about it.

  NC
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  Jesus here is agreeing with stoning disobediant children and adulterers and those that don't rest on the sabbath.

  New Chapter, I respect you very much as a poster. This statement you made is sensationalistic though. Jesus condemned murder. He also said that he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. He said to return evil for evil to no one and he said to pray for your enemies. He said to feed and care for your enemies. So, yes, he did contradict the law. Jesus was about settling things in a peaceful way. He was very kind to children and would never have condoned nor encouraged the murder of children. When a woman was to be stoned for adultery, Jesus stepped in and said that he who has not sinned should cast the first stone. He had his way of unraveling the reasoning behind petty and barbaric practices included in the Law. We also have to keep in mind who penned the Bible and that they were imperfect human beings. It was imperfect human beings who decided which content would be included in the Bible.
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  Now the pharisees made up all kinds of extra rules and intensified rules already in existence (straining gnats)---so they weren't practicing this justice, mercy and faithfulnes. So I think in this context we understand that Jesus was in complete agreement with the barbaric laws of the past. He was good with slavery. He was good with allowing a rapist to buy his victim from her father. He was good with all of it. Just don't be so mean about it.

  In the context YOU, not I, understand that Jesus was in agreement with anything barbaric, cruel, unfair, unjust, unmerciful or evil.
• 

  tec

  NC, you say that Christ never contradicted any laws in the OT (even though there are laws and passages in the OT that contradict each others, so that would be kind of impossible).... but what would you suppose that this means:

  Matt 19:8

  Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard... but it was not this way from the beginning.

  Crossed with:

  Mark 10:5

  "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied.

  Not every law written is from God, (and those written within the bible can also be mistranslated and/or mishandled by the scribes - Jeremiah 8:8) or as God created.

  Christ is the One who came as the Truth. Why would the truth need to come to us at all, NC, if we already had the truth? God is as Christ showed Him to be. That is the truth.

  Peace,

  Tammy