NationStates Jolt Archive

I personally somewhat like it. Although I don't agree with the "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". (As an aside, I've recently heard that may have been a mistranslation of "poisoner". Anybody have any more info?)

I like "Love the sinner, hate the sin". That makes much sense. Some of the Old Testament has quirky rules, but much of the New seems to be a decent basis for morals.

Do you think the Bible is a decent basis for morals?

It depends whether you are a moral relativist or not. For me, the Bible isn't just a set of morals (I'm one of those crazy hypocritical fanatical jesus magic boys). If you are not a christian, then what point is the Bible? It tells you that you are a sinner and will face eternal death if you do not accept and obey some weird guy into your life. The morals that the bible does preach are somewhat good. But it would be wise to ignore large parts of the OT because there are plenty of stories of wars for god. And if I wasn't a christian, I'd say wars for god are bad.

If you are a moral relativist, the bible would not be a good set of morals. Since, as I understand, relativists want to tolerate and get a long primarily. You can do that without having to be boring by obeying the bible.

No. And I never read it. Except for some cool war stories in the Old Testament.

No. And I never read it. Except for some cool war stories in the Old Testament.

I rest my case.

I personally somewhat like it. Although I don't agree with the "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". (As an aside, I've recently heard that may have been a mistranslation of "poisoner". Anybody have any more info?)
I like "Love the sinner, hate the sin". That makes much sense. Some of the Old Testament has quirky rules, but much of the New seems to be a decent basis for morals.
Do you think the Bible is a decent basis for morals?
You have not read the Bible, have you?

Jesus was great, but alot of it (excluding Ecclesiates) I can do without

I rest my case.
Which was?

You have not read the Bible, have you?
I have, but in bits. I own a copy, but I find it terribly hard to actually read more than small sections.
Damn ADHD.

the bible would not be a good set of morals.

I took that from my "moral relativist" speel, no I am not calling you one, so do not hurt me.

one of the things typically held to be important to having a 'good' system of morality is internal consistency. the bible runs into a few problems in this area.

Please explain :gundge:

The bible advocates slavery, murder, rape and prejudice.
highly unreccomended reading for those under 18.

Bible, Rated X

What Bible is this? Didn't it say the old law is gone in the new testament? And rape, uhm there were laws against rape. Slavery? True, and the owners were told to be exact opposite of American south slavery. Murder? Yes murder of some wicked kings.

Parts of it make a lot of sense, moral-wise, but those already coincide with what I personally believe. Much of the rest is hate rhetoric and senselessness, or has been mistranslated as such.

one of the things typically held to be important to having a 'good' system of morality is internal consistency. the bible runs into a few problems in this area.
Consistency being the main word...
Concise and accurate... Although you're probably a pinko (smiles).

The trouble is personal interpretation.

Yes, I will admit, some of the Bible is perfect for morality. Don't kill, don't steal, be good to each other, do your best not to fuck your neighbor's wife, set aside a day of rest because, frankly, you need it ... etc etc.

It's a great thing.

What I cannot stand, however, are the people who say, "Well, 'thou shalt not kill' is a CHRISTIAN moral, so I don't know what everyone's problem is with it".

"Thou shalt not kill" is, in fact, not a Christian moral, but a HUMAN moral. We figured out, long before any version of the Bible was written, that we shouldn't go around willy-nilly slaughtering each other ... yet, the evangelicals will have you believe that we were harem fucking, people slaughtering, sin machines before the great and powerful Oz (I mean ... Jesus) came out from behind the curtain.

We weren't.

The Bible is a nice thing. It's a wonderful thing. Just like the Qur'an and the Vedas, the teachings of Siddhartha, Zohar, and the words of the Bahai (sorry if I've written that wrong, but I can't remember where to put the apostrophy) are a wondeful thing.

I am a Muslim. What that means is that I have accepted that - FOR MY LIFE AND MY EXPERIENCE - there is no god, save Allah, and that Muhammed(pbuh) is Allah's last prophet.

Nothing in Qur'an tells me that I have to hate or bomb or kill another just because they accept a prophet other than mine.

Yes, again, the Bible is a good moral set of ideals ... but, unfortunately, once you include the Epistles, you must accept that there are people "less moral than you".

To that, I agree with the words of Isa (Jesus to you Roman speaking peoples), and say, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Let he who has no iniquities in his life bequest this death. Let he who can claim oneness with the Almighty raise his hand against this fallen child."

And I am done with my rant.

Parts of it make a lot of sense, moral-wise, but those already coincide with what I personally believe. Much of the rest is hate rhetoric and senselessness, or has been mistranslated as such.

I thought the new testament was about love, and the fruits of the spirit? Much of the minor prophets in the last parts of the old testament are against those Jeeews.

The trouble is personal interpretation.

Yes, I will admit, some of the Bible is perfet for morality. Don't kill, don't steal, be good to each other, do your best not to fuck your neighbor's wife, set aside a day of rest because, frankly, you need it ... etc etc.

It's a great thing.

What I cannot stand, however, are the people who say, "Well, 'thou shalt not kill' is a CHRISTIAN moral, so I don't know what everyone's problem is with it".

"Thou shalt not kill" is, in fact, not a Christian moral, but a HUMAN moral. We figured out, long before any version of the Bible was written, that we shouldn't go around willy-nilly slaughtering each other ... yet, the evangelicals will have you believe that we were harem fucking, people slaughtering, sin machines before the great and powerful Oz (I mean ... Jesus) came out from behind the curtain.

We weren't.

The Bible is a nice thing. It's a wonderful thing. Just like the Qur'an and the Vedas, the teachings of Siddhartha, Zohar, and the words of the Bahai (sorry if I've written tht wrong, but I can't remember where to put the apostrophy) are a wondeful thing.

I am a Muslim. What that means is that I have accepted that - FOR MY LIFE AND MY EXPERIENCE - there is no god, save Allah, and that Muhammed(pbuh) is Allah's last prophet.

Nothing in Qur'an tells me that I have to hate or bomb or kill another just because they accept a prophet other than mine.

Yes, again, the Bible is a good moral set of ideals ... but, unfortunately, once you include the Epistles, you must accept that there are people "less moral than you".

To that, I agree with the words of Isa (Jesus to you Roman speaking peoples), and say, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Let he who has no iniquities in his life bequest this death. Let he who can claim oneness with the Almighty raise his hand against this fallen child."

And I am done with my rant.
*applause*
That was a good rant.

You know, that was a great rant and all...but...uh...

...the moment was kinda ruined. I mean, after all that, I see "I saw Kanabia's boobs!"

You know, that was a great rant and all...but...uh...

...the moment was kinda ruined. I mean, after all that, I see "I saw Kanabia's boobs!"


ROFL! Sorry ...

Again ... just proves that the people who bring God's voice are human.

Kanabia's boobs? Well ... I bet they were fake. ;)

I have a good moral set right here! *shows off moral set* :D

The Bible is the Word of God and is the Truth. Indefinately

The Bible is the Word of God and is the Truth. Indefinately

Yeah ... because God spoke to Moses in modern English ....


*I'm rolling my eyes way up into my head so far that I can see back in time*

If you're not a troll, Orisinal, then you're just a sadly mistaken, lied to, freak.

The Bible is the Word of God and is the Truth. Indefinately
I think you meant "definately".
;)

I have a good moral set right here! *shows off moral set* :D
Ooh, it's so biiig!

Can I... can I... touch it?
:p

Yeah ... because God spoke to Moses in modern English ....


Uh, is it possible he has been shown facts that are not lies that prove that the translations are right? Dead Sea....oh woops, I am a freak, what do I know? I am irrational and stupid. Of course the bible was not translated right, what am I talking about? hahahha sorry for interrupting you, I am so stupid.

I have a good moral set right here! *shows off moral set* :D

Look ... I've told you about taunting me with that ... I'm jealous of its girth and length and the only thing that saves me is the belief that Jesus will give me a bigger penis in the afterlife.

Now stop it!

Yeah ... because God spoke to Moses in modern English ....


*I'm rolling my eyes way up into my head so far that I can see back in time*

If you're not a troll, Orisinal, then you're just a sadly mistaken, lied to, freak.

Oh, common, let him have his dogma. It's so little and cute!


Wait...Orisinal...isn't that the name of all those wonderful little game thingies? They're all short and cute and wonderful?

The Holy Bible is God's word and his laws to his people, The Christian
believers of Christ.
You mock his work at your own eternal peril.

When has ad hominem ever won a debate or proved anything? Directed to Keruvalia and Goed Twee.

When has ad hominem ever won a debate or proved anything?
There's a whole thread about that!
Actually, now that I think of it, I think you posted there.
But yeah, I agree with you.

I think you meant "definately".
;)

He actually meant definitely.

*cough*

Anyway, morals are relative. The problem with the bible is that it was a compilation of different works, history and fiction got confused, translated and then revised numerous time. Some of it applies, some of it is laughable in current society.

Look ... I've told you about taunting me with that ... I'm jealous of its girth and length and the only thing that saves me is the belief that Jesus will give me a bigger penis in the afterlife.

Now stop it!

Which part of the Bible was that in? :eek:

He actually meant definitely.
:eek:
Whoops. I'm terrible with that word, I always forget.

I am so stupid

No ... just ill informed.

Look, man. If an ancient Hebrew word is "Kamuth" and that word has been proven to mean "sin", "nipple", or "flying lizard beast" .. it means you cannot accept a translation.

It means that a interpretation of a verse could mean, "Licking your own nipple is a sin" or "Licking your own nipple is nippleous (a made up word, but a good one)" or "licking your own nipple will create a flying lizard beast".

I'm sorry, but God didn't speak English. God did not speak to King James. God did not speak to George W Bush.

As much as you'd like to believe it, God gave His message to humanity in one way ... if we choose to fuck it up with our own humanness, that's not God's problem.

He actually meant definitely.

*cough*

Anyway, morals are relative. The problem with the bible is that it was a compilation of different works, history and fiction got confused, translated and then revised numerous time. Some of it applies, some of it is laughable in current society.


Morals are relative, finally someone who stands up and says that, been waiting for it for a long time. So if morals are relative, is it all right for me to push my morals on someone?

I'm sorry, but God didn't speak English. God did not speak to King James. God did not speak to George W Bush.

As much as you'd like to believe it, God gave His message to humanity in one way ... if we choose to fuck it up with our own humanness, that's not God's problem.

What way is that?

And please prove in a better way that the NIV or KJV translations of the Bible are messed up? I have been told otherwise.

What way is that?


In a way that we'd all understand. All of us. Every last damn one of us.

Pagan? Great! God(Allah) set it up so even they would understand Him.

The problem with Evangelical Xtians is that they think god only speak to them. They cannot imagine that God may have spoken to a FAG ( :eek: ) in a way that the "fag" could understand.

I suppose that's the difference between Christians and Muslims. We (Muslims) understand that Allah is for everyone, not just Caucasion, Jesus-loving, Irish fucks.

PS: oops ... have I sounded too liberal?

It depends whether you are a moral relativist or not. For me, the Bible isn't just a set of morals (I'm one of those crazy hypocritical fanatical jesus magic boys).

that is quite possibly, the funniest thing i have ever read. :D

Morals are relative, finally someone who stands up and says that, been waiting for it for a long time. So if morals are relative, is it all right for me to push my morals on someone?

That depends on the culture of the people around you. In current western society, it may or may not be OK depending on what your morals are, but if they are not commonly accepted by most then it is probably a no-no.

Generally speaking, the morals a society accepts evolve and change over time and cannot be forced.

That depends on the culture of the people around you. In current western society, it may or may not be OK depending on what your morals are, but if they are not commonly accepted by most then it is probably a no-no.
I believe s/he was asking whether it were moral to do so.

So if morals are relative, is it all right for me to push my morals on someone?

NO! ABSO-FUCKIN-LUTELY NOT! ... unless they're you're relative ....








get it? relative? tee hee.

You can be told a lot of things.

No man is convinced the Bible says what it says. He is convinced that the Bible says what he wants it to say.

Look, man. If an ancient Hebrew word is "Kamuth" and that word has been proven to mean "sin", "nipple", or "flying lizard beast" .. it means you cannot accept a translation.

It means that a interpretation of a verse could mean, "Licking your own nipple is a sin" or "Licking your own nipple is nippleous (a made up word, but a good one)" or "licking your own nipple will create a flying lizard beast".

Best reading I've had all night. And I just finished "1984" for the upteenth time. After that, not hard to make me laugh.

I really enjoy the people who come to my door at 0800 local and ask me:
"Have you found Jesus?"
Because, A'la Robin Williams, I want to come to the door naked and say:
"No! Help me look for him, C'mon!"
What I do:
"Your God is false."

Now the magical part about this is they immediately assume I'm Muslim and keep telling me that Allah is nonexistant. Now I'm an aetheist so this is all nonsensical babbling up until they say:
"If you don't believe in our God you're going to Hell."
or something to that effect.

At which point the logical response would be:
- "If I have no fixed set of beliefs and choose instead to keep an open mind rather than blindly follow your se tof beliefs, why am I going to "Hell?" Can you prove to me that there is a Hell, Heaven, God, or Jesus figure, referenced in historical works sans your religious text?"

Afterwards, my house is egged every Halloween. I give the children chocolate (Albeit laced with cyanide :p ) so I know it isn't them. "We'll use the one holiday we try to condemn to attack those who do not agree with our beliefs!"

God did not speak to George W Bush.

Pfft. Sure he did. God speaks to a lot of retarded schizophrenics. But I digress.

Occidio Multus, good to know I gave you a laugh, at my own expense one way or another.

Ootersland, that answer will suffice my insatiable hunger for now.

Keruvalia, ok so you just have a different belief than me. Luck be it, I am just an irrational hypocritical fanatic christian, not one of those evangelicals. Unfortunately, you still have not proven that the Bible translated how it is today is not God's word. And you have not proven why it can not be.

What Bible is this? Didn't it say the old law is gone in the new testament? And rape, uhm there were laws against rape. Slavery? True, and the owners were told to be exact opposite of American south slavery. Murder? Yes murder of some wicked kings.
Above all the BS, let's do common sense for a min.
If the Old Testament were truly kaput, then why include it in the bible?
Reference excuse ain't happenin... too obvious (thanks to the comitteee which chose the Gospels).

Above all the BS, let's do common sense for a min.
If the Old Testament were truly kaput, then why include it in the bible?
Reference excuse ain't happenin... too obvious (thanks to the comitteee which chose the Gospels).

uh?

The Bible is a terrible source for morality. It, of course, includes sundry positive aspects (love your neighbour, do unto others, judge not), but these are by no means unique to it or to Christianity, and it also includes many heinous things.

1 Tim 2:12-15 reads as follows:
12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women[a] will be saved[b] through childbearing–if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Let's recap: women are, in no circumstances, allowed to have authority over men, regardless of how qualified they are. Women are sinful, and men are the prime creation. If women have children, they can be redeemed -- may those who remain single or are barren pray for mercy.

Moving on...

Earlier in the thread a reference to the rumour about the mistranslation of witch was brought up. This is false. With Strong's numbers shown, the verse in question (Exodus 22:18) reads as follows: Thou shalt not suffer a witch 03784 to live 02421 .

03784 in Strong's is kashaph {kaw-shaf'}, the only possible meaning of which is
1) (Piel) to practice witchcraft or sorcery, use witchcraft

a) sorcerer, sorceress (participle)

Source: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1106293620-860.html

As has been repeatedly mentioned, the OT is also chock full of horrible stories which certainly do not suggest good morals. The worst of these, in my opinion, is Numbers 31. I suggest you read it yourself, but here's a summary: God orders Moses to avenge himself on the Midianites. He sends 12,000 Jewish soldiers; they burn all the cities, kill all the men, and bring all the women and children back with them. Moses is furious with them for letting so many live, and orders them to kill all the non-virgin women, kill all the baby boys, and to rape all of the virgin females. In the spoils of war is listed 16,000 virgins.

I believe Thomas Paine said it best...
People in general know not what wickedness there is in this pretended word of God. Brought up in habits of superstition, they take it for granted that the Bible is true, and that it is good; they permit themselves not to doubt of it, and they carry the ideas they form of the benevolence of the Almighty to the book which they have been taught to believe was written by his authority. Good heavens! it is quite another thing, it is a book of lies, wickedness, and blasphemy; for what can be greater blasphemy, than to ascribe the wickedness of man to the orders of the Almighty!

Now, of course, I've only cited two things; there are literally hundreds of others which are just as bad. If you're interested in reading up on it yourself, I advise this source: The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/). Note, though, that it uses the KJV, not the Hebrew (so some things it mentions are translational), and occasionally it takes verses out of context or its interpretation isn't the only viable one. Nevertheless, it is an exhaustive list of objectionable Bible verses, sorted topically (page for insults to women, page for injustice, etc), and includes a complete KJV, colour coded by types of objections, complete with notes explaining many of them.

uh?
Ummmmm.

Whaaaaaa?

huhhhhhhhhh

aahhhhhhhh

mmmmmmmm

The Bible is a terrible source for morality.

Holy shizzle. This guy really deserves a ribbon for best first post.
I have never seen a post like this with a 1 for the P#!

Damn, glad to have you here, man.

Who called it? I did, I so knew you all said it. I prophesied it. screw Christianity I am starting my own religion. I obviously prophesied people would think the bible is a bad source or morals. We’ll call it doorism

Actually, whatever your name is. That Timothy verse you popped out was terribly translated, it is really hard for us fanatical hypocritical irrational type Christians to re-teach that part to the indoctrinated brain freezed kiddo christians out there :gundge:

Holy shizzle. This guy really deserves a ribbon for best first post.
I have never seen a post like this with a 1 for the P#!

Damn, glad to have you here, man.

Seconded.

In all seriousness, I see many great things comming from you Uni :)

As much as you'd like to believe it, God gave His message to humanity in one way ... if we choose to fuck it up with our own humanness, that's not God's problem.

Do you think that if God wanted to give his/her message to humanity, that it would be best expressed in a Koran or Bible? Wouldn't that mesage be more effectively expressed in the world (cosmos) around you or the people that you relate with? I mean what best expresses Divinity? A book? A universe? or a person?

Who called it? I did, I so knew you all said it. I prophesied it. screw Christianity I am starting my own religion. I obviously prophesied people would think the bible is a bad source or morals. We’ll call it doorism

Actually, whatever your name is. That Timothy verse you popped out was terribly translated, it is really hard for us fanatical hypocritical irrational type Christians to re-teach that part to the indoctrinated brain freezed kiddo christians out there :gundge:
I'm confused. I believe you'e suffering (probably only when writing)...
With a psychological condition that they call word-salad.http://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/Fall_2003/ling001/production_perception.html .

second time
uh?

I'm confused. I believe you'e suffering (probably only when writing)...
With a psychological condition that they call word-salad.http://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/Fall_2003/ling001/production_perception.html .
What?
There were no disorders there.
Ther was a big title saying "Language Production and Perception".

In my opinion, if you have to pick and choose which parts stay in your personal philosophy and which are 'antiquated' and can be thrown out, then it's not really a setting a good moral standard, especially with all of it's anti-hypocracy talk in the NT.

I think it is a good set of moral guidelines as long as you don't take everything literally. You have to know where universal morality ends and Christianity-specific morals begin.

i.e. -

Do not kill, do not steal = universal morals

Thou shalt not have no other god before me = Christianity Specific

Seconded.

In all seriousness, I see many great things comming from you Uni :)
So many pages, so little content.

Holy shizzle. This guy really deserves a ribbon for best first post.
I have never seen a post like this with a 1 for the P#!

Damn, glad to have you here, man.
Hehe, thank you. Glad my work is appreciated.

My regular forum identity is WCH (is it at all possible to set my forum name to that, btw? Unitai is the name of my nationstate, but is part of a pun... the Disputed Territories of Unitai... and I'd rather not use it out of that context if that's an option)... I frequent the Internet Infidels Discussion Board (although I haven't been there in a couple weeks) and a few other places, very used to making good posts. I wasn't planning on registering for the forum here, but saw the thread and couldn't resist, because Biblical criticism is an area of expertise.

@Sredni
If you judge the Bible using universal morals, taking what's good and ignoring the rest, what's the point in using it in the first place? You already knew what was good and what was bad, meaning that the Bible is not a guideline at all, just an affirmation, and a poor one at that since not all of it applies. Rather, go with a Humanistic conception of morality... premise is that all human life is valuable and must be treated accordingly; everything is based on that simple premise. We act in whatever way furthers human dignity and saves lives, whatever that way may be. So much more elegant than the brutish specificity of religion, don't you think?

If you'd like to read up on Secular Humanism, there's a creed of sorts posted here: http://www.secularhumanism.org/intro/affirmations.html

A lot of Bible stuff.I can't comment on your excerpt from Timothy, just because I haven't read the New Testament.

Many of the "horrible stories" found in the Old Testament are simply historical records, so you shouldn't be basing any moral foundation on those anyway. It would be like reading a history textbook and deciding that genocide was OK because it helped Hitler solidify his power in Germany.

But the excerpt you provided from Numbers is interesting. Certainly it would seem to condone mass slaughter (I re-read Numbers 31 and I don't know where you got that rape thing from, though). And you know what? IT DID! Holy hypocracy, Batman! In fact, for much of the Old Testament God seemingly condones the killing of any enemy of Israel. But the Old Testament was not a static document. Things change, times change, God changes. In the Jewish tradition, it is generally accepted that, not only is God not perfect, but that he changes over time. (I won't speak for the Christians, they can defend themselves.) He creates new rules that supercede others, he changes his mind on certain issues. You can't just read certain passages of the Bible in a vacuum. You have to look at a passage, then look at it in the context of the rest of the document. Yes, God said killing gentiles was a-OK. Later on, when the Israelites got too big for their britches, he said, "Yeah, no more of that, you miserable little punks." So, mass executions of your enemies is no longer acceptable.

I know a lot of atheists will jump all over this with things like "OMG, how can you worship a God that isn't perfect?" or "How is he God if he's not perfect?" All that "perfect" stuff came after Judaism. God isn't perfect, but he's damn near as close as you can get. And that's good enough for me. If it's not good enough for you, that's OK too. Just don't go calling me a moron for what I believe in, and I won't call you a moron for being a hypocrite (ie proselytizing atheists, oh how I loathe proselytizing atheists).

I won't be around for much longer, but I'll do my best to try and defend the Old Testament. So, if you feel like having a discussion (not an argument) with a rational theist (no such thing! LOL! m i rite?), make it quick.

Although you're probably a pinko (smiles).

i ain't no pinko. my blood runs red and black.

Many of the "horrible stories" found in the Old Testament are simply historical records, so you shouldn't be basing any moral foundation on those anyway. It would be like reading a history textbook and deciding that genocide was OK because it helped Hitler solidify his power in Germany.

except that god quite explicitly commands most of them.

and then there is the bit about his friendly wager with satan...

except that god quite explicitly commands most of them.

and then there is the bit about his friendly wager with satan...Not the Satan, but a satan. God was also superimposed on previous historical events in order to give them legitimacy. I also stated that God changes over time. Things that were initially acceptable are no longer such.

lets see...people see things that go on in our world today and some resort to the bible saying well it soposed to be this way...thats the way god made it...well for me i dont believe in god...i believe in everything happens for a reason but the people who are all about the bible i think hurt themselves worse because the bible is a book (true or not true no one can really say)...so why base ur life on a book that might just be a joke to siciety?

@Storm
The rape in that passage is implied. Moses, speaking to the soldiers, says "keep the virgins for yourselves." Now, if you were a soldier, filled with excitement from battle, and all of a sudden at least one (quite possibly more; 16,000 virgins, 12,000 soldiers) virgin girl with no surviving family is now "yours," what would you do with her? Clearly Moses didn't take any measures to prevent the obvious action of the soldiers; he didn't say "take her and love her as your own child," or "take her and respect her as a human being, and allow her to mourn her family." No, he said "take her for yourself."

At the best, what's being described is ethnic slavery with negligence resulting in rape (he could have prevented it, but didn't). At the worst, direct condoning of rape and ethnic slavery. Either way, Moses doesn't come out smelling like roses.

Just don't go calling me a moron for what I believe in, and I won't call you a moron for being a hypocrite
How is proselytizing hypocrasy? I proselytize for Humanism, not for atheism, and I do not say that proselytizing is necessarily wrong. I charge everyone to critically examine their own beliefs, and to embrace a system which highlights human dignity and doesn't follow extraneous dogmas. It's just natural for humans to want to convince others that they're right. I would never force my beliefs on someone else, though (except when playing NationStates), and when others do that I certainly object. There is a difference, however, between "convert or die" and "here're my cards. Trump them, or fold and admit I'm right."

Also, I would never call you a moron for that. In fact, I respect your stance, because you admit that God isn't perfect; in my eyes, you're much better than the myriad people who believe that God is perfect, despite all the evidence that he is not. Problem of Evil (if phrased correctly) flat out proves that God cannot be all knowing, all loving, all powerful and yet evil still exists (ways out: God is not one of the three, or evil does not exist, we just think it does), but you do not have that problem.

My question for you, however, is why you believe in God at all? There is no disproof for a imperfect God (that I know of), but if he isn't perfect, then how do you know he's God?

I'm so glad the majority thinks the Bible is (a glorified fairy tale).

Has anyone noticed that many Christians love the shallowness of Machiavelli... I never hear them lauding St-Thomas-of-Aquinas or St-Augustine.

Has anyone noticed that many Christians love the shallowness of Machiavelli... I never hear them lauding St-Thomas-of-Aquinas or St-Augustine.

To do that they would have to have read Aristotle first. And that they will not do, as he is pre-Christian. Although he was the only acceptable philosopher to the Christian church if you do not count his comentators as philosophers.

Anyway. The bible, the old testament, in its clear moral instruction has some usefulness as a moral guide. Throw away the purely administrative comandments, those designed to kill off and ban competing religions, and the ten commandments seem reasonable. What the old testament is not, is a morality tale. The actions described are not often morally good, and very often morally bad. It is an over embelished written history, and history does tend to record the low points, not the high ones.

The new testament has its moments and phrases, but in general is moraly neutral.

Reading the bible is the best advert for atheism I know....

Many of the "horrible stories" found in the Old Testament are simply historical records, so you shouldn't be basing any moral foundation on those anyway. It would be like reading a history textbook and deciding that genocide was OK because it helped Hitler solidify his power in Germany.
Doesnt cut ice with me, God decided that Lot was righteous because he offered to let 1000's of men do whatever they wanted with his innocent (as having commited no crime or named sin) virgin daughers...

Instructions on slave keeping that give approval to rape and physical abuse (unto death), choosing a man that would order 16000 females raped (logically at least a few hundred of them must have been under 5 years old, and include infants less than one year old), plaguing an entire nation for not doing what you say, even though you actively prevent what you say from being done? That's more than mere historical happenstance....that's sick, and in my mind utterly immoral...