The Versatile Bible

Originally posted by LemonJello

...albeit self-contradictory...

SG's opening post did not assert both P & not-P, where P = the bible shapes morality. He pretty much explicitly only asserted not-P. There's no self-contradiction here -- only your bad reading comprehension. Just because you are committed to the idea that the bible shapes morality; that does not mean yo ...[text shortened]... say[/i], charge that the opening post is self-contradictory. That's shameful form on your part.

Freaky, I got a bit side-tracked there and meant to insert some additional commentary, as follows.

The tension here, if there is any, in what SG is asserting lies in the following. On one hand he is asserting that the bible does not shape morality; on the other hand, he is also asserting that there are lots of persons who more or less read off their morality from the bible. However, these are not contradictory. First, in asserting that the bible does not shape morality, we would be talking about the prevailing moral climate in aggregate form. Second, for those whose personal moral commitments are read off in this sense from the bible, it is not the bible per se that does the shaping here: it is the interpretations thereof and associated inculcations that perform the job. In turn, those interpretive and inculcative efforts are a strong function of...the prevailing social and moral climates. Hence, you can see that there is no contradiction here.

Originally posted by googlefudge
How is hat even remotely relevant...


Oh yes. you are an anti-choice nutjob who thinks abortion is murder...

Yeah, that line of 'reasoning' is really going to get you nowhere.

A hat or cap can be relevant if you wish to keep your head warm in the cold weather.

Originally posted by LemonJello

...albeit self-contradictory...

SG's opening post did not assert both P & not-P, where P = the bible shapes morality. He pretty much explicitly only asserted not-P. There's no self-contradiction here -- only your bad reading comprehension. Just because you are committed to the idea that the bible shapes morality; that does not mean yo ...[text shortened]... say[/i], charge that the opening post is self-contradictory. That's shameful form on your part.

SG's opening post did not assert both P & not-P, where P = the bible shapes morality. He pretty much explicitly only asserted not-P.
No, actually.
The entire first portion of his post spoke of the potpourri of inspirations one could find to match their individual predilections/biases... and therefore justify their actions within their respective societies.
That is what we do, isn't it?
Decide on a course of action, justify it in our heads and move in that direction?
And isn't morality simply the standard of conduct shared by a group of people?
If any of the people within the group are justifying their conduct on the basis of their beliefs in the Bible--- and enough of them are thinking thusly--- isn't this an example of the Bible shaping the morality of the society?

Now SG comes back in response to say the morality was already there, but such a statement makes no sense from either an historical standpoint or even a reason standpoint. History is rife with examples of commonly-held biblical positions shaping lives in both minor and major ways. To assert otherwise is unforgivable sloppiness.

Just because you are committed to the idea that the bible shapes morality...
Au contraire. At what point in any of my time herein have I ever declared the Bible as the fountainhead of morality? I have (and still do) declare the Bible as the source of right thinking, but I've never claimed the Bible is the source of morality.

As has already been established, morality is nothing more than a society's code of conduct. Obviously the Bible can ---has, and will continue to--- influence many society's concepts of morality, right or wrong, good or bad.

SG asserted the Bible's malleability in impacting people's thinking--- these same people who are part of society and therefore influential therein--- and then says the Bible doesn't impact the morality. That simply makes no sense, shameful or otherwise.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Freaky, I got a bit side-tracked there and meant to insert some additional commentary, as follows.

The tension here, if there is any, in what SG is asserting lies in the following. On one hand he is asserting that the bible does not shape morality; on the other hand, he is also asserting that there are lots of persons who more or less read off their m ...[text shortened]... e prevailing social and moral climates. Hence, you can see that there is no contradiction here.

First, in asserting that the bible does not shape morality, we would be talking about the prevailing moral climate in aggregate form.
Puritans?
Ferdinand and Isabel?


Second, for those whose personal moral commitments are read off in this sense from the bible, it is not the bible per se that does the shaping here: it is the interpretations thereof and associated inculcations that perform the job.
That's so razor sharp in the distinction, it's lost its edge.
Why not say: the Simpson's has had literally zero impact on shaping contemporary history. People's interpretation of the Simpson's, however, has had enormous impact.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
SG asserted the Bible's malleability in impacting people's thinking--- these same people who are part of society and therefore influential therein--- and then says the Bible doesn't impact the morality. That simply makes no sense, shameful or otherwise.

Not quite...I didn't say the Bible is malleable with respect to impacting thinking. It is malleable in its ability to justify many different moral stances.

Edit: perhaps the very term "Bible" - which makes it sound like a single entity - downplays the truth: that it is many books, written centuries apart from one another in some cases, written by many different authors. If we think of it as a collection of widely varied writings, my point becomes even more clear.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Not quite...I didn't say the Bible is malleable with respect to impacting thinking. It is malleable in its ability to justify many different moral stances.

Edit: perhaps the very term "Bible" - which makes it sound like a single entity - downplays the truth: that it is many books, written centuries apart from one another in some cases, written ...[text shortened]... of it as a collection of widely varied writings, my point becomes even more clear.

I misspoke. It ought to have been something more akin to reflective of a wide-variety of perspectives.

And yes, the Book is actually the Books.
But it is the fool who holds a tree but claims he has the forest.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
The Bible is a more versatile book than many of its practitioners realize. There are passages in it that can be used to support almost any position on issues you may wish to take. If you are warlike, you like OT stories of conquest. If you are peaceful, you like Jesus' teachings on meekness and being slow to anger.

If you are a chauvinist, you go with ...[text shortened]... le believers insist that Bible is the best evidence of the existence of an objective moral code.

Indeed the Bible is quite versatile.

1) It can be a doorstop.
2) It can stop a bullet.
3) Revelations alone can serve as lining for a cage of parakeets for a month and a day.
4) The pages of Genesis can be folded into small squares suitable as shims for wobbly furniture.
5) The Book of Psalms provides shop towels in a pinch.
6) Whatever's left can be used as kindling come winter.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Indeed the Bible is quite versatile.

1) It can be a doorstop.
2) It can stop a bullet.
3) Revelations alone can serve as lining for a cage of parakeets for a month and a day.
4) The pages of Genesis can be folded into small squares suitable as shims for wobbly furniture.
5) The Book of Psalms provides shop towels in a pinch.
6) Whatever's left can be used as kindling come winter.

And the Bible can also enlighten people as to where they came from, why they are here, the meaning of human life, and what their eternal destiny may be.

Most skeptics here have no clue to the answers to these questions. And a number seem perplexed why someone would even want to know, they have been so de-humanized by modern trends of philosophy.

Originally posted by sonship
And the Bible can also enlighten people as to where they came from, why they are here, the meaning of human life, and what their eternal destiny may be.

Most skeptics here have no clue to the answers to these questions. And a number seem perplexed why someone would even want to know, they have been so de-humanized by modern trends of philosophy.

"And the Bible can also enlighten people as to where they came from... "

Covered by cosmology and evolution. [and science generally]

"... why they are here..."

'Why' implies a mind giving reason. If there was no mind to give reason then there
is no 'WHY' we are here, and it is a meaningless question.

"...the meaning of human life... "

Meaning is again something imbued by minds. There are as many meanings of life as
there are minds giving such meaning, there is no one singular externally imposed
MEANING OF LIFE. Such a meaning would both require the existence of some
external mind, and that mind having the ability to impose this external meaning.
As has been argued here at length in the past... I and others that agree, don't
think either of the two conditions is met.
There is no external mind, and if their were, it's imposed 'meaning' would be no more,
and probably less, valid than the meanings we create ourselves.

"... and what their eternal destiny may be. ..."

You assume the existence of an eternal destiny not in evidence.

Most skeptics here have no clue to the answers to these questions. And a number seem
perplexed why someone would even want to know, they have been so de-humanized by modern
trends of philosophy.

Nonsense.

Covered by cosmology and evolution. [and science generally]

At best science might tell us something of the how them mechanics of the universe work. As to WHY it is here ? Science doesn't know. Scientism as a secular religion does not know.

That is why many enthusiastic about Scientism as a kind of religion will opt to complain that there is no reason for human life.

Tell us. Why is it good that species should survive anyway ?
It seems the most common for of selection is the selection to cease living - death.

You googlefudge, you answer.

"... why they are here..."

'Why' implies a mind giving reason. If there was no mind to give reason then there

Design implies intention. Intention indicates mind.

If you say that there is no design in the universe, I would answer that there is no level of nonsense some people will stoop to to not recognize the obvious.

is no 'WHY' we are here, and it is a meaningless question.

To a person given over to a kind of despair it is the sour grapes response to say it is a meaningless question. And by despair I do not mean necessarily unhappiness. I mean an assumption that they will never know why they are alive so they might as well regard wanting to know as meaningless.

"...the meaning of human life... "

For one it is meaningful to a person that they are loved.
And to be loved with an eternal love is meaningful to the one loved.

Meaning is again something imbued by minds. There are as many meanings of life as there are minds giving such meaning, there is no one singular externally imposed MEANING OF LIFE. Such a meaning would both require the existence of some external mind, and that mind having the ability to impose this external meaning.

I disagree. Design is imposed so meaning is imposed by the Designer.
And it is the case, I believe, this could be true with full fulfillment of each individual.

I believe there could be a corporate celebration of meaning which is collective and not hopelessly isolated and individualistic. Love enables there to be meaning both vertically towards a transcendent Creator and horizontally towards one another.

As has been argued here at length in the past... I and others that agree, don't think either of the two conditions is met.
There is no external mind, and if their were, it's imposed 'meaning' would be no more, and probably less, valid than the meanings we create ourselves.

And external mind is evident to many of us. Technology itself is reading OUT and utilizing logic which has been put INTO creation.

I am a musician for example. I believe the laws of harmony discovered which render esthetically pleasing relationships of tones was intelligently put into sound as laws. I think a Mind has placed these laws into the universe for our enjoyment. We discover them.

It is less likely to me that this discovery of the pleasing sounding patterns of tone relationships is invented. I think the rules were designed and put there by a Mind with intention. Man uncovers the rules by discovery and creativity.

"Only God can create. I make music from music." Igor Stravinsky

"... and what their eternal destiny may be. ..."

You assume the existence of an eternal destiny not in evidence.

I regard the historically trustworthy miracle of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, coupled with His teaching, that eternal destiny of people is a reality. It is speaking with someone who has been to the other side of human life and returned. Such an authority should not be ignored, IMO.

You may not believe in Christ's resurrection. You may be encouraged to quickly lump it with the appearance of some triviality such as the Tooth Fairy. But history would not be at all kind to your approach.

Some other explanation, you should provide, for why people thought fitting to divide world history with a line Before Christ and In The Year of Our Lord. Some people were very deeply impressed with this personality. And His resurrection is one reason for the power of the impact of that personality.

Nonsense.

I think the "nonsense" is located in your cavalier denial of the evidence of design.

Matter plus time plus chance arriving at the world as we see it without guidance and intention is truly nonsense.

Briefly give us your opinion how matter evolved to produce something self conscious which even contemplates its place in the universe - a human mind.

If you say that you do not know how matter evolved into mind, that's okay to admit that.

Why should some of us have to wait until you think you do know when faith in a God who is revealing Himself to us can be enjoyed for our betterment ?

Originally posted by sonship

Covered by cosmology and evolution. [and science generally]

At best science might tell us something of the how them mechanics of the universe work. As to WHY it is here ? Science doesn't know. Scientism as a secular religion does not know.

That is why many enthusiastic about Scientism as a kind of religion will opt to complain that ...[text shortened]... u do know when faith in a God who is revealing Himself to us can be enjoyed for our betterment ?

all your points are based upon your emotional response to the world around you. you are unable to look at things from a cold, scientific, logical, unbiased, logical way. because you look and think using your emotions as guides you will always struggle to separate fact from fiction. you believe what your emotions want you to believe.

Originally posted by stellspalfie

all your points are based upon your emotional response to the world around you. you are unable to look at things from a cold, scientific, logical, unbiased, logical way. because you look and think using your emotions as guides you will always struggle to separate fact from fiction. you believe what your emotions want you to believe.

The emoting thing.

My points are not all based on emotions. And it is no shame that part of them may be based upon emotions. I regard my total humanity. And my emotions are part of what makes me a total human person.

I don't regard a Mr. Spock (Star Trek) as some more human character because he has no emotion.

Furthermore, the decision to ascertain that an eye, a reproductive system, a brain, a DNA molecule indicates design and therefore intention and by that a mind is not only an emotional response.

Maybe your atheistic / agnostic aversion to what you deem is subservience or responsibility to a higher Person is your emotional recoiling. Maybe you have emotional red lights going off -

"Danger! Danger! Someone higher than my own ego to whom I am accountable! Danger! Danger! "

Maybe you should cool down a bit and ask your self - "How am I diminished if a higher Mind is the cause of my existence ?"

I would turn the emotional reaction issue around to you. Maybe you just don't emotionally like that your own ego is not the highest and purest thing in existence.

Originally posted by sonship

[b]all your points are based upon your emotional response to the world around you. you are unable to look at things from a cold, scientific, logical, unbiased, logical way. because you look and think using your emotions as guides you will always struggle to separate fact from fiction. you believe what your emotions want you to believe.

...[text shortened]... just don't emotionally like that your own ego is not the highest and purest thing in existence.[/b]

My you're ignorant and proud of it.


After years on this site you still have absolutely no clue whatsoever about how
anyone who isn't a fundamentalist Christian thinks.


How many times do you have to be told by atheists what they think and why
before you stop making up your own straw man nonsense?


I don't expect you to agree with us.

But are you really so pathetically scared of other view points that you cannot
accept what other people say about what and how they think?


Unless and until you are actually prepared to deal with us as we actually are,
and with our thoughts and arguments as we present them then conversing with you
is utterly pointless.

My you're ignorant and proud of it.

Getting back to the jest this thread, I think it is that the sinner puts confidence in the so-called versatility of the Bible to justify not believing in God.

Let us say the fornicator comes before God in the last judgment. He has rejected to be saved through Christ's salvation. He thinks he can offer to God the excuse that the Bible was so versatile, you see, that he felt no need to be saved from his guilty acts of fornication.

This excuse will not work. He knew enough to be convicted that he was sinful. And being offered forgiveness he rejected it behind the reason that the bible is too versatile. " Why anyone can make it say anything !"

But there is not just the Bible. There is the Holy Spirit convicting the conscience of the sinner about his sins. And he knew enough to realize the need to be reconciled to a holy and righteous God.

Do not put any confidence in the "versatile bible" excuse to absolve you from the conviction of your sins. Some things cannot be "versatiled" [to coin a new word] away.

After years on this site you still have absolutely no clue whatsoever about how anyone who isn't a fundamentalist Christian thinks.

Maybe I remember some things from my unbelieving days and maybe I do not remember. And yes, maybe I do not understand some thoughts.

I am saying now that no excusing oneself for a versatile bible that could be used to say this or that or the other will be enough to deny that you knew God convicted you of certain sins.

It was not necessary to know if Solomon had 2,000 horses or 20,000 horses. It was not necessary to know if baptism was frontwards into the water or backwards into the water. Many things were not relevant to the fact that you felt the conviction of the word of God from the Holy Spirit -

Ie. "Your sin here is wrong before God. You should repent and be saved. You need to be forgiven."

"But Lord, the Bible was too hard to understand and there were many interpretations."

I am warning you that this kind of excuse will not erase the record God will bring up to prove to you that you felt wrong in your conscience and did not repent.

How many times do you have to be told by atheists what they think and why before you stop making up your own straw man nonsense?

I may not understand everything about how you think. And some of you should know as what they told Richard Dawkins - "The God you don't believe in is not the God I believe in."

Case in point with this thread - Here we have the theory of a incompetent God who is not intelligent enough to foresee the problems caused by many people's varied opinions. Poor shortsighted God. He wanted to communicate to man through a book, but didn't know that SO many opinions would be launched the book would be too versatile to be useful.

I think that is the thinking here, if I do not understand ALL the thinking of atheists. And I am saying that God will not be hindered by this kind of obstacle. He will still judge in perfect righteousness. Some things - some very critical and crucial matters were clear as glass to you and I.

The versatile Bible excuse will not work. You and I knew enough that we could have said "Have mercy on me a sinner Lord. I have indeed sinned in this matter. And I see now you are perfect. I could have listened to something Jesus Christ told me. I could have believed He died for me that I could be forgiven."

I understand enough that someone is trusting that they can sashaying into God's presence brandishing a "too versatile a Bible" reasons to cover up their disdain to be accountable to God. What are you going to do then if God says -

"No, that was not the problem with your not repenting. The problem was that you hated Me and disdained to come to Me for pardon."

My advice to anyone expecting to hide their guilty sins behind the "too versatile a bible" reasoning is to have a good long honest talk to the heavenly Father. "Lord, I may not know who is right about this or that. But Lord I think I am clear that right here, I need to be forgiven for my sins. I don't like to admit this. Help me to not be led astray from what is the truth, at least in this matter."

I don't expect you to agree with us.

But are you really so pathetically scared of other view points that you cannot accept what other people say about what and how they think?

If you think I am pathetically scared that someone will come along and be more impressive to me than the life, death, resurrection of Jesus Christ, I am not scared of this.

"Never did a man speak as this man speaks."

It may sound attractive that one say "Well there were hundreds of denominations. So I didn't believe in the Son of God."

God has an infallible record of every decision we ever made. He can easily show us from our whole life the decisions we had no problem in making even though there were many opinions about a matter.

He calls us to come and reason with Him with a sober mind -

"Come now and let us reason together, Says Jehovah. Though your sins are like scarlet they will be as white as snow; Though they are as red as crimson, They will be like wool." (Isaiah 1:18)

Do not react by going to that passage to hunt out something that many people have different versatile opinions on. Take the few phrases in the word of God that speak to you and pray with them. Pray them back to God and have a good talk with God about those words.

I do not expect everyone to come exactly the same way I came to salvation. But think of the proposition presented here in Isaiah 1:18.

Do not trust that sins as red as scarlet will be whitened by excusing yourself about too many interpretations of the Bible. There may be many interpretations of the Bible on some matters. How about the most crucial matters of what you did ? Are they too hard to understand?

God has a way to turn the scarlet red offenses into the purest white of forgiveness. The crimson red guilty matter He can make as cleanly erased with the blood of Jesus. He says to come and reason together with Him and let Him remove your sins to the cross of Calvary where they are judged in the death of Jesus on your behalf.

"Come now and let us reason together ..." says God.

Do not put raise objections about quantum physics and old earth / new earth, etc.

You don't know how good you will feel when your own God created conscience will breath freely. This is why it is rather hard to convince some of us Christians. We know that it made a deep impact on our entire being when we finally surrendered to the love offer of Jesus Christ.

I have said it before. That night I called on the name of Jesus I felt exactly like a flushed toilet !!

Unless and until you are actually prepared to deal with us as we actually are, and with our thoughts and arguments as we present them then conversing with you is utterly pointless.

Originally posted by sonship

My you're ignorant and proud of it.

Getting back to the jest this thread, I think it is that the sinner puts confidence in the so-called versatility of the Bible to justify not believing in God.

Let us say the fornicator comes before God in the last judgment. He has rejected to be saved through Christ's salvation. He thinks he ca ...[text shortened]... houghts and arguments as we present them then conversing with you is utterly pointless. [/quote]

Too long. Didn't read.