Turkish Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 Paul didn't write it. He did, in the book of Corinthians. This is the earliest surviving mention of the last supper, apparantly...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 (edited) He did, in the book of Corinthians. This is the earliest surviving mention of the last supper, apparantly...... As I say, you won't take my word for it. You'll just have to disagree with historical scholarship on this. That's fine - so long as you recognise you've entered the world of religious myth. There's no other way to justify your argument. There's arguably an even bigger problem with Islam. Islamic scholars have written screeds about the origins of the religion in Mecca and Medina. There is precious little historical evidence that any of that is true. Religious people make stuff up. It goes with the territory. Edited 14 February, 2011 by Verbal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 As I say, you won't take my word for it. You'll just have to disagree with historical scholarship on this. That's fine - so long as you recognise you've entered the world of religious myth. There's no other way to justify your argument. It really makes no odds to me either way to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 Turkish, have you looked at post #17 yet, where I answered your question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 Turkish, have you looked at post #17 yet, where I answered your question? yeah but i really couldn't be arsed looking them all up on the internet. I've not really got any views for or against on the bible but from my limited knowledge of it, like anything there are good and bad and the some of the fundemental teachings in there are generally a pretty good basis to live your live by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 (edited) like anything there are good and bad and the some of the fundemental teachings in there are generally a pretty good basis to live your live by. No they aren't. It has terrible ethics which aren't acceptable to modern Western society. The Bible condones all the things I listed such as rape, slavery, murder, genocide, sexism, homophobia, pillage etc etc on numerous occasions. If it contains "good and bad things" as you say and you pick and choose which ones you use and which you don't, then why did you need the Bible in the first place? You could just make the rules to live by yourself! I'm sure any God if he existed would be annoyed with you that you have been ignoring some of the Bible and picking and choosing the bits you like and the bits you don't. Edited 14 February, 2011 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 No they aren't. It has terrible ethics which aren't acceptable to modern Western society. The Bible condones all the things I listed such as rape, slavery, murder, genocide, sexism, homophobia, pillage etc etc on numerous occasions. If it contains "good and bad things" as you say and you pick and choose which ones you use and which you don't, then why did you need the Bible in the first place? You could just make the rules to live by yourself! I'm sure any God if he existed would be annoyed with you that you have been ignoring some of the Bible and picking and choosing the bits you like and the bits you don't. Do unto others as you would have them do to you? The ten comandments gave the jews a code of conduct to live their life by. it might sound dated now but this was written 5,000 years ago, (or 2,000 if you listen to verbal but thats another story) i dont think there is much wrong or missing and if everyone applied them today, ie no murder, stealing, jealousy and showing respect and honour everyone the world would be a much better place. Right or wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackanorySFC Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 (edited) Do unto others as you would have them do to you? The ten comandments gave the jews a code of conduct to live their life by. it might sound dated now but this was written 5,000 years ago, (or 2,000 if you listen to verbal but thats another story) i dont think there is much wrong or missing and if everyone applied them today, ie no murder, stealing, jealousy and showing respect and honour everyone the world would be a much better place. Right or wrong? You are picking and choosing. Because in other parts of the Bible it says God does allow murder and pillage. The Bible is full of hundreds of contradictions! Also the punishment for breaking most of the commandments is death. Should that be enforced today? So you are saying it was written 5,000 years ago is the reason it might sound dated. But as the laws of God it should be timeless and still apply today. If you are picking and choosing from the Bible, you didn't need the Bible in the first place and could make your own moral code to live by. Edited 14 February, 2011 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve..... I don't know what conclusion we're supposed to draw from your naming characters from a myth - unless you're going the whole way with this guff, and arguing that the world was indeed created in seven days, and dinosaurs were put on earth by god to fool people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 You are picking and choosing. Because in other parts of the Bible it says God does allow murder. The Bible is full of hundreds of contradictions! Also the punishment for breaking most of the commandments is death. Should that be enforced today? So you agree that if everyone applied the ten commandments then the world would be a much better place? I'm not picking and choosing, just speaking about the parts i know about from my limited knowledge of the book. I dont have the time or interest to look into it in any further detail, certainly not to look through 50 odd scriptures online to see if you are right or wrong and that there might or might not have been ocasions where God said murder was okay. It's a minefield which people have been aruging about for centuries and will continue to do so. In a book which covers 2,000 odd years, 60 odd writers, been transalated god knows how many times from and ancient language and covered most of the ancient world you'll always get contradictions and different versions of the same events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 I don't know what conclusion we're supposed to draw from your naming characters from a myth - unless you're going the whole way with this guff, and arguing that the world was indeed created in seven days, and dinosaurs were put on earth by god to fool people. It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve..... Oh god Jackanory, you've started him off again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 (edited) So you agree that if everyone applied the ten commandments then the world would be a much better place? The punishment for breaking many of the commandments is death. If everyone applied the commandments as they were intended then hundreds of millions of people would have to be killed each year! So no, I don't think it would be a better place! Far better to use a moral code that means we survive and prosper as a species. Edited 14 February, 2011 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 The punishment for breaking many of the commandments is death. If everyone applied the commandments then hundreds of millions would have to be killed each year! So no, I don't think it would be a better place! No, if everyone applied the commandments there be no murders, no stealing and everyone would be a lot safer, it's if they didn't aply them there'd be problems, but maybe that is the deterant serial burglars & muggers need! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 (edited) Turkish, You really don't know the commandments as well as you think! They are an atrocious moral code! Quite evil in fact! Maybe that is the deterant serial burglars & muggers need! It isn't just for murderers and burglars. The punishment the commandments issue for disobeying your parents is death! Exodus 21:17 “And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death”. Have an affair and you should be killed... Leviticus 20:10 “And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death”. Ever sworn using God name? Then you should be killed Leviticus 24:16 “And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death” Anyone that works on a Sunday should be killed... Exodus 31:15 “Whosoever shall work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death”. etc etc etc for the other commandments (there are more than 10 by the way) Edited 14 February, 2011 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 Still think it is a good moral code Turkish, having read post #65? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackanorySFC Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 I don't know what conclusion we're supposed to draw from your naming characters from a myth - unless you're going the whole way with this guff, and arguing that the world was indeed created in seven days, and dinosaurs were put on earth by god to fool people. You clearly have to be mental to take the bible literally, but the guidence it gives is bang on in my opinion. Threat others as you expect to be treated yourself for example, sound advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 You clearly have to be mental to take the bible literally, but the guidence it gives is bang on in my opinion. Threat others as you expect to be treated yourself for example, sound advice. Read post #65 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 Still think it is a good moral code Turkish, having read post #65? Yes i do, because i wasn't talking about people being killed if they dont keep to them! As i said above it's guidance, it was written 5,000 years ago and gave the Jews a code to live their lives by, reading the code and taking it as simply that would give people a pretty decent and moral way of living their lives, i dont see how you can argue that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 (edited) Yes i do, because i wasn't talking about people being killed if they dont keep to them! As i said above, it was written 5,000 years ago and gave the Jews a code to live their lives by, reading the code and taking it as simply that would give people a pretty decent and moral way of living their lives, i dont see how you can argue that point. So do you think before Moses was given the commandments the Jews thought it was okay to kill each other etc etc? Give them some credit ffs! They wouldn't exist as a society for long if they behaved like that. The Bible however instructs them to kill, rape, pillage, commit genocide, infanticide, have slaves etc etc The bits about killing those that break the commandments are in the commandments, they are just left out by those that have their own issue with them and are picking and choosing like you do. However the commandments were meant to be the direct word of God and were written to be followed to the the letter, both 4,000 years ago and today in 2011. Edited 14 February, 2011 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 So do you think before Moses was given the commandments the Jews thought it was okay to kill each other? Give them some credit ffs! They wouldn't exist as a society for long if they behaved like that. The Bible however instructs them to kill, rape, pillage, murder, have slaves etc etc The bits about killing those that break them are in the commandments, they are just left out by moderates that have their own issue with them and are picking and choosing like you do. However the commandments were meant to be the direct word of God and should be followed to the the letter, both 4,000 years ago and today in 2011. As i said above i am not picking and choosing, just commenting on what limited knowledge i have. Unlike you i dont have an axe to grind with a book 5,000 years old and spent my life researching it by the sounds of it. Like anything, religion and the bible its a case of you can read into it what you like and take it as literally as you like, some will say it condones murders, rape etc, other religions will argue it doesn't or is not all meant to be taken literally. And you are relying on a book which is bound to be inaccurate simply due to the amount of time it has been translated through history, there are bound to be errors. It all happened 5,000 years ago and i am not particularly religious although i do think there is something there and think the bibles principles provide a decent moral code to live by. What i do know is for a lot of people that need it religion and the bible provides comfort, faith, contentment with their life etc, didn't Karl Marx call it the opium of the people, live and let live as everyone on here would say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 (edited) As i said above i am not picking and choosing, just commenting on what limited knowledge i have. Unlike you i dont have an axe to grind with a book 5,000 years old and spent my life researching it by the sounds of it. Like anything, religion and the bible its a case of you can read into it what you like and take it as literally as you like, some will say it condones murders, rape etc, other religions will argue it doesn't or is not all meant to be taken literally. And you are relying on a book which is bound to be inaccurate simply due to the amount of time it has been translated through history, there are bound to be errors. It all happened 5,000 years ago and i am not particularly religious although i do think there is something there and think the bibles principles provide a decent moral code to live by. What i do know is for a lot of people that need it religion and the bible provides comfort, faith, contentment with their life etc, didn't Karl Marx call it the opium of the people, live and let live as everyone on here would say. Or forget the dumbass books and do what most people ACTUALLY do and judge by the religious creeds themselves (which aren't ALWAYS set out exclusively in 'the Book"). Christianity, in its original form, was a small, anti-colonial pacifist resistance movement, not unlike Gandhi's in India (although much smaller-scale) Most active and reasoned Christians I know here subscribe to something like the ideas found in that original form (and Christianity in schools here tend to be taught that way). Values of tolerance certainly come from that, among other sources. But in the US, for example, it's a different matter: the majority are, literally, Bible thumpers, and are much keener on the punitive violence that can be found in the Old Testament. Hellfire and damnation are completely absent in the New Testament. As for Marx, I didn't have you down as a Marxist - but welcome to the fold. His 'opiate of the people' remark is really aimed at state religions, although he would have regarded pacifism as abhorrent. 'Live and let live' is a classic early-sect Christian value, as is 'turning the other cheek', etc. The Commandments, on the other hand, are a kind of penal code for the masses. As Mr Le God points out, they aren't anywhere near as virtuous as you seem to believe. Edited 14 February, 2011 by Verbal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 I prefer to interpret the old testament more as an historical account of the period. You just have see past the propaganda. For example. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7530678/Biblical-plagues-really-happened-say-scientists.html# Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 (edited) Oh god Jackanory, you've started him off again. Withdrawn. Too petty. Edited 14 February, 2011 by Sergei Gotsmanov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 It seems odd to me that a gay couple will want to get 'married' as opposed to a civil partnership. Surely they are the same thing, other than marriage being more of a religious ceremony and a civil partnership just being a social joining. It seems especially odd when you consider many religious types are anti-gay and I'm sure there many reasons in the Bible (I've never read it) why gay people shouldn't get married. It kind of like a black family wanting to live in Britain. Not a problem. But a black family saying we want to live in Britain with an official blessing from Combat 18? That's a bit odd* *I'm not saying the Church of England are like Combat 18. I know a few on here like to take metaphors incredibly literally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 It seems odd to me that a gay couple will want to get 'married' as opposed to a civil partnership. Surely they are the same thing, other than marriage being more of a religious ceremony and a civil partnership just being a social joining. It seems especially odd when you consider many religious types are anti-gay and I'm sure there many reasons in the Bible (I've never read it) why gay people shouldn't get married. It kind of like a black family wanting to live in Britain. Not a problem. But a black family saying we want to live in Britain with an official blessing from Combat 18? That's a bit odd* *I'm not saying the Church of England are like Combat 18. I know a few on here like to take metaphors incredibly literally. Maybe some gay people, who have chosen to celebrate their union, want to do so within their church if they are churchgoers. It's the same sort of choice as deciding to have a civil wedding because you DON'T go to church. However, the hypocrisy of some churches with regard to homosexuality (given that a fair number of their officials engage in such practices) matches the hypocrisy of people marrying in church when they don't believe because they want a grand do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 (edited) As i said above i am not picking and choosing, just commenting on what limited knowledge i have. You are picking and choosing because you are using examples of the Bible you like to show it in a good light and ignoring other parts of it which directly contradict those parts. It is a man made document (though claims to be divine in part) and is used to explain the unknown world in the bronze age and was written at a time when man had a very poor understanding of his environment and surroundings. Many of these unknowns have since been explained in the thousands of years since the scripture was written. Edited 14 February, 2011 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 Maybe some gay people, who have chosen to celebrate their union, want to do so within their church if they are churchgoers. It's the same sort of choice as deciding to have a civil wedding because you DON'T go to church. However, the hypocrisy of some churches with regard to homosexuality (given that a fair number of their officials engage in such practices) matches the hypocrisy of people marrying in church when they don't believe because they want a grand do. I agree entirely with that second bit. Hypocrisy and religion seem to go hand in hand a lot of the time. I don't see any reason why you couldn't have a big ceremony with a civil partnership though. The only thing you couldn't really do is have it in a church. If you take religion out of the equation, a church is just a draughty, dimly lit old building so it's hardly essential to a ceremony. It seems to me like more and more weddings don't happen in a church these days anyway. A lot of people seem to get hitched on beaches in the Maldives, alpine villages or Swan-ky Hotels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 You are picking and choosing because you are using examples of the Bible you like to show it in a good light and ignoring other parts of it which directly contradict those parts. It is a man made document (though claims to be divine in part) and is used to explain the unknown world in the bronze age and was written at a time when man had a very poor understanding of his environment and surroundings. ANd you are doing the same because you are using the same to paint it in a bad light, are you not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 ANd you are doing the same because you are using the same to paint it in a bad light, are you not? Not at all. - I am pointing out the bad bits when it is meant to be all good. - You are saying it is all good, when there are some bad bits. It is meant to be the word of God and a moral code to live by. Some of the morals are good (but contradicted in other parts of the Bible), other morals and punishments for not meeting these morals are evil as they involve killing those that break them. It is also riddled with hundreds (if not thousands of contradictions). Here are four to start with... 1. God is satisfied with his works Gen 1:31 God is dissatisfied with his works. Gen 6:6 2. God dwells in chosen temples 2 Chron 7:12,16 God dwells not in temples Acts 7:48 3. God is seen and heard Ex 33:23/ Ex 33:11/ Gen 3:9,10/ Gen 32:30/ Is 6:1/ Ex 24:9-11 God is invisible and cannot be heard John 1:18/ John 5:37/ Ex 33:20/ 1 Tim 6:16 4. God is tired and rests Ex 31:17 God is never tired and never rests Is 40:28 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 Not at all. - I am pointing out the bad bits when it is meant to be all good. - You are saying it is all good, when there are some bad bits. It is meant to be the word of God and a moral code to live by. Some of the morals are good (but contradicted in other parts of the Bible), other morals and punishments for not meeting these morals are evil as they involve killing those that break them. It is also riddled with hundreds (if not thousands of contradictions). Here are four to start with... 1. God is satisfied with his works Gen 1:31 God is dissatisfied with his works. Gen 6:6 2. God dwells in chosen temples 2 Chron 7:12,16 God dwells not in temples Acts 7:48 3. God is seen and heard Ex 33:23/ Ex 33:11/ Gen 3:9,10/ Gen 32:30/ Is 6:1/ Ex 24:9-11 God is invisible and cannot be heard John 1:18/ John 5:37/ Ex 33:20/ 1 Tim 6:16 4. God is tired and rests Ex 31:17 God is never tired and never rests Is 40:28 I cant be arsed to go through all 4 but just looking at your first one, it is utter ****e and not a contradiction whatsoever. Gen 1 v 31 was written after day 6 of creation when god looked earth and was happy with what he had created that day (obviously not a literal 24 hour day). The "contradiction" as you put it was after man had been created and years later and had started to sin and become wicked. A bit like you having a child, being delighted you have had a child, only for that child to grow up to become a smack head and a murder, i am sure you would be disatified with what you had created under that circumstance as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 I cant be arsed to go through all 4 but just looking at your first one, it is utter ****e and not a contradiction whatsoever. Gen 1 v 31 was written after day 6 of creation when god looked earth and was happy with what he had created that day (obviously not a literal 24 hour day). The "contradiction" as you put it was after man had been created and years later and had started to sin and become wicked. A bit like you having a child, being delighted you have had a child, only for that child to grow up to become a smack head and a murder, i am sure you would be disatified with what you had created under that circumstance as well. So God is inept and incompetent at his job as a creator and made a **** up. If he is all seeing and all powerful, how come he makes mistakes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 So God is inept and incompetent at his job as a creator and made a **** up. If he is all seeing and all powerful, how come he makes mistakes? So you are admitting you are wrong and it is not a contradiction then? Or maybe it's an example of what happens when mankind rules himself and why he felt the need to introduce the 10 commandments as a guide for living? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 If churches preach that homosexuality is wrong then they can't marry gay couples. Personally, I see myself as Christian but I don't like any churches, and don't see why I should attend to call myself a Christian. It's how you live your life that matters. The Christian churches and their interpretatations of Christianity, and their practices, are hypocritical. I don't remember reading that Jesus in the bible wanted us to go to church. The churches sprouted up long after he died, and are nothing more than businesses nowadays. A river was good enough for John the Baptist, churches want a pound of flesh and your attendance for loads of bullsh*t classes for the same service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 (edited) Or maybe it's an example of what happens when mankind rules himself and why he felt the need to introduce the 10 commandments as a guide for living? Modern man has existed for roughly 100,000 years. God watches man for roughly 98,000 years and then decides the best way to tell them how to behave is to tell Moses in a largely illiterate part of the bronze age Middle East of his commandments. Communication at the time was poor and the commandments didn't reach China for over 1,000 years, didn't reach the Americas until the 15th Century and didn't reach Australia until the 18th Century etc. God really is crap and inept at his job if he thought that was the best way to do it! It is more easily explained by accepting the Judeo-Christian scripture are completely man-made like all the other thousands of religions throughout history. Edited 14 February, 2011 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 Modern man has existed for roughly 100,000 years. God watches man for roughly 98,000 years and then decides the best way to tell them how to behave is to tell Moses in a largely illiterate part of the bronze age Middle East of his commandments. Communication at the time was poor and the commandments didn't reach China for over 1,000 years, didn't reach the Americas until the 15th Century and didn't reach Australia until the 18th Century etc etc God really is crap at his job isn't he! It is more easily explained by accepting the Judeo-Christian scripture are completely man-made like all the other thousands of religions throughout history. Yeah he should have invented carrier pigeons earlier. I dont know what you are trying to prove or why you are trying to "convert" me because i'm totally apathetic to the bible and it's teachings, apart from as i say, happening to beleive that some of the teachings provide a decent moral basis to live your life by, you seem to be getting yourself at it. I said above it'll be littered with errors due to the timeframe it was written over, the literacy of the original writers, translation etc etc and am fully aware it is a man made book. It may contradict itself as well, but not the example you provided eh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 (edited) teachings provide a decent moral basis to live your life by But the teachings you think are good are the shortened versions. They leave out the punishments of death. You don't need religion to come up with good morals, it can be done independently and without the punishment of death thrown in. 1) Name one moral action a religious person can do that I as an atheist can't? 2) Name a wicked action than is attributable only a religious faith? Edited 14 February, 2011 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 But the teachings you think are good are the shortened versions. They leave out the punishments of death. You don't need religion to come up with good morals, it can be done independently and without the punishment of death thrown in. Name one moral action a religious person can do that I as an atheist can't? the morals we live by stem from the religious teachings in the bible...as do many of our laws Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 (edited) the morals we live by stem from the religious teachings in the bible...as do many of our laws That may be the case but it is only picking and choosing which bits from the Bible we like and ignoring the bits we don't even though the commandments are meant to be the direct word of God. The Bible says those that commit adultery should be killed. Is that law in the UK? No. In any case...we couldn't survive as a species if as a society we accepted murder to be "okay". Thus for us to pass on genes we need a stable society for our children to grow up in and thus it makes sense to outlaw murder, theft etc etc. Edited 14 February, 2011 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 That may be the case but it is only picking and choosing which bits from the Bible we like and ignoring the bits we don't. The Bible says those that commit adultery should be killed. Is that law in the UK? No. In any case...we couldn't survive as a species if as a society accepted murder to be "okay". Thus for us to pass on genes we need a stable society and thus makes sense to outlaw murder, theft etc etc. im sure it was not so long ago in human history....things evolve, change and develop...but the basis of our morals we all live by and the laws we elect politicians to bring in etc are largely based around a few morals in the bible... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 im sure it was not so long ago in human history....things evolve, change and develop...but the basis of our morals we all live by and the laws we elect politicians to bring in etc are largely based around a few morals in the bible... The commandments are meant to be the direct word of God. Therefore they are timeless. 1) If the morals of the commandments can change and evolve over time by humans, then why did we need God to tell us if we can just change them at a later date? 2) Do you think the Jews thought murder was okay before Moses and the commandments? 3) How do you think they survived as a society, before Moses if it was acceptable to murder and steal? 4) God is very condescending thinking we needed to be told. Those he did tell were a tiny % of the world's population, why didn't he use his powers to tell everyone at once? The message wouldn't reach Australia for example for over 2,000 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 But the teachings you think are good are the shortened versions. They leave out the punishments of death. You don't need religion to come up with good morals, it can be done independently and without the punishment of death thrown in. 1) Name one moral action a religious person can do that I as an atheist can't? 2) Name a wicked action than is attributable only a religious faith? You are really starting to bore me and we are going round in circles. You appear to take everything in there literally. Maybe ancient, illitrate bronze age man needed to be told in these terms as that was the only way they understood and to emphaises how serious adultery, stealing etc was viewed? We dont know, we weren't there. Today most people in society probable doesn't need religion because most people are relatively educated and taught to know right from wrong, but did bronze age man? We dont know, probably not if they were as backward as you seem to think. Bible teachings were passed down through thousands of generations, i dont see how you can say they dont provide a decent basis to live your life by. Without them how do you know we wouldn't be all killing each other for looking at someone funny, ****ging each others wives and disrepecting our parents, oh wait a minute, some do........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 The commandments are meant to be the direct word of God. Therefore they are timeless. 1) If the morals of the commandments can change and evolve over time by humans, then why did we need God to tell us if we can just change them at a later date? 2) Do you think the Jews thought murder was okay before Moses and the commandments? 3) How do you think they survived as a society, before Moses if it was acceptable to murder and steal? 4) God is very condescending thinking we needed to be told. Those he did tell were a tiny % of the world's population, why didn't he use his powers to tell everyone at once? The message wouldn't reach Australia for example for over 2,000 years. You seem to be contradicting yourself, on the one hand you are saying bronze age man was illiterate and on the other saying he already had this moral code and knew all god told them anyway. Which one is it? Also your point about it being a tiny % is because the Jews were god chosen people back then, hence why he Moses was instructed to take them to the promised land. That is why it was instructions just to them and why the Jews still believe this today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 (edited) i dont see how you can say they dont provide a decent basis to live your life by. Because the teachings say if you break them you should be killed. 1) Have you ever worked on a Sunday? If yes, then the Bible says you should die. 2) Do you think those that commit adultery should be killed? 3) Have you ever disobeyed you parents? If yes, then the Bible says you should be killed 4) Is coveting your neighbours goods really one of the worst things you can do? If anything it is helpful as aspirations gives you goals to aim for to better yourself. That is why I don't think they are good morals to live by. You don't need religion as a base of a morality. What human society needs to pass on its genes and survive as a species is a good basis for a moral code. For society to work and be stable you can't have people murdering or stealing. Not obeying your parents, working on a Sunday or committing adultery however aren't and shouldn't be crimes and certainly not with the punishment of death. Edited 14 February, 2011 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 You seem to be contradicting yourself, on the one hand you are saying bronze age man was illiterate and on the other saying he already had this moral code and knew all god told them anyway. Which one is it? It doesn't contradict in any way at all. As I explained in post #94, a moral code for a stable society means it is a better environment for the survival of the species. This doesn't necessarily need a written law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 (edited) Because the teachings say if you break them you should be killed. 1) Have you ever worked on a Sunday? If yes, then the Bible says you should die. 2) Do you think those that commit adultery should be killed? 3) Have you ever disobeyed you parents? If yes, then the Bible says you should be killed etc etc That is why I don't think they are good morals to live by. You don't need religion as a base of a morality. What human society needs to pass on its genes and survive as a species is a good basis for a moral code. For society to work and be stable you can't have people murdering or stealing. Not obeying your parents, working on a Sunday or committing adultery however aren't and shouldn't be crimes and certainly not with the punishment of death. FFS, how many times! I am not talking about getting killed if you break them. I am saying for a normal person to following the instruction from birth I WILL NOT STEAL is a good thing? RIght or wrong? Like it or not, this moral instruction came directly from the bible, it may have come from other soruces it may have not, but it is in the bible and Britain is a christian country so we MAY have applied the orginal laws against stealing 100's of years ago based on what is in the bible, it's a strong possbility is it not? You need to get over this obsession with people dying! Also i have just seen when Jesus died it meant Jews and christians were no longer under the mosiac law of which the ten commandments were part and this started a principled law with beleivers so your whole arguement has suddenly become invalid. Edited 14 February, 2011 by Turkish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 FFS, how many times! I am not talking about getting killed if you break them. I am saying for a normal person to following the instruction from birth I WILL NOT STEAL is a good thing? RIght or wrong? Like it or not, this moral instruction came directly from the bible, it may have come from other soruces it may have not, but it is in the bible and Britain is a christian country so we MAY have applied the orginal laws against stealing 100's of years ago based on what is in the bible, it's a strong possbility is it not? You need to get over this obsession with people dying! You don't need religion as a base of a morality. What human society needs to pass on its genes and survive as a species is a good basis for a moral code. For society to work and be stable you can't have people murdering or stealing. It can be created independently of religion. Do you think the Jews thought it was okay to steal and murder before they received the commandments? Of course they didn't, and they wouldn't have survived as a society if they did! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 (edited) You don't need religion as a base of a morality. What human society needs to pass on its genes and survive as a species is a good basis for a moral code. For society to work and be stable you can't have people murdering or stealing. It can be created independently of religion. Do you think the Jews thought it was okay to steal and murder before they received the commandments? Of course they didn't, and they wouldn't have survived as a society if they did! But where did most morals come from? Look a the way some acient civilisations carried on and it makes you wonder about the Jews. Maybe they did maybe they didn't but the 10c's spelt it out for them do it was inexcusable, maybe they needed this as they were all going to live together in tents while they found the promised land? today we may not need religion but back then they did as everyone was, look at the Egyptions, Greeks, Aztecs, Incas etc, all religious. Its only since society has developed that religion has become less important because people are more aware of right and wrong. I just added this above -Also i have just seen when Jesus died it meant Jews and christians were no longer under the mosiac law of which the ten commandments were part and this started a principled law with beleivers so your whole arguement about people dying for following them has suddenly become invalid. Edited 14 February, 2011 by Turkish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 But where did most morals come from? Look a the way some acient civilisations carried on and it makes you wonder about the Jews. Maybe they did maybe they didn't but the 10c's spelt it out for them do it was inexcusable, maybe they needed this as they were all going to live together in tents while they found the promised land? today we may not need religion but back then they did as everyone was, look at the Egyptions, Greeks, Aztecs, Incas etc, all religious. Its only since society has developed that religion has become less important because people are more aware of right and wrong. I just added this above -Also i have just seen when Jesus died it meant Jews and christians were no longer under the mosiac law of which the ten commandments were part and this started a principled law with beleivers so your whole arguement about people dying for following them has suddenly become invalid. It's much more chicken-and-egg than you think. Morals, as you call them, are really a kind of social contract that communities of a certain size need to survive and develop. The collective impulse to develop these rules is arguably a source of religious ideas, not the other way around. Monotheistic religion is not by any means the only place that people go to get their 'morals'. People in the eastern bloc didn't have access to religions, but no matter how awful and deadening their regimes, they were no less 'moral' than you. Of course, the fall of the Berlin Wall led to an upsurge in religious activity, but that was because it had been so ruthlessly suppressed. Bot not everyone rushed into church - not even a majority - yet somehow no one has successfully portrayed the hundreds of millions of citizens from the former Soviet bloc as individually or collectively immoral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 It's much more chicken-and-egg than you think. Morals, as you call them, are really a kind of social contract that communities of a certain size need to survive and develop. The collective impulse to develop these rules is arguably a source of religious ideas, not the other way around. Monotheistic religion is not by any means the only place that people go to get their 'morals'. People in the eastern bloc didn't have access to religions, but no matter how awful and deadening their regimes, they were no less 'moral' than you. Of course, the fall of the Berlin Wall led to an upsurge in religious activity, but that was because it had been so ruthlessly suppressed. Bot not everyone rushed into church - not even a majority - yet somehow no one has successfully portrayed the hundreds of millions of citizens from the former Soviet bloc as individually or collectively immoral. Thats why the National socialists and the Communists butchered so many people in the thirties and forties. Not forgetting Pol Pott. They had nobody to answer to but themselves and the State. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now