Ushering In An Age of Reason....Or Not.....?

It isn't a matter of morally judging the Bible. It is about morally judging the individual accounts in the Bible. The Bible read in context gives us the basis on which to do just that.In addition I don't see Christianity as just being about the Bible. I'll quote C S Lewis again:

quote:

---

I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.

---

I realize this won't make much sense to you but Christianity just makes sense of the world from my perspective. I don't see it as simple as that. For example if someone is being charitable for the approval of others but wouldn't be if there was no one who would know about it, then the act is the same but one is moral and one isn't. Also, a point I have made before, if a Christian sends a $100.00 anonymously to the third world with the notion that this gets God on his side it is less moral than the atheist who anonymously sends $100.00 to the third world. Morality is not just about what we do. In other words evangelical atheism is going to have to out evangelize Christians, Muslims etc.

How can you morally judge anything in the bible if the bible is your source of morality?

When the Bible is read in context it is clear that God is merciful and loving. He wants the humans that He created to also be merciful and loving. As humans we know that and when we act against that, even though we find ways to justify our non-loving and non-merciful actions, we know at some level that what we are doing is causing us to fall short of what we should be aspiring to.You know and I know that genocide is wrong. I know that God knows that genocide is not just wrong but evil. Why would either one of us choose to worship a God that employs evil to achieve His ends? Even from a common sense POV we can be sure that evil only breeds more evil and if God wants a world that is characterized by kindness and justice then genocide is hardly something He would advocate.It isn't the Bible that is the source of morality- it is God IMHO. The Bible tells the story of God and His relationship with the Jewish people and how through Jesus it spread to the world, but it is a story written with cultural and personal conditioning.

How does one decide which context to read the bible in?

Hi GDR, thought I'd drop in another note. Has anyone asked the question that: if your system and their system end up with the same results, whether there is a real problem or only the perception of a problem?For example the golden rule: we find this in virtually every religion and in every culture -- does the source render this invalid if it is from a religion but not invalid if it is derived from enlightened self-interest and game theory alone? Is it necessary for every single sub-culture around the world to have the same plain vanilla homogeneous morality?If the goal is a society based on reason, then it would seem reasonable that there are many ways to accomplish that, and that not all of them need to be based on the evangelical atheist agenda.When you go to a foreign country you are expected to comply with the laws of that particular country rather than the laws of your home country. Why would morality be any different: when in Rome do as the Romans.Enjoy.

There, I fixed that for you. Except when HE does it, right?

It is read in the context of it being a metanarrative that like all metanarratives gets clearer as you get closer to the end.

I have no idea what that means.If I decide that I am going to be a moral blank slate and that I am going to get my morality from the bible how do I decide what to accept and what not to accept as moral truth if the bible is my only guide?

Anyone including theists and non-theists can use the golden rule as the standard however anyone can also behave altruistically in a self serving way. On the other hand anyone can also behave altruistically for the simple reason that they find joy in being creatures who not only believe the golden rule in a legalistic sense but who live it because they truly love kindness and justice.I agree that there shouldn't be a problem. At the same time I believe the Christian creeds and have no problem saying them in church. Religions including Christianity are the stories or narratives of the basis for the golden rule. I believe the Christian narrative but that is not to say that all beliefs of other faiths are all wrong. In another thread I used various texts to show how Christians and Muslims can use their respective holy books to unite in common purpose even though of course there remain large doctrinal differences. It would be nice if we all aspired to the golden rule. I agree Except that we are talking about speed limits we're talking about a worldview.

There are a number of examples but I'll use Matthew 25 verse 31 to the end.

quote:

---

31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory.32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

---

You'll notice that the righteous in this story are the ones who fed the hungry, visited the sick in prison etc. It goes further than that in saying that they had no idea that it was Jesus they were serving when they did that. They were doing it out a love for the golden rule and just adhering to it in a legalistic sense.There is also the 10 commandments, the golden rule, Micah 6:8, (which I've quoted so many times I'm sure you already know it), etc.The God that is involved with the thoughts as presented this way is not a God of genocide and other such atrocities.Once again though, the Bible isn't a book of rules and regulations and if one wanted to it is possible to get some other message out of it. I contend that the Bible should be read and understood by both mind and heart, and read with an open questioning mindset.

I agree. But as the moral blank slate that I am hypothetically proposing to be how am I to decide which of God's teachings to follow?If the bible is all I have to guide me how do I decide between the "God of genocide and other such atrocities" as my role model and the sort of bible passages you are quoting as the one's that should be followed?Without a prior moral sense of some sort I don't see how I can be expected to choose one over the other?

I have never said that The Bible is all you have nor am I suggesting that you don't have a prior moral sense.Kids from about the time that they can talk know it isn't fair that their brother gets 2 candies and they only get one. We do have a moral code and sense of fairness built in and we also have the inclination to override it when it favours us. I believe that this prior moral sense comes from a prime moral mover as we talked about before.In a way your question coincides with the thinking of the fundamentalists around here in that you are asking for definite answers. If you want definite answers so that you can know things for sure then I suppose you should be asking the fundamentalists. I don't see God as relating to us that way. It isn't that he wants us to have rules and regulations to follow, what He wants is hearts and minds that freely choose kindness, mercy, love etc. Rules and regulations are an impediment to that.The Bible is a gift from God that if read as narrative, (I know it isn`t all narrative but there is an over-arching metanarrative from creation to re-creation or new creation), with the God given understanding of unselfish love, we can understand and make sense of the message that God has for us.

I am not demanding definite answers at all. Where did you get that from?I am simply pointing out that you can take whatever morality you want from the bible. So the idea that the bible is a source of morality is rather silly. All it does is provide a post-hoc justification for whatever moral stance people have already adopted.Which means in this 'Age of Reason' the bible (or indeed any other such supposed source of morality) is pretty irrelevant.

You had asked this. You asked the question how to sort out morality from the Bible which seems to me to imply that you want a conclusive answer and I was just pointing out that I don't see the the Bible as a book to be read in that fashion.

OK.Then in this hypothetical 'Age of Reason' we wouldn't treat the bible (or indeed any other similarly interpretable holy book) as anything other than an expression of both the good and the bad of already existing human morality would we?