doodad

Principle is principle in this case, regardless of the source. Do you think that it's acceptable to murder in America? Many of our modern day concepts of behavior appear to have roots in ancient Judaic law, and the fact that it was a religious principle doesn't make it an invalid principle in the secular sense. As to adultery, if you are married, is it a good idea to cheat on your wife? This is a very common basis for divorce.

I'm not saying that the bible is the only source of moral standards, but it does contain many of them, so to answer th opening post, yes there is good or value in the bible.

-DM-

If the biblical "do not kill" (or "murder") Commandment applied only with respect to one Israelite and another, then it has limited application in terms of answering the question as to what good can be gleaned from the Bible. Ditto with the commandment regarding adultery if it only applies to wives and not husbands.

To take the more-advanced morality of our culture with regard to these two issues and then give credit to the Bible as the source of our morality (when the biblical morality was much more limited) is to give the Bible credit where it may not have earned that credit. The fact that the the so-called Ten Commandments (which aren't really ten in number to begin with) were apparently at least in part based on King Hammurrabi's Law tends to further diminish the credit that should be given to the Bible as the source of our morality.

-Don-

doodad

I agree with you, but isn't your POV beside the point raised in the opening post? The person asked what can be taken from the bible as constructive advice. In the abstract sense the concept of not murdering or not committing adultery is valid IMO. How then, does the source, as dubious as you may deem it, degrade the merit of these two principles of morality?

I think a number of the principles of behavior portrayed in the OT as religious tenets have their origin in common sense. For example, not eating pork probably came from the realization that if you don't eat pork you won't contract trichinosis from doing so. Did the ancient Jews know what a trichina worm was? Probably not, but they learned how to avoid the effects of the critter. Judaic law is very much a mere codification of principles learned through life secular experiences. It's not unlike our modern traffic laws or other statute law, in that it is based upon concepts of what is just and fair.

Consider this. Suppose I read in Kansas statute law that it is illegal to murder or to commit adultery. Then suppose I read the same thing in Missouri law. Does the fact that the Missouri law is the same as the Kansas law make the Kansas law invalid or without principle? It seems you are attempting to do the same thing with your criticism of the biblical mention of the two issues in question.

I practice religion but I don't accept much of what I read in the bible carte blanche. Usually I compare what I have read to my own life experiences and then try and relate it to the opinions of others. There's times I don't accept what I read in the bible, but in saying that I don't want to imply it's not truthful. It may not be, but I simply move on. Maybe I didn't understand what I read. Maybe it doesn't apply to me. I'm somewhat of a Berean when it comes to reading the bible. If it don't work for me I just let it lie.

doodad

It would have been more accurate of catman to say that Jesus often spoke in parables. I hadn't thought much about him using hyperbole, but Paul appears to have done it. At times his hypberbole came in the form of half truths, like a sales pitch. He'd tell folks how great it was not to
have to obey Judaic law in order to be saved but wouldn't speak of the responsibilities of being a Christian.

IMO the very concept of obeying the Judaic law is often blown out of proportion by fundamentalist Christians who forget to study the OT. Judaists
are saved by the same method that Christians are saved. A Jew's faith in God saves him just as the Christian's faith in Jesus saves him. This nonsense that it was somehow different got started by zealous apostles who were telling only half the story.

In saying this I'm not disputing you opinion that much of what Jesus is reported to have said is fiction. I'm just trying to point out that down thru the ages his views and words may have been
corrupted. If one were to study the first four books of the NT and use them as a reference point then it's easy to see how the apostles took what
he said and put their own spin on it. The point is this. How can the bible yield much credibility when the first four books of the NT, which supposedly are the words of Jesus himself, are contradicted in part by the later books of the NT. In modern times the situation is compounded by the fact that sects have their own special view of scripture in some cases. Talk about situational ethics and preference. If you don't like how it reads then just change it. I see this day after day on the faith based forums, and all the while folks are complaining that it'
s wrong to do so they are doing it.

-DM-

The commandment against killing (or murder) was given as an example of something good which could be gleaned from the Bible. If the Bible didn't really say that, didn't really mean that, because what it meant was only to apply to one Israelite and another, then it is not a legitimate example of something good which can be gleaned from the Bible, in my opinion.

To take the more-advanced morality of our culture with regard to these two issues and then give credit to the Bible as the source of our morality (when the biblical morality was much more limited) is to give the Bible credit where it may not have earned that credit.

-Don-

doodad

I agree with you Don and I think that other non-Abrahamic cultures can be found that have the same principles, and yet they do not use the Holy Bible that Christians use. To me the bible contains a record of moral principles, and probably is not all inclusive of all moral principles. It appears that much of the moral standards found in the OT were also existent in ancient Greece, so yes, the bible does not have a monopoly on moral standards.

I liken it to wanting it to bake a cake. There's more than one cookbook that can give a recipe for the same cake, and although they do not agree exactly, each can yield a cake if followed.

Looking back at the objective of this site, which in part is to defend and promote metaphysical
naturalism, the view that our natural world is all there is, doen't it seem hypocritical to defend your view and at the same time to criticize the biblical view? I tend to agree that our natural world is all there is, and I take little stock in the creation story as portrayed in Genesis or in the so-called miracles that are described in both the OT and the NT.
I can no more prove that our natural world is all there is than I can prove that God exists or did all these things that theists believe he did.

Then why do I practice religion? I think it is beneficial to those who practice it in spite of the irrational aspects of it, so long as it is done in moderation. Religion is a mind game, a
belief system, and it apparently provides emotional comfort for people. In view of that I cannot say it isn't worthwhile.

-DM-

Well, I didn't have any part in determining the mission of this site, nor did I write the mission statement (although the fact of the matter is that the statement is under revision and we may actually go with a modification to it that I wrote and have wanted to make for some time now). BUT, to answer your question, no, it doesn't seem hypocritical to me to criticize the Bible and/or the biblical view and at the same time defend and promote that the natural world is all that there is. It is no more hypocritical for me to do both of those than it is for a fundamentalist Christian to defend the biblical view and criticize, for example, evolution. To me, it seems quite appropriate to do whatever it takes, so long as one is honest and forthright, to get the job done, whether it is to proselytize for Christianity or for metaphysical naturalism.

Regards,
-Don-