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.
look, again you are being way too simplistic. 'the moral code for the god of the old testament' is complex and often surprising. go and read some (good) biblical criticism...
it's not my problem if you insist that religion must = rules, moral code. i think otherwise, you apparently don't think such a thing possible...
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.
sorry, wtf does the 'modern moral zeitgeist' have to do with anything? i'm not interested in obeying the modern moral zeitgeist...?
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 The Bible is outdated as a collection of moral codes, and should be abandoned.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?
this seems to me a strange argument, although i guess i might make sense to an ultra-modernist like yourself. personally i don't just throw out everything old or outdated. i would question whether the bible is a 'collection of moral codes' (and whether christianity is nothing more than the use of the bible as a measure of morality! it is more like a relationship with god, mediated through the church, my friend)
yes i think here the fundamental difference between you and i is that you seem to think that once things have been superseded, they are useless. i can see that from a scientific, modernist perspective that's logical, though, so i don't know how to convince you otherwise. although i would've thought that as a medievalist you would appreciate that some things are useful for different reasons - we can still learn from the past, even though stuff has happened since then/we are smarter (if that's what you believe).
as for the bible, obviously i have to take into account that it was written in a different context when i listen for what it means for me today.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Re: Part Two
Date: 2008-03-14 04:14 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.
look, again you are being way too simplistic. 'the moral code for the god of the old testament' is complex and often surprising. go and read some (good) biblical criticism...
it's not my problem if you insist that religion must = rules, moral code. i think otherwise, you apparently don't think such a thing possible...
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.
sorry, wtf does the 'modern moral zeitgeist' have to do with anything? i'm not interested in obeying the modern moral zeitgeist...?
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?
this seems to me a strange argument, although i guess i might make sense to an ultra-modernist like yourself. personally i don't just throw out everything old or outdated. i would question whether the bible is a 'collection of moral codes' (and whether christianity is nothing more than the use of the bible as a measure of morality! it is more like a relationship with god, mediated through the church, my friend)
yes i think here the fundamental difference between you and i is that you seem to think that once things have been superseded, they are useless. i can see that from a scientific, modernist perspective that's logical, though, so i don't know how to convince you otherwise. although i would've thought that as a medievalist you would appreciate that some things are useful for different reasons - we can still learn from the past, even though stuff has happened since then/we are smarter (if that's what you believe).
as for the bible, obviously i have to take into account that it was written in a different context when i listen for what it means for me today.