Ask yourself, is X action moral? Is stoning adulterers and homosexuals and blasphemers to death moral? (Various crimes worthy of stoning) Is cutting off family solely because they don't believe in God moral? (Matthew 10:34-36) Is slaughtering the first born of every household because of the crimes of a single man moral?
If your answer was no, congratulations! You have a better sense of morality than the Bible.
My point is this, if we can look into the bible and see all these things that are off, wrong, immoral, then why is it still considered relevant in the sense of morality these days? It was a product of its time and of the minds of the men who wrote it. If we ever needed proof that morality can exist independently of religion, this would be it. In the end, the Bible is morally irrelevant in our culture today. Yep. That's pretty much it.
Texture here: fav.me/d6m0n50
But what honestly irritates me the most isn't the fact that the Bible - which is considered a guideline for morality - is morally irrelevant, but the fact that GOD - who my entire life has been held up and praised as the STANDARD for Morality - doesn't care about Morality at all...
Being a Good person, leading a good life, being a kind, giving and thoughtful of how you treat others does absolutely NOTHING to get you into Heaven. Only putting your faith in God does. See? it's not about Morality at all...It's just another way for God to glorify his Massive Ego.
So...essentially anyone can be as morally corrupt as they want, but as long as they Kiss God's Ass, they get into Heaven.
Mortality = Morality
Immortality = Amorality
P.S. - what I have absolutely hated about taking my World History Class this year is that, whenever me or another student was judgmental of a topic like this, we were told by the professor and other students that we cannot hold people from a different time and place to the same standards and morality that we have in the day and age. And to that I ask, "Why?"
My only guess as to why is that, people back then were less intelligent than we are now - to whit, I admit that on terms like science and technology, they were. Except that I know that people back then DID have a sense of Right and Wrong; sure people back then did not like Homosexuality because it was abnormal. BUT if they DIDN'T have a sense of right or wrong, there'd be no laws regarding murder, theft, or essentially any of the Moral Standards that we have today. I can only imagine that my classmates and Professor are in the mind-set that people back then did not know any better. But I see an interesting parallel to that.
A CHILD does not know any better, but an Adult will still hold that child to Moral Standards that they know the child knows. That is how I see the situation from the people of early civilizations who chose to believe in something like this, and deluded themselves to thinking that everything God does is right.
Text, without context, is a pretext ... also commonly known as a logical fallacy.
I won't touch on the Old Testament passages. There are just too many to address and you seem to feel that Matt 10:34-36 somehow reinforces violence.
Matt 10:34-36 talks of Jesus bringing a sword, a weapon which divides and severs. But if you read on in Matthew, you will read in Matt 26:52; Jesus rebukes Peter for taking up his sword against the Roman soldier and cutting off his ear (which Jesus "reattached") - "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword”. Jesus' sword was never a literal sword, it is the metaphorical sword.
Second factor is this: John 15:18: “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you."
Jesus warns that his followers will be hated because of their love of him (a different hatred than today that is entirely the fault of over zealous, stepping on your toes Christians). It's in this that we see the sword ... the sword is the hatred of friends and family of those who follow Christ, they will shun them for following Christ. This could be one of the greatest costs of discipleship, for love of family should not be greater than love for the Lord. This is one of the crosses they must bear - Matt 16:24 Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me."
But again - Text, without context, is a pretext ... also commonly known as a logical fallacy. If you don't know something, we live in an age of instant information ... Google is at your fingertips. There are many people out there to ask or turn to. No one is telling you to convert, just to not misrepresent information that is so easily accessible.
There are probably Jewish homosexuals too.
People can nitpick every detail of Christ's sermons, but ultimately it is a message of peace. There's no message to incite wars, or burn witches, or impede science. In fact, some early churches supported science. Wikipedia might only provide a short summary, but it describes that some Christians did seek out knowledge: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic…
There are many religious persons in modern times who study and believe in science. People can still believe that the earth is 6,000 years old if they want to. However, it's not imperative to the Gospel (which is the core of Christianity), and should not be forced into schools.
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." - Matthew 5:17
Jesus specifies that it is the Ten Commandments he was referring to:
“There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” - Matthew 19:17
“‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’” - Matthew 19:18-19
“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” - Matthew 22:37-40
Jesus didn't say to keep the laws concerning menstruation, or homosexuality, or what to eat. He also didn't mention the sabbath in those verses. That's not to say Jesus didn't honor the sabbath, but the disclusion of it implies that creationism isn't imperative to the Christian faith. It is altruism and good will which Christ emphasizes.
"Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 'Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!' Jesus replied, 'And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?'" Matthew 15:1-3
"What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them." Matthew 15:11
When Jesus was asked what was most important, he recited lines from the ten commandments. If Jesus believed that wearing matching fabrics was important, would he not have mentioned it? In fact there's a verse wear he specifically says not to worry about clothing. That's contrary to the old law which states that Jews should wear clothing only of the same material.
"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes?" - Matthew 6:25
If we're going to claim bias, as an anti-theist you could just as easily be interpreting scripture in the most inflammatory way possible, so as to rationalize personal bias. In psychology, it's well known that when opinions clash, a person will often look for signs of bias as a means to maintain their own reasoning. Either of us could be bias, but from your standpoint you will be more likely to believe that I am the biased one. I'm not calling you bias, but if I were to, you could simply find a way to deny the implication.
I recommend following these links, which address the human desire to win debates:
Some of the basic stuff has a good ethical/moral ring to it - don't bare false witness against your fellow man, don't murder, etc. But I have to agree, some of the laws are a bit beyond morally questionable. Nothing proves the point more than low to mid 20's Deuteronomy. Classics like verse 21 where it spells out what to do when you're beating up your enemies and find among them some pretty young lass you want for yourself. For some reason, this includes shaving her head and "humbling her". And if you later discover you don't really like her, you can just dump her. Oh, but you can't sell her for money. I guess that's sort of moral...ish?
But verse 25:11 takes the cake for me. I actually thought this was a sarcastic joke when I first heard it. Basically, if a man and his neighbor are fighting for some reason, and the neighbor smiteth the crap out of the man, and the man's wife comes to rescue of her now smitten man, and... oops! accidentally puts her hand on the neighbor's privates while attempting to rescue her husband... the fighting is to cease immediately, and the husband is to cut off her hand!! Oh, and he is also specifically told not to feel sorry for her. In what universe is this moral??
Or something like that.
I am baffled time and time again just how convoluted their reasoning becomes when they try to rationalize this stuff.
And yeah, of course, anything in Leviticus that doesn't agree with contemporary morals, like stoning people for various things (why is it always stoning, anyway?), only applies to jews. But that one little verse about how homosexuality is wrong and all that, now that is still relevant for every single christian, right? And even beyond that for every single non-christian as well, obviously, because we all live in one huge theocracy and all that, after all.
I don't get those guys.
As for the morality and common sense thing, what is wrong with that one small saying?
Treat others the way you would want to be treated.
I think the context of that could be applied in this manner; before saying or doing anything, take a few seconds to think about what you're going to do next and ask yourself if the shoe was on the other foot, meaning you were about to be on the receiving end of what you were about to say or do, would you really want to say or do it to someone else?
It's not complicated. If people could just apply that one small, insanely simple thing, things would be so much better in so many ways, I think.
Just the not enough coffee yet this morning commentary from a flaky old bat. I'll go back to lurking now.
Nice stamp, though.
Oh, but we forgot, we aren't considering the context of these verses... Fucking apologetics...