Video: the incoherence of omnipotence

[ruby sparks]

Then there's biblical attitudes to slavery.

What I'm getting at is that to me it seems to make no sense to get one's morals from the bible. I'm not saying ALL the morals are 'wrong', but imo there are enough iffy ones to make me wonder if I should be treating the bible as any sort of gold standard.

 

[Learner]

Morals like the "Golden rule" ... the biblical version in this case. But there are many aspects to the bible you could find rings true being the better explanations of the text.

 

[ruby sparks]

Morals like the "Golden rule" ... the biblical version in this case.

Sure. A version of the golden rule has popped up in almost every human society.

But there are many aspects to the bible you could find rings true being the better explanations of the text.

Imo, there is so much hard work and selective interpretation that has to be done in order to 'interpret' the iffy bits (or even just the bits that are by and large no longer considered immoral by enlightened, educated and knowledgeable people) that it's better to admit that it's not perfect, instead of trying to make it so.

 

[Learner]

Leviticus, for example, also says that the male homosexual act is also punishable by death. In the NT, homosexuals will not get to heaven, apparently. Nor possibly those who masturbate.

Everything around Leviticus is the time period of sordid practices and human sacrifices to deities Baal etc.. adopting from Egypt to the Canaanites which obviously is defiance against God.

 

[ruby sparks]

Leviticus, for example, also says that the male homosexual act is also punishable by death. In the NT, homosexuals will not get to heaven, apparently. Nor possibly those who masturbate.

Everything around Leviticus is the time period of sordid practices and human sacrifices to deities Baal etc.. adopting from Egypt to the Canaanites which obviously is defiance against God.

In the NT, Paul says homosexuals will not get to heaven. That is not from Leviticus' time.

Also, what are you saying, that the rules in Leviticus were context-specific?

 

[Learner]

Sure. A version of the golden rule has popped up almost everywhere in human society.

From the Christian perspective this is part of the "Image of God" as like the conscience.

Imo, there is so much hard work and selective interpretation that has to be done in order to 'interpret' the iffy bits (or even just the bits that are by and large no longer considered immoral by enlightened, educated and knowledgeable people) that it's better to admit that it's not perfect, instead of trying to make it so.

Its not about making perfect its about who has the best explanation and is closest to context.
(Not that I claim to know all of course or in the same league as the far better apologists)

 

[ruby sparks]

Its not about making perfect its about who has the best explanation and the better context.

Ok so in Paul's time, Homosexuals wouldn't have got to heaven, but now they.....will?

The relevant word is the arguably slightly onomatopoeiac (except that it's in a different language) Koine Greek-derived 'arsenokotai', a compound of "male" and "coitus". (1 Corinthians 6 v 9).

 

[Learner]

Then there's biblical attitudes to slavery.

What I'm getting at is that to me it seems to make no sense to get one's morals from the bible. I'm not saying ALL the morals are 'wrong', but imo there are enough iffy ones to make me wonder if I should be treating the bible as any sort of gold standard.

You've probably already come across the difference of the bond-servant paying of debts and slaves captured in wars arguments. Not quite the slaves of Africa I would say.

bb later

 

[Kharakov]

Can he create 100% free moral agents who could sin but never do?

They're called conservatives. 100% free of morals, they could help with the shit work, which is a sin from their perspective, but never do their share.

 

[Lion IRC]

Asking to be loved and worshiped by one's creations is not, imo, unconditional love. And I don't think getting that love under a threat of any sort of sanction is or can be receiving a love freely given.

How many parents love their children unconditionally and yet still discipline them?

If you want an obsequious, fawning 'god' who lets you do whatever you want, perhaps you should buy a statue of buddah.

Yes, God - Jehovah - punishes unrepentant sinners. And if you deliberately sin against God it is quite disingenuous to whine about God's supposed lack of (unconditional) love.

 

[Lion IRC]

Its not about making perfect its about who has the best explanation and the better context.

Ok so in Paul's time, Homosexuals wouldn't have got to heaven, but now they.....will?

The relevant word is the arguably slightly onomatopoeiac (except that it's in a different language) Koine Greek-derived 'arsenokotai', a compound of "male" and "coitus". (1 Corinthians 6 v 9).

Sins are actions done by people - sins are not people.
Heterosexual acts can be sinful too. But we don't say...God condemns heterosexuals.

Go back and read Paul carefully.

 

[Juma]

Its not about making perfect its about who has the best explanation and the better context.

Ok so in Paul's time, Homosexuals wouldn't have got to heaven, but now they.....will?

The relevant word is the arguably slightly onomatopoeiac (except that it's in a different language) Koine Greek-derived 'arsenokotai', a compound of "male" and "coitus". (1 Corinthians 6 v 9).

Sins are actions done by people - sins are not people.
Heterosexual acts can be sinful too. But we don't say...God condemns heterosexuals.

Go back and read Paul carefully.

so god doesnt condemn homosexuals, but what they are? weird.

 

[ruby sparks]

Sins are actions done by people - sins are not people.

Indeed. It's just that those who did them were apparently committing abominations, punishable by death (and/or suffering after death).

Heterosexual acts can be sinful too. But we don't say...God condemns heterosexuals.

Again, yes. It wasn't just homosexual acts that were prohibited. I didn't just cite homosexuality. I cited several things, and asked whether or not we should still consider them as immoral and/or worthy of death (or suffering after death). Disobeying parents, for example. Or if slavery was or wasn't ok. Not loving god. And so on. Paul's list of things 'worthy of death' (and the wrath of god) in Romans 1 is very extensive. It includes those 'without natural affection'.

It all seems a tad harsh. I was mainly asking the general question, 'should I get my views on such things from the bible?' Is the bible a good or reliable moral guide about them?

My answer is a definite no. Homosexuality and homosexual sex, for example are totally fine, imo, and very often physical expressions of love involving the giving and receiving of pleasure. Slavery is not ok, imo. Disobeying parents is allowable. Thrusting swords through the bellies of pregnant women is possibly not entirely cool. Etc etc.

Go back and read Paul carefully.

Thanks. But I already had before posting.

 

[ruby sparks]

How many parents love their children unconditionally and yet still discipline them?

So you, at least, don't think the NT verses about eternal punishment are genuinely Christian?

If you want an obsequious, fawning 'god' who lets you do whatever you want, perhaps you should buy a statue of buddah.

Yes, because that's the only possible alternative, isn't it? Good parenting is all about fawning, being obsequious and letting one's creations do whatever they want.

...perhaps you should buy a statue of buddah.

Not quite sure what you find lacking in Buddhism or Buddhists, but....hey.

Yes, God - Jehovah - punishes unrepentant sinners.

What about sincere and genuine repenting after death, for example?

And if you deliberately sin against God it is quite disingenuous to whine about God's supposed lack of (unconditional) love.

I'm not clear. Are you saying his love is unconditional, or are you saying that it's a sin to not love him back?

 

[bilby]

Asking to be loved and worshiped by one's creations is not, imo, unconditional love. And I don't think getting that love under a threat of any sort of sanction is or can be receiving a love freely given.

How many parents love their children unconditionally and yet still discipline them?

Lots. But the real question is, "How many parents love their children unconditionally and yet still subject them to capital punishment?"

I'm going to guess that that's a much smaller number.

"Now, Johnny, I told you you couldn't have another cookie, and you took one anyway. Now I'm going to have to make you burn for eternity, because I love you".

I'm guessing that family services would take a dim view of such a parenting technique.

 

[ruby sparks]

I forgot sex outside of marriage and masturbation. Two of my favourite depravities when I was single..

 

[Learner]

Interestingly I think the "original sin" could be just that.... sex ! Lust's etc.. in the heart. The Sudden need of the fig leaf and all that because of a feeling of shame. I heard a great talk on this perspective with a better explanation of course. Basically everyone fails or has failed - temptations of the flesh so powerful leading some to all sorts of things not quite so good.

Requires a saviour for the this failure of self-control.

Unless you be like children etc.. you know the score.

 

[ruby sparks]

Interestingly I think the "original sin" could be just that.... sex ! Lust's etc.. in the heart). The Sudden need of the fig leaf and all that because of a feeling of shame. I heard a great talk on this perspective with a better explanation of course. Basically everyone fails or has failed - temptations of the flesh so powerful leading to all sorts of things not quite so good.

Requires a saviour for the failure.

Unless you be like children etc.. you know the score.

Since I don't believe there's anything bad, shameful or wrong with either sex or lust, thank you for seeming, I think, to help bolster my questioning whether I should get my morality from the bible.

Night night.

 

[Learner]

I do love a pint(s) and a guiness too.

Ok Rube night night

 

[Keith&Co.]

What I'm getting at is that to me it seems to make no sense to get one's morals from the bible.

No one does. They bring the morals they get elsewhere TO the bible to find vindication and authorization.

Those biblical morals they disagree with (which is only possible because they have extra-biblical sources), they rationaluze reasons to dismiss.
Those expired when Christ came, or when he died, or slavery was different back then, or whatever.

Slavers and abolitionists BOTH felt they were doing god's work, and had the verses to prove it.