What good is the bible as a source of absolute morals if nobody can seem to interpret it correctly? (translation, hell)

[mythunderstood]

I predict that the church will one day attempt to “reinterpret” scripture re: homosexuality. Once gays are finally treated as equal citizens in this country in terms of rights, marriage, etc, and especially if homosexuality is found to be inborn, the church will eventually change its tune so as not to be embarrassed by being seen as intolerant homophobes. I don’t think they will ever admit to the scriptures being wrong, or for <gasp> god being wrong, but they will try to suggest that we have misinterpreted the scriptures regarding homosexuality (somehow?).

Like many tried to brush off passages regarding slavery, treatment of women, flat earth, etc, as being wrongly "interpreted" in the past......would you suddenly claim the same about the verses regarding homosexuality? If this is the case, and we can easily do a 180 regarding how we interpret things in the bible, how do we know we are interpreting ANY of it correctly? Obviously the holy spirit is not communicating with anyone very well since so many of us interpret the bible in so many completely different, sometimes contradictory ways (hence so many denominations, etc). How do we even know if some of the main tenets/beliefs are correct? We are just accepting the interpretation of fallible men ....and we know how wrong fallible men can be in interpreting the bible.

How can Christians think they have some claim to absolute morals, when they have to resort to subjectively interpreting the bible to determine what they “think” those morals are? How one group or denomination interprets the bible (and the morals contained within), may be totally different than another denomination. Likewise, the morals claimed to be contained within the bible, seem to change with the changing views of society. Of course it is all chalked up to christians having interpreted the bible incorrectly or not understanding something or taking something out of context, or claiming it no longer applies today.

What good is the bible as a source of absolute morals if nobody can seem to interpret it correctly? The end result is that people interpret the morals subjectively regardless if there is supposed to be one “right” way to interpret it. If that one “right” way is not understood or keeps getting misinterpreted, then how does fallible man know what is correct?

Obviously, the Holy Spirit has lead people in different directions on this issue (or some would claim that they “refuse” to listen to the Holy Spirit, etc). It doesn’t make sense that so many people, even with a “direct line to god” (i.e., priests, ministers) over generation after generation, would all “refuse” to listen to the Holy Spirit regarding how to interpret the bible. They have all believed that they do in fact have the “correct” interpretation, only later to change due to outside moral influences. The end result is that morality is relative to the time, place, and culture and does in fact change over time. Sure, there are some morals that most all societies will agree upon regardless of what god they believe in, if any. Heck even animals have been shown to have a basic sense of morals. Even if one believes that there is an absolute source of morality, it makes no difference if the actual reality is that people still have to interpret those morals subjectively.

Since the Bible's message is considered fixed for all time, Christian beliefs are often considered equally unchangeable. However, the historical record shows that change does occur, and that religious groups use various methods to modify their beliefs.

Sometimes, the texts which support the old beliefs:

• Are translated into English in an obscure manner;
• Are simply ignored;
• Are reinterpreted -- often symbolically;
• Are regarded as having been valid at the era and/or the society in which they were written, but are not for guidance for people today.

Some recent examples of change:

In the 1960's, many people of different Christian denominations believed that racial integration was against God's Law because it led to the "mixing of seed". The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) mounted boycotts against restaurants and hotels that served people of all races equally. (We mention the SBC because it remains the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, and one of the most active in the area of social and legal change). Laws in many states did not allow persons of different races to marry. A few decades after the US Supreme Court ended racial separation in the schools and declared anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional, the scene is very different. Those Biblical passages which were so often cited to condemn mixed-race marriages are now ignored or reinterpreted. The SBC has had the decency to apologize recently for the pain that it caused African-Americans and for any residual racism that remains in the organization. Many Christian denominations are now in the forefront fighting racism.

Many decades ago, some Christian denominations quoted Gospel passages which blamed the Jews for executing Jesus. Included were verses in which the Jewish people at the time were said to have accepted responsibility for this immoral act, both upon themselves, and upon their children, and upon their descendants forever. Probably triggered by the horrors of the Nazi holocaust, these beliefs are now rejected by almost all Christian faith groups. The Biblical verses that were once quoted now lie almost dormant in the New Testament, or are interpreted as an example of early and regrettable anti-semitism by the early Christian church.

A century and a half ago, some Christians supported institution of slavery by quotations from the Bible. Other Christians (often within the same denomination) fought for its abolition. Secularists and followers of other religions were similarly split. Many Protestant denominations were severed into two groups over the slavery question. The issue was settled through negotiation in the late 18th century in Canada and by a disastrous war between the states, some seven decades later in America. Today, references to slavery in the Bible are largely ignored. Often they are obscured in English translations by substituting the title "servant" for "slave."

PAST RELIGIOUS CONFLICTS

So many of you say that god's word never changes. But what good is god's word if we obviously don't understand it (and even change the interpretation)?

(more examples in next post)

[Wallisdj]

It is interesting--the point that the Bible is a source of morals.

While this observaton can be supported through both observation and written propaganda, the Bible was never a book of morals.

If we take a time trip back a couple of thousand years, we will find that the Law, which I feel can define "morals," was comprised more from the Mishnahs that were written. Any Biblical scholar worth his salt will support the phenomenon that to the Jew the scriptures were less important than the Mishnahs. The scriptures are more aptly defined as a history of traditions that somewhat defined the ancient Jew.

When it comes to using the Old Testament for morals, we have a veritable morass. IMO, because portions of the OT are so regulatory in nature that a church group or cult can pick-and-choose which portions of the OT to use as the basis of their particular stance on morals.

The New Testament gives conniptions for those who want cut-and-dry, black-and-white, heavenward or hellward rules and morals. Thus, I find that many church groups / cults will steer clear of anything Jesus had to say and endorse the 22 letters included in the NT, and then reinterpret them to suit their particular bias and viewpoint.

I believe that we need to re-review this tome called the Holy Bible.

1. It was NOT written by God, any more than the Quran was written by Allah. No scripture of any kind was written by a god.

That even a majority of people proclaim the Bible was written by God does not make it so. That even a majority of people proclaiming such wish to believe--fervently believe--is not only their right but a non-sequitur in the mainrame of discussion.

I argue that if a God actually wrote a document, a) it would not be very long; b) it would not be a people-specific document; c) it would be concise and not filled with controversies and "errors"; and d) it would be a document that would either be endorsed by all peoples of the Earth or totally rejected (with dire consequences, of course).

2. Any time that we lift a story or even a single passage from the Bible, it has to be reviewed under several lights. The first light is that of its time in history. This is conveniently ignored. Too many people of "importance" insist in re-interpreting scripture only under a modern light, as if history, philosophy, circumstances, morals, and the like have never changed from "day one."

3. The Bible is a repository of human literature. It encompasses them all, from horror to comedy, from drama to science fiction. Trying to make the Bible literal to the point of lunacy stems from an unreasonable need that the Bible must be "true" to make God "true," rather than the other way around.

Imagine if we took all of the world's literature and demanded that every piece of literature be held as literally true as well. What a morass that would make! And yet, the demand that the Bible alone be regarded under that single light is even more unreasonable, let alone untenable and totally unnecessary.

4. If I were a licensed psychologist, I would be tempted to argue from the position that humans desire to be exclusive, to be super-special, to aspire to be exalted from the masses. There is this--are I use the word--insane drive to create WE versus THEM, in which the WE will reap untold riches and wealth in the Never-Never-Land after death, exulting in the wrongness and punishment awaiting THEM. All of which is curiously missing in the Bible, its teachings, and its purpose.

[mythunderstood]

Originally Posted by Wallisdj

It is interesting--the point that the Bible is a source of morals.

While this observaton can be supported through both observation and written propaganda, the Bible was never a book of morals.

If we take a time trip back a couple of thousand years, we will find that the Law, which I feel can define "morals," was comprised more from the Mishnahs that were written. Any Biblical scholar worth his salt will support the phenomenon that to the Jew the scriptures were less important than the Mishnahs. The scriptures are more aptly defined as a history of traditions that somewhat defined the ancient Jew.

When it comes to using the Old Testament for morals, we have a veritable morass. IMO, because portions of the OT are so regulatory in nature that a church group or cult can pick-and-choose which portions of the OT to use as the basis of their particular stance on morals.

The New Testament gives conniptions for those who want cut-and-dry, black-and-white, heavenward or hellward rules and morals. Thus, I find that many church groups / cults will steer clear of anything Jesus had to say and endorse the 22 letters included in the NT, and then reinterpret them to suit their particular bias and viewpoint.

I believe that we need to re-review this tome called the Holy Bible.

1. It was NOT written by God, any more than the Quran was written by Allah. No scripture of any kind was written by a god.

That even a majority of people proclaim the Bible was written by God does not make it so. That even a majority of people proclaiming such wish to believe--fervently believe--is not only their right but a non-sequitur in the mainrame of discussion.

I argue that if a God actually wrote a document, a) it would not be very long; b) it would not be a people-specific document; c) it would be concise and not filled with controversies and "errors"; and d) it would be a document that would either be endorsed by all peoples of the Earth or totally rejected (with dire consequences, of course).

2. Any time that we lift a story or even a single passage from the Bible, it has to be reviewed under several lights. The first light is that of its time in history. This is conveniently ignored. Too many people of "importance" insist in re-interpreting scripture only under a modern light, as if history, philosophy, circumstances, morals, and the like have never changed from "day one."

3. The Bible is a repository of human literature. It encompasses them all, from horror to comedy, from drama to science fiction. Trying to make the Bible literal to the point of lunacy stems from an unreasonable need that the Bible must be "true" to make God "true," rather than the other way around.

Imagine if we took all of the world's literature and demanded that every piece of literature be held as literally true as well. What a morass that would make! And yet, the demand that the Bible alone be regarded under that single light is even more unreasonable, let alone untenable and totally unnecessary.

4. If I were a licensed psychologist, I would be tempted to argue from the position that humans desire to be exclusive, to be super-special, to aspire to be exalted from the masses. There is this--are I use the word--insane drive to create WE versus THEM, in which the WE will reap untold riches and wealth in the Never-Never-Land after death, exulting in the wrongness and punishment awaiting THEM. All of which is curiously missing in the Bible, its teachings, and its purpose.

[jdaelectro]

I know. We humans tend to over complicate things.

Try not to read between the lines too much. God says some harsh things that we don't like to hear. Kind of like immature children, we can't understand certain hardships when we are in the midst of them.

Then there are, our sisters and brothers suffering in third world nations. We tend to blame the maker for the mistakes of the players involved. How selfish.

If you are not a believer, then you will only focus on the quarrels that are being capitalized upon by Satan.

[MrBlueSky_]

Originally Posted by jdaelectro

I know. We humans tend to over complicate things.

Try not to read between the lines too much. God says some harsh things that we don't like to hear. Kind of like immature children, we can't understand certain hardships when we are in the midst of them.

So true! Who are children to question why good ol' dad is stoning sis to death for sassing him, or drowning little brother for being a sinful abomination.

They'll understand it all by and by.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by jdaelectro

I know. We humans tend to over complicate things.

Try not to read between the lines too much. God says some harsh things that we don't like to hear. Kind of like immature children, we can't understand certain hardships when we are in the midst of them.

Then there are, our sisters and brothers suffering in third world nations. We tend to blame the maker for the mistakes of the players involved. How selfish.

If you are not a believer, then you will only focus on the quarrels that are being capitalized upon by Satan.

This is merely the old 'don't ask questions - Just have Faith' ploy yet again. With the crafty suggestion that valid Doubts is just the work of Satan leading you astray.

We godless bastards just smile at such clumsy attempts to find the 'off' switch to our logic circuits. I trust that even theists will see what a transparently crummy trick it is.

[Sir Les]

Of what intelligence are the people who cannot interpret the Bible, or morality, or logical progressions of eternal estates needed to provide life....in terms of natural progressions...and ..."DO onto others as you would have done onto You"....not much to consider?....seems simple enough...but it is never really practiced because humans are selfish naturally....or are condition to be in the system of IDOLS>$$$> told not to have made more important than God or at all....

Other living things...Neighbours...Plants....they all serve a purpose...they all have defense mechoniziums...they all tie into the chain of life we need to have life with......If we pollute them, if we disterb them the wrong way...if we threaten them....they will turn on us!!!

Alergies?...one way of the plants defenses is to ward off the threats or cause irratation.....Virus and bacteria...again something is producing this to ward us off or even kill us...as we kill them...sometimes for no appearent reason other than a nice family dirve down the highway...and the splatters on the windshield count goes up...multiply that out by the other thousands of drivers doing simular driving killing more of them insects..and other animals...unintensionally?...well if enough data concludes the possibility of it happening over time...then it is no longer a unintensional act...

Seriousness of these offenses need to be taken with a pound of shortcake.....as we violate them....respect the returns in droves......Solution More hospitals?//More money??//more problems compounding on the problem never really solved with those.....But stop polluting, and disrespecting them, and share, care, and tend to...as helpers...Now you win the war without killing or causing harm...By being Good to them..as Jesus said.......less sickness...less suffering...less cost...better harvests...more rain in a controlled state....and prosparity for all...when we only take out what we need...and put back more to multiply it...and share it...and give it....yes remove the Idol eventually/false value system...

Not much to it really...and when they see us helping the whole...they come to trust us...and help us....eventually make Edens everywhere...and even on new worlds.....yep....a natural path to a door of truth of the Garden principle......a door no one knocks on the right way, unless they are children who happen upon it..(and are then imprisoned for it if caught sowing certain seeds for the greator good of all)...and so it never gets opened to all...and they mock the book....but not themselves....

[reed067]

The bible has always been open to Interpretation that's why anyone can get what they want out of it. Unless your NOT a Christian then you don't know what your talking about.

[hiker45]

What good is the bible for teaching morals? It is no good at all.

Use your common sense and treat others as you would like to be treated. That's all the moral guidance you need.

[Chango]

It's not.

There is no such thing as "absolute morales" in the first place. They didn't come from somewhere else, they were invented by the general consensus of humanity through the evolution of culture.

Morality is open to interpretation by it's very nature. This is one place where Religion fails and causes more problems than it solves.

If people would recongize and accept that WE determine what is right and wrong among us, we be a far wiser species and do a much better job at deciding what is "right" and what is "wrong".