The New Testament as a guide for living for atheists

[steve_bank]

@No Robots , are you living up to the commands in the New Testament?

And.. for the non-believers... are they living up to the Golden Rule?

We are not the ones trying to convince anyone to believe in an imaginary god and to believe in disjointed set of old incoherent as the 'word of god. We atheists on the forum are not telling anyone we have a superior morality that all else must follow or be damned.

As to the golden rule, would you like to be preached to by a conservative Muslim telling Christianss they are all wrong and must become Muslim to get to heaven?

 

[DBT]

According to Browne, the key thing in daily life is to practice Islam, the subordination of the ego to the god within. He points to all the wisdom traditions to support his views. In particular, he identifies Jesus as the great master of this teaching.

Sounds like he reinvented BaHai.
Tom

Definitely some affinities. I like Browne for a number of reasons. What I like best is that he correlates his doctrine to specific developments in history. He thereby provides insight into our own time and its particular function in the development spiritual life.

Are Gods moral standards and values not meant to be eternal and absolute? If we are told 'thou shalt not kill,' does that not stand for all time?

'Thou shalt not kill' would be quite a confliction, I mean a lot of people are meat eaters.

Is it murder to kill a goose for a Sunday roast? I suspect that forever eternal, we'll all be eating fruit and veg.

"Thou shalt not murder" is the original commandment.

Isn't it clear that biblical commandment 'thou shalt not kill' refers to our fellow man, not sheep, cattle, etc, for food?

Word for word ... isn't clear unless you know of the bible. Getting the context is what counts.

Do you think that God, giving this commandment, is fine with murder? Or perhaps it's relative, murder is fine in one period in history, but not another?

Which, if so, makes the moral values given by God relative to time, place and circumstance?

Are you really expecting me to agree with YOUR view as you understand them? As bilby said of me, you are also contradicting God.

Context doesn't transform what is clearly written and meant into something you want it to mean.

'Thou shalt not kill' means precisely what it says. It is not what I say, it is what is written and what that represents in terms of a moral standard.

 

[TomC]

'Thou shalt not kill' means precisely what it says.

To who does it mean anything?

Certainly not the Bible authors, they didn't understand English because it hadn't been invented.

No, people make up stuff that suits them and attribute it to the Gospel authors. Who attribute their stuff to God, no matter how incoherent and ethically primitive.


Even "Do not commit murder" isn't very precise. Murder is a very subjective concept. I'm very ProLife, my definition of murder is much more restrictive than most Christian definitions.

My definition includes Capital Punishment and foreign invasions and environmental degradation, to name a few. I'm sure that the many and various, ethically primitive, Bible authors would disagree about the meaning of the word "murder".
Tom

ETA ~Modern Christians certainly don't understand what murder means. ~

 

[DBT]

To 'Kill' specifically refers to taking a life. Thou shalt not kill conveys the moral wrongness of killing. It does not describe reasons or circumstances. That becomes the grey area.

"Thou shalt not kill' just tells us that this God does not approve of killing. That killing is wrong.

 

[bilby]

To 'Kill' specifically refers to taking a life. Thou shalt not kill conveys the moral wrongness of killing. It does not describe reasons or circumstances. That becomes the grey area.

"Thou shalt not kill' just tells us that this God does not approve of killing. That killing is wrong.

What, this God?

And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

That's a mighty odd way to behave when you do not approve of killing.

 

[DBT]

To 'Kill' specifically refers to taking a life. Thou shalt not kill conveys the moral wrongness of killing. It does not describe reasons or circumstances. That becomes the grey area.

"Thou shalt not kill' just tells us that this God does not approve of killing. That killing is wrong.

What, this God?

And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

That's a mighty odd way to behave when you do not approve of killing.

My point exactly. A contradiction.

 

[James Brown]

Yeah, dude, I'm pious as fuck.

Good to hear.

Please, sir, I beg of you. Will you give me one percent of your gross income for the rest of your life?

(See Matthew 5:42 if you have any questions.)

 

[Learner]

@No Robots , are you living up to the commands in the New Testament?

And.. for the non-believers... are they living up to the Golden Rule?

We are not the ones trying to convince anyone to believe in an imaginary god and to believe in disjointed set of old incoherent as the 'word of god. We atheists on the forum are not telling anyone we have a superior morality that all else must follow or be damned.

Trying to convince us of a particular narrative of a faith you mean? Isn't that what's really happening? You atheists have been telling us... you understand morality better than the understanding of Christians and how they should view their God.

As to the golden rule, would you like to be preached to by a conservative Muslim telling Christianss they are all wrong and must become Muslim to get to heaven?

If I have ears to listen then no problem - if I don't, and I ignore them, no problem.

Plenty of channels you could switch to. Netflix or something that's of more interest to you than listening to preachers.

 

[Learner]

Word for word ... isn't clear unless you know of the bible. Getting the context is what counts.

Do you think that God, giving this commandment, is fine with murder? Or perhaps it's relative, murder is fine in one period in history, but not another?

Which, if so, makes the moral values given by God relative to time, place and circumstance?

Are you really expecting me to agree with YOUR view as you understand them? As bilby said of me, you are also contradicting God.

Context doesn't transform what is clearly written and meant into something you want it to mean.

'Thou shalt not kill' means precisely what it says. It is not what I say, it is what is written and what that represents in terms of a moral standard.

I agree with the meaning, I don't agree with YOUR take about the morality of God.

 

[No Robots]

Yeah, dude, I'm pious as fuck.

Good to hear.

Please, sir, I beg of you. Will you give me one percent of your gross income for the rest of your life?

(See Matthew 5:42 if you have any questions.)

Sorry, dude, but I'm poor (in spirit).

 

[abaddon]

Context doesn't transform what is clearly written and meant into something you want it to mean.

'Thou shalt not kill' means precisely what it says. It is not what I say, it is what is written and what that represents in terms of a moral standard.

I agree with the meaning, I don't agree with YOUR take about the morality of God.

But his error is the meaning.

Ratsach was translated as "kill" in KJV and a few other translations, but later was more usually translated as "murder" - the unlawful premeditated killing of humans by humans.

DBT is using the older translation "kill" and declared "it is what is written" though it's not what was originally written. The key to knowing the intended meaning is knowing the context and the context is the original word-choices.

Also, the argument that it shows God's a hypocrite is a non sequitur. It doesn't follow from "thou shalt not murder" that Biblegod and humans should never kill anyone or anything.

But still there's no defending the morality of Biblegod. As portrayed in the Bible he's deeply immoral and there is no way around that. Keep in mind, a depiction of a vile God in a book just means the book's truth-value needs to be doubted. It's not proof against the existence of a god, it's proof the Bible's descriptions of the god must be wrong if the god exists. That doesn't help support a case for god's existence; but, my point is, it doesn't defeat it either.

 

[bilby]

Keep in mind, a depiction of a vile God in a book just means the book's truth-value needs to be doubted. It's not proof against the existence of a god, it's proof the Bible's descriptions of the god are wrong.

Indeed, there's nothing in the definition of a god that implies he can't be a vile cunt.

And if God is evil, then His word can, quite consistently, contain lies (including about how good and benevolent He is). So with the initial assumption of His vileness, the truth value of His book becomes irrelevant - it can contain a mixture of truth and falsehood, and we have no reason to expect to be able to sort one from the other.

The Bible alone is evidence that there is no good God. But it's not sufficient in itself to demonstrate that there's no God at all. Just that if there is, He's an arsehole and a liar.

For proof that no gods exist, not even cruel and evil ones, we need to look at reality outside scripture.

 

[No Robots]

Even-handed and judicious as ever, abaddon.

To elevate the discussion further, I refer you to Spinoza's Theological-Political Treatise. This is the gold standard for Bible interpretation. He makes clear that whatever is in the Bible is ultimately from the mouths and/or pens of men. In other words, it is how Moses or whomever else it is, saw things. Over time, more people have the law "written in their hearts."

 

[lostone]

Word for word ... isn't clear unless you know of the bible. Getting the context is what counts.

Do you think that God, giving this commandment, is fine with murder? Or perhaps it's relative, murder is fine in one period in history, but not another?

Which, if so, makes the moral values given by God relative to time, place and circumstance?

Are you really expecting me to agree with YOUR view as you understand them? As bilby said of me, you are also contradicting God.

Context doesn't transform what is clearly written and meant into something you want it to mean.

'Thou shalt not kill' means precisely what it says. It is not what I say, it is what is written and what that represents in terms of a moral standard.

I agree with the meaning, I don't agree with YOUR take about the morality of God.

Not all Infidels are atheists; some are agnostics, pantheists, pagans, have their own individual beliefs unrelated to any religion, undecided, or simply non-believers. Also, the Christian god is not the only god humankind has ever conceived of and/or still believe in. It's a bigger playing field than that.

 

[TomC]

I agree with the meaning, I don't agree with YOUR take about the morality of God.

I'm not sure what you mean by God.

There are multiple God images in the Bible alone. Adam's god is quite different from Abraham's god which is different from Moses' god which is different from the God of the NT.

There is no singular God, not even limited to the Bible. Bible God is a character type, with multiple iterations, who became more ethically sophisticated as the humans who reinvent Them became more sophisticated.

But the oldest Bible Gods were ethically ugly by modern standards.
Tom

 

[steve_bank]

@No Robots , are you living up to the commands in the New Testament?

And.. for the non-believers... are they living up to the Golden Rule?

We are not the ones trying to convince anyone to believe in an imaginary god and to believe in disjointed set of old incoherent as the 'word of god. We atheists on the forum are not telling anyone we have a superior morality that all else must follow or be damned.

Trying to convince us of a particular narrative of a faith you mean? Isn't that what's really happening? You atheists have been telling us... you understand morality better than the understanding of Christians and how they should view their God.

As to the golden rule, would you like to be preached to by a conservative Muslim telling Christianss they are all wrong and must become Muslim to get to heaven?

If I have ears to listen then no problem - if I don't, and I ignore them, no problem.

Plenty of channels you could switch to. Netflix or something that's of more interest to you than listening to

Another Christian retort, atheists are doing the same as Christians. Proselytizing and preaching,

I doubt most atheists would care what you bleive out innthe wprld, as long as it i not pu upon then.

In our pluralistic society we do not want Christianity tauht in public schools. We don't want politicians making laws based on what they think god says to them.

Christanity has been predatory from the start. Native Americans are alive today telling ther experience of being taken from their famines and placed in schools forced to become Christians.

Christians try to smuggle bibles into NK and float them over the birder on balloons. Craziness.

Obsessed with making others Christians. Christianity has lost most of its direct political power, the RCC is centered in a walled area in Rome. Historically the Brits, French, Spanish, and Portuguese viciously and violently tried to impose Christianity on the wrould they encountered.

Thomas Jefferson was a Deist and he had no love for the Catholic papacy and especially the Jesuits. Jesuits were the Catholic enforcers and speeders of the theology.

Christianity traveled with British colonialism.

The intent is still the same.

 

[Learner]

Word for word ... isn't clear unless you know of the bible. Getting the context is what counts.

Do you think that God, giving this commandment, is fine with murder? Or perhaps it's relative, murder is fine in one period in history, but not another?

Which, if so, makes the moral values given by God relative to time, place and circumstance?

Are you really expecting me to agree with YOUR view as you understand them? As bilby said of me, you are also contradicting God.

Context doesn't transform what is clearly written and meant into something you want it to mean.

'Thou shalt not kill' means precisely what it says. It is not what I say, it is what is written and what that represents in terms of a moral standard.

I agree with the meaning, I don't agree with YOUR take about the morality of God.

Not all Infidels are atheists; some are agnostics, pantheists, pagans, have their own individual beliefs unrelated to any religion, undecided, or simply non-believers. Also, the Christian god is not the only god humankind has ever conceived of and/or still believe in. It's a bigger playing field than that.

(Responding in no particular order)
Yes of course as you mention in the above regarding the variety of infidels etc.. but I ask.. what point was you addressing?
I mean in regards to the bible - to which God have I been refering to? I also refer to anyone who has the negative pov on the morality of God, mainly those being in the discussion themselves.. which in fact, wouldn't matter what alternative belief each of the individual has, being that the view on the subject matter is opposed to the Christian's view.

 

[DBT]

Context doesn't transform what is clearly written and meant into something you want it to mean.

'Thou shalt not kill' means precisely what it says. It is not what I say, it is what is written and what that represents in terms of a moral standard.

I agree with the meaning, I don't agree with YOUR take about the morality of God.

But his error is the meaning.

Ratsach was translated as "kill" in KJV and a few other translations, but later was more usually translated as "murder" - the unlawful premeditated killing of humans by humans.

DBT is using the older translation "kill" and declared "it is what is written" though it's not what was originally written. The key to knowing the intended meaning is knowing the context and the context is the original word-choices.

Also, the argument that it shows God's a hypocrite is a non sequitur. It doesn't follow from "thou shalt not murder" that Biblegod and humans should never kill anyone or anything.

But still there's no defending the morality of Biblegod. As portrayed in the Bible he's deeply immoral and there is no way around that. Keep in mind, a depiction of a vile God in a book just means the book's truth-value needs to be doubted. It's not proof against the existence of a god, it's proof the Bible's descriptions of the god must be wrong if the god exists. That doesn't help support a case for god's existence; but, my point is, it doesn't defeat it either.

Translated as Murder makes no difference to the point. In fact it is the point, that God, giving the instruction 'thou shalt not kill,' frowns upon murder/killing yet according to the very same book, orders murder and engages in it without regard for 'thou shalt not murder/kill,' or the moral implications of the act.

 

[DBT]

Word for word ... isn't clear unless you know of the bible. Getting the context is what counts.

Do you think that God, giving this commandment, is fine with murder? Or perhaps it's relative, murder is fine in one period in history, but not another?

Which, if so, makes the moral values given by God relative to time, place and circumstance?

Are you really expecting me to agree with YOUR view as you understand them? As bilby said of me, you are also contradicting God.

Context doesn't transform what is clearly written and meant into something you want it to mean.

'Thou shalt not kill' means precisely what it says. It is not what I say, it is what is written and what that represents in terms of a moral standard.

I agree with the meaning, I don't agree with YOUR take about the morality of God.

The question of morality lies in what is said about murder or killing, ie, do not commit murder, do not kill, even while ordering murder and engaging in it, killing the first born of Egypt, etc, where a value - thou shalt not kill - is expressed and broken by God.

 

[James Brown]

Yeah, dude, I'm pious as fuck.

Good to hear.

Please, sir, I beg of you. Will you give me one percent of your gross income for the rest of your life?

(See Matthew 5:42 if you have any questions.)

Sorry, dude, but I'm poor (in spirit).

I think you're not as faithful to the NT as you claim to be, or that you expect everyone else to be.

And I doubt you have absolutely zero income. I'm only asking for one percent of it, which Jesus tells us that you should not refuse.

What was that parable about the Widow's mite?