If the Bible has been 'breathed by God,' then it is reasonable to use it as a text to see God's morality through it. One does not have to be a fundamentalist to use that argument. What other point does the Bible have, if not that? An historical source for the bronze-age, sure. A collection of mythology, sure. It is used for both of those things. However, if you are trying to use it as the basis for one's religion, then it MUST contain rules for living, or evidence for God's moral code.
The moral code for the God of the Old Testament is distinctly vile according to our modern precepts. If one is attempting to use it as a basis for morality, then one is using a pretty damn awful text as a basis for morality. That is my entire argument. The text is not relevant to the modern age; we have other sources for our morality.
If your God 'breathed' the Bible, he was evil then. He might be better now, that's great. But I see no evidence for it. The modern moral Zeitgeist is not based on anything from that collection of mythology and tribal stories.
Your point about Machiavelli/Jesus only assists mine. The Bible is outdated as a collection of moral codes, and should be abandoned. And if one is abandoning the Bible as a measure of morality, what is left of Christianity?
Your god changes. The holy text does not. Any Christian who agrees with you is not a Christian that I would make the argument Greta dislikes, for it does not apply to you. That was part of her point. However, this seems to be a quiet minority view amongst Christians. Most think the Bible contains -if only in parts- God's moral code for humanity. And that moral code is distasteful to any inhabitant of the 21st century. The only way to regard the Bible as moral is to use one's own -usually nonreligious- morality to sift out the few scattered flakes of gold from the dust of cruelty.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Part Two
Date: 2008-03-14 03:52 am (UTC)The moral code for the God of the Old Testament is distinctly vile according to our modern precepts. If one is attempting to use it as a basis for morality, then one is using a pretty damn awful text as a basis for morality. That is my entire argument. The text is not relevant to the modern age; we have other sources for our morality.
If your God 'breathed' the Bible, he was evil then. He might be better now, that's great. But I see no evidence for it. The modern moral Zeitgeist is not based on anything from that collection of mythology and tribal stories.
Your point about Machiavelli/Jesus only assists mine. The Bible is outdated as a collection of moral codes, and should be abandoned. And if one is abandoning the Bible as a measure of morality, what is left of Christianity?
Your god changes. The holy text does not. Any Christian who agrees with you is not a Christian that I would make the argument Greta dislikes, for it does not apply to you. That was part of her point. However, this seems to be a quiet minority view amongst Christians. Most think the Bible contains -if only in parts- God's moral code for humanity. And that moral code is distasteful to any inhabitant of the 21st century. The only way to regard the Bible as moral is to use one's own -usually nonreligious- morality to sift out the few scattered flakes of gold from the dust of cruelty.