I believe the Bible teaches correct morals (mostly)...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-09-2017, 10:28 AM
RE: I believe the Bible teaches correct morals (mostly)...
(27-09-2017 09:49 AM)wendigo Wrote:  
(27-09-2017 09:13 AM)julep Wrote:  He's especially avoiding the numerous questions about what he meant about "lifestyles" and evolutionary morality.

Am I then? I mentioned fairly early on that I was referring to family units, union of man and woman, community and so on. You've just skimmed over it and I've been told for about the last 20-30 pages or so that I don't have a stance and that I'm being deliberately vague. This is why I mentioned that the other poster a while back must be illiterate, and possibly a moron.

As the Bible's rules and recommendations regarding these areas are internally contradictory, you have not made anything clearer with these responses. Which you would already know if you'd bothered ever to read the entire Bible.

So I'm still trying to unpack what biblical precepts you're supporting. Does union of man and woman simply mean you're anti gay sex and/or anti gay marriage? Are you anti divorce, like Jesus was? Family units: does that mean you support a brother being forced to marry his brother's widow, or a woman being forced to marry her rapist, or does it mean you support men being able to have concubines and multiple wives?

Community: does that mean you're good with genocide, as practiced by the Bible God and, at that god's command, by the Israelites? Good with the "be-ye-not-unequally-yoked" commands of the New Testament, encouraging Christians not to associate with non-Christians? Or are you just all about love thy neighbor, except when it comes to those bovine herds?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like julep's post
27-09-2017, 10:44 AM (This post was last modified: 27-09-2017 10:49 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: I believe the Bible teaches correct morals (mostly)...
The Bible is not *even* anti-gay anything. The concept of sexual orientation did not arise in human ideas until the late 19th Century. The proscriptions against same-sex activities the assemblers of the Bible included in their tests were extant in Near Eastern culture already, and were against (assumed) *straight* men having sex with each other, because it lowered their status, (not because it was *evil*). All humans were assumed to have gender assignments based on birth (only). There was no concept of "homosexuality" in the ancient world. Reading the bible with 21st Century concepts is known as "presentism" :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism..._analysis)
The knowledge in the field of Human Sexuality has ballooned in the last 150 years, and the ancient world simply had NO knowledge of how things worked in terms of orientation.
The factors determining orientation are not yet understood, but since first sons are more likely to be straight than second sons, there must be some evolutionary advantage to it.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2120218&page=1
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid117446

(and BTW, there exists NO SUCH STUDY that shows human children are better off in opposite-sex unions, than same-sex unions).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
27-09-2017, 10:59 AM
RE: I believe the Bible teaches correct morals (mostly)...
(27-09-2017 09:49 AM)wendigo Wrote:  ...
I mentioned fairly early on that I was referring to family units, union of man and woman, community and so on. You've just skimmed over it and I've been told for about the last 20-30 pages or so that I don't have a stance and that I'm being deliberately vague. This is why I mentioned that the other poster a while back must be illiterate, and possibly a moron.

Thanks. I did notice those.

I was just waiting for some sign that you actually wanted to discuss these point instead of responding to perceived affronts.

So to summarise:
Quote:family units,
union of man and woman,
community; and
so on.
are your four selected examples that make...
Quote:biological/evolutional and physical sense.

Ignoring the hand-wave fourth one, the first three all emerged (pre-humans (pre'man'/'woman')) to varying degrees of bonding (depending on oxytocin and vasopressin levels) for all mammals (and many birds too).

This implies it is innate. Social contracts are pre-human. Rules and rule books came later to codify what was already happening and to settle disputes / conflicts of interests.

Quote: moral compass as made famous by the Holy Bible

Does this mean that 'people of the book' do not have this moral compass until they have read / have been taught the book? Dodgy

Quote:How to reconcile this with modern ideas on political correctness?

Are you asking how to map political correctness onto the verses in the bible?

Or are you asking about the biological basis for political correctness? If so, it's a combination of empathy/compassion in relation to an ethical baseline.

[Image: Screen_Shot_2017-05-02_at_2.06.49_PM.png?1493752052]

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like DLJ's post
27-09-2017, 11:02 AM (This post was last modified: 27-09-2017 11:11 AM by wendigo.)
RE: I believe the Bible teaches correct morals (mostly)...
(27-09-2017 10:44 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The Bible is not *even* anti-gay anything. The concept of sexual orientation did not arise in human ideas until the late 19th Century. The proscriptions against same-sex activities the assemblers of the Bible included in their tests were extant in Near Eastern culture already, and were against (assumed) *straight* men having sex with each other, because it lowered their status, (not because it was *evil*). All humans were assumed to have gender assignments based on birth (only). There was no concept of "homosexuality" in the ancient world. Reading the bible with 21st Century concepts is known as "presentism" :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism..._analysis)
The knowledge in the field of Human Sexuality has ballooned in the last 150 years, and the ancient world simply had NO knowledge of how things worked in terms of orientation.
The factors determining orientation are not yet understood, but since first sons are more likely to be straight than second sons, there must be some evolutionary advantage to it.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2120218&page=1
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid117446

(and BTW, there exists NO SUCH STUDY that shows human children are better off in opposite-sex unions, than same-sex unions).

Nor did I say anything about being anti-gay: the other guy did. Straw man argument. You can hold one set of values, while being tolerant about someone else's you know. The bible is very anti-gay:

"Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolator, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves or grabbers of drunkards of slanderers or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God."

"You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; that is an abomination."


Seems pretty clear to me. The ancient world of course had knowledge of sexual orientation, and there have been lots of studies both for and against same sex adoption. Got any other completely uniformed bullshit you'd like, to trumpet?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-09-2017, 11:07 AM (This post was last modified: 27-09-2017 11:11 AM by ClydeLee.)
RE: I believe the Bible teaches correct morals (mostly)...
(27-09-2017 09:49 AM)wendigo Wrote:  
(27-09-2017 09:13 AM)julep Wrote:  He's especially avoiding the numerous questions about what he meant about "lifestyles" and evolutionary morality.

Am I then? I mentioned fairly early on that I was referring to family units, union of man and woman, community and so on. You've just skimmed over it and I've been told for about the last 20-30 pages or so that I don't have a stance and that I'm being deliberately vague. This is why I mentioned that the other poster a while back must be illiterate, and possibly a moron.
How are these from the Bible opposed to all religions? Or basic philosophical non religious ideas?

Family unity, unions between man and woman, community, etc all exist in the poly theistic religious ideas proto judism/Christianity. Those are basic tribalism and communal human and traits. The bible didn't impact those differently than they were always.

They're not, nothing you've said in the view vague generic ways you have said what you think explains anything differently.

What is specifically biblical or Christian about what you think are the good morals they are about?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
27-09-2017, 11:14 AM
RE: I believe the Bible teaches correct morals (mostly)...
(27-09-2017 11:07 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(27-09-2017 09:49 AM)wendigo Wrote:  Am I then? I mentioned fairly early on that I was referring to family units, union of man and woman, community and so on. You've just skimmed over it and I've been told for about the last 20-30 pages or so that I don't have a stance and that I'm being deliberately vague. This is why I mentioned that the other poster a while back must be illiterate, and possibly a moron.
How are these from the Bible opposed to all religions? Or basic philosophical non religious ideas?

Family unity, unions between man and woman, community, etc all exist in the poly theistic religious ideas proto judism/Christianity. Those are basic tribalism and communal human and traits. The bible didn't impact those differently than they were always.

They're not, nothing you've said in the view vague generic ways you have said what you think explains anything differently.

What is specifically biblical or Christian about what you think are the good morals they are about?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

Nothing about them is specifically Christian. It's the Christians that get the bulk of the hatred from atheists in he USA though, presumably because of fundamentalists like Westboro Baptist or whatever. I'm just saying that most Christians around the world are nice people who have solid moral fiber so stop bashing them. I see nothing wrong with it just because their book has crappy parts too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-09-2017, 11:17 AM
RE: I believe the Bible teaches correct morals (mostly)...
Adieu, adieu, adieu...

Did it work?

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Anjele's post
27-09-2017, 11:21 AM
RE: I believe the Bible teaches correct morals (mostly)...
(27-09-2017 11:02 AM)wendigo Wrote:  
(27-09-2017 10:44 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The Bible is not *even* anti-gay anything. The concept of sexual orientation did not arise in human ideas until the late 19th Century. The proscriptions against same-sex activities the assemblers of the Bible included in their tests were extant in Near Eastern culture already, and were against (assumed) *straight* men having sex with each other, because it lowered their status, (not because it was *evil*). All humans were assumed to have gender assignments based on birth (only). There was no concept of "homosexuality" in the ancient world. Reading the bible with 21st Century concepts is known as "presentism" :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism..._analysis)
The knowledge in the field of Human Sexuality has ballooned in the last 150 years, and the ancient world simply had NO knowledge of how things worked in terms of orientation.
The factors determining orientation are not yet understood, but since first sons are more likely to be straight than second sons, there must be some evolutionary advantage to it.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2120218&page=1
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid117446

(and BTW, there exists NO SUCH STUDY that shows human children are better off in opposite-sex unions, than same-sex unions).

Nor did I say anything about being anti-gay: the other guy did. Straw man argument. You can hold one set of values, while being tolerant about someone else's you know. The bible is very anti-gay:

"Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolator, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves or grabbers of drunkards of slanderers or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God."

"You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; that is an abomination."


Seems pretty clear to me. The ancient world of course had knowledge of sexual orientation, and there have been lots of studies both for and against same sex adoption. Got any other completely uniformed bullshit you'd like, to trumpet?

Does having sex with a person with the same sexual organs and perversions of these acts indicate the Sexual behavior and acts. But nothing of this notion of orientation that is used today.

You are missing a fine idea distinction. It seems clear to you because it's easy to in modern view translated in more modern text too.

It's a more akin to you did it, you are it some Christian arguments use and how Jesus even calls those lusting in their hearts adulterous. They wouldn't think of some man lusting over another man as having a homosexual orientation. It's merely the act and even lust he is being judged against.... it's also shy Christians feel absolved to say love the sinner hate the sin.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-09-2017, 11:22 AM
RE: I believe the Bible teaches correct morals (mostly)...
(27-09-2017 11:02 AM)wendigo Wrote:  
(27-09-2017 10:44 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The Bible is not *even* anti-gay anything. The concept of sexual orientation did not arise in human ideas until the late 19th Century. The proscriptions against same-sex activities the assemblers of the Bible included in their tests were extant in Near Eastern culture already, and were against (assumed) *straight* men having sex with each other, because it lowered their status, (not because it was *evil*). All humans were assumed to have gender assignments based on birth (only). There was no concept of "homosexuality" in the ancient world. Reading the bible with 21st Century concepts is known as "presentism" :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism..._analysis)
The knowledge in the field of Human Sexuality has ballooned in the last 150 years, and the ancient world simply had NO knowledge of how things worked in terms of orientation.
The factors determining orientation are not yet understood, but since first sons are more likely to be straight than second sons, there must be some evolutionary advantage to it.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2120218&page=1
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid117446

(and BTW, there exists NO SUCH STUDY that shows human children are better off in opposite-sex unions, than same-sex unions).

Nor did I say anything about being anti-gay: the other guy did. Straw man argument. You can hold one set of values, while being tolerant about someone else's you know. The bible is very anti-gay:

"Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolator, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves or grabbers of drunkards of slanderers or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God."

"You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; that is an abomination."


Seems pretty clear to me. The ancient world of course had knowledge of sexual orientation, and there have been lots of studies both for and against same sex adoption. Got any other completely uniformed bullshit you'd like, to trumpet?

Typical ignorant uninformed religious bullshit. You didn't read the links. The word "abomination" is a mistranslation and there was no word to be translated known as "homosexuality". So that also is a mistranslation. It's hardly clear AT ALL, and if you're going to talk to talk to a scholar about what the Bible says, best to BONE up on the words you THINK you are using translations of, and where they came from, and what they meant. There WAS no concept of "homosexuality" in the ancient world, and you can provide NO historical reference for it.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-09-2017, 11:22 AM
RE: I believe the Bible teaches correct morals (mostly)...
(27-09-2017 10:19 AM)wendigo Wrote:  
(27-09-2017 10:05 AM)unfogged Wrote:  The quote from your OP was

The "core ideas" in the bible include polygamy, rape, and incest and claiming that those make moral sense is a difficult sell. If you ignore those and cherry-pick only things you want to defend as moral then that belies your contention that the bible is a good source of moral teachings because you need some other criteria to separate the wheat from the chaff.

It is not at all clear what connection you are trying to make between morality and evolution or what you mean by it making "physical" sense.

So those core ideas you listed, polygamy, rape, incest...that's what you think Christians take away with them when they come walking out of church on Sunday?

No. That is not what I said. That is not what many of the people responding to you have said but you refuse to do anything but shift the goalposts. You bitch about others not reading what you wrote but I've yet to see any sign that you actually read what anybody else writes.

Quote:I already said I could have worded my original post more thoughtfully.
Consider this: what would I have to say or do in this thread now, to "win you over"? Short of grovelling and backing down on my opinion, and admitting you are all right for the potentially next several dozens of pages, there is literally nothing.

Cry me a fucking river. You made an argument that wasn't just poorly worded, it was orthogonal to the argument you now claim that you wanted to make and you still try to shift the blame for the disconnect onto others.

Quote:That is to say, your opinions about the things we all try with science and philosophy/religion (even if religion is misguided) to understand are "correct" and evrything else is unacceptable and deserving of scorn. Doesn't give me much hope for the future here. Dodgy

And you continue to ascribe motives to others that simply do not follow from what people are saying to you. All I see is somebody who doesn't like it when anybody else doesn't bow and scrape and kiss his ass.

I've tried more than once now, as have others, to get you to define what exactly you mean but the only response is a digression into something that has little to do with the topic at hand. It's not my fault that you are unable to present your ideas in a coherent way or explain what you mean when it is obvious that people aren't taking your posts as intended.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: