What percentage of the Bible do you/should you follow?

[atheist buddy]

There are hundreds upon hundreds of edicts in the Bible.

Stuff ranging from "Don't murder" to "Kill any two men caught having gay sex". From "Don't allow women to speak in church", to "Rape any virgin who's family you killed". From "Don't steal" to "Don't wear a t-shirt made of two different fabrics". From "Love thy neighbor" to "The just decree of God is that people who gossip deserve death". From "don't work on the Sabbath" to "Kill anybody who works on the Sabbath".

Questions for debate:

What percentage of the Bible's edicts and decrees do you follow?

On what basis do you determine which decrees should be followed and which ones shouldn't?

Are there any decrees in the Bible that if you knew your neighbor followed them, you'd be tempted to call the police, or move to a different neighborhood, or forbid your children from visiting your neighbor's home?

If you look back to 500 or 1000 years ago, would you guess that on average people followed a higher or lower percentage of Bible decrees than you do now?

If you had to guess, would you think that 500 or 1000 years from now, if things continue to follow recent trends, people on average will follow a higher or lower percentage of Bible decrees?

[atheist buddy]

I will go first and answer my own questions

Questions for debate:

What percentage of the Bible's edicts and decrees do you follow?

None of them. Whether the Bible is in favor or against any given course of action, has absolutely no bearing on whether I will do it.

I am morally superior to the authors of the BIble, so I give absolutely no weight to anything they might have to say.

On what basis do you determine which decrees should be followed and which ones shouldn't?

Moot. I do not follow any of the decrees of the BIble. The Bible has no bearing whatsoever on my moral decisions. I make my moral decisions on the basis of a rational analysis of the consequences of my actions. If any action does more harm than good over all, I don't do it, otherwise I do it.

Are there any decrees in the Bible that if you knew your neighbor followed them, you'd be tempted to call the police, or move to a different neighborhood, or forbid your children from visiting your neighbor's home?

Hundreds of them. Any person who would follow the worse half dozen Bible decrees would be so evil that any member of ISIS would seem a saint by comparison.

If you look back to 500 or 1000 years ago, would you guess that on average people followed a higher or lower percentage of Bible decrees than you do now?

Absolutely. There was a time when the Bible was taken seriously. We call those the Dark Ages.

If you had to guess, would you think that 500 or 1000 years from now, if things continue to follow recent trends, people on average will follow a higher or lower percentage of Bible decrees?

As we become more educated and knowledgeable of the world around us, we need to rely on the confused ramblings of bronze age goatherders less and less to try to figure out how to live our lives.

[Zzyzx]

.

If you look back to 500 or 1000 years ago, would you guess that on average people followed a higher or lower percentage of Bible decrees than you do now?

Absolutely. There was a time when the Bible was taken seriously. We call those the Dark Ages.

Exactly.

Theocracy (religious government) is a terrible form of government, as illustrated by the Dark Ages of the past and the Middle East currently.

[atheist buddy]

I'm wondering why no theist is replying to this.

The answer is a number. Like 50%. Or 20%. Or 70%.

What's the problem?

[Bust Nak]

I feel the need to point out that the "dark ages" are "dark" because of the rarity of historical records, as opposed to being a particular primitive or backwards period of time.

[Zzyzx]

.

I feel the need to point out that the "dark ages" are "dark" because of the rarity of historical records, as opposed to being a particular primitive or backwards period of time.

I agree, and add that the scarcity of historical information during the centuries following Roman empire collapse includes consideration of the decline in learning, education, advancement, secular social "justice" (such as it may have been).

During that period the Catholicism (in several forms) became dominant in civilian affairs (perhaps somewhat similar to Islam in much of the Middle East currently). Religious wars were common during that era as they are now in some Mediterranean areas.

The Dark Ages is a historical periodization used originally for the Middle Ages, which emphasizes the cultural and economic deterioration that supposedly occurred in Western Europe following the decline of the Roman Empire.[1][2] The label employs traditional light-versus-darkness imagery to contrast the "darkness" of the period with earlier and later periods of "light".[3] The period is characterized by a relative scarcity of historical and other written records at least for some areas of Europe, rendering it obscure to historians. The term "Dark Age" derives from the Latin saeculum obscurum, originally applied by Caesar Baronius in 1602 to a tumultuous period in the 10th and 11th centuries.[4]

The term once characterized the bulk of the Middle Ages, or roughly the 6th to 13th centuries, as a period of intellectual darkness between extinguishing the "light of Rome" after the end of Late Antiquity, and the rise of the Italian Renaissance in the 14th century.[3][5] This definition is still found in popular use,[1][2][6] but increased recognition of the accomplishments of the Middle Ages has led to the label being restricted in application. Since the 20th century, it is frequently applied to the earlier part of the era, the Early Middle Ages (c. 5th"10th century).[7][8] However, many modern scholars who study the era tend to avoid the term altogether for its negative connotations, finding it misleading and inaccurate for any part of the Middle Ages.[9][10][11]

The concept of a Dark Age originated with the Italian scholar Petrarch (Francesco Petrarca) in the 1330s, and was originally intended as a sweeping criticism of the character of Late Latin literature.[3][12] Petrarch regarded the post-Roman centuries as "dark" compared to the light of classical antiquity. Later historians expanded the term to refer to the transitional period between Roman times and the High Middle Ages (c. 11th"13th century), including the lack of Latin literature, and a lack of contemporary written history, general demographic decline, limited building activity and material cultural achievements in general. Later historians and writers picked up the concept, and popular culture has further expanded on it as a vehicle to depict the early Middle Ages as a time of backwardness, extending its pejorative use and expanding its scope.[13]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_ ... ography%29

[atheist buddy]

I feel the need to point out that the "dark ages" are "dark" because of the rarity of historical records, as opposed to being a particular primitive or backwards period of time.

Why do you think historical records of that period are hard to come by?

HINT: Most historical records are flammable.

[1213]

What percentage of the Bible do you/should you follow?

According to the Bible all commandments are fulfilled in love your neighbor as yourself.

Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not give false testimony," "You shall not covet," [TR adds "You shall not give false testimony,"] and whatever other commandments there are, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love doesn't harm a neighbor. Love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.
Romans 13:8-10

If person does that, he fulfills the Law.

[atheist buddy]

What percentage of the Bible do you/should you follow?

According to the Bible all commandments are fulfilled in love your neighbor as yourself.

Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not give false testimony," "You shall not covet," [TR adds "You shall not give false testimony,"] and whatever other commandments there are, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love doesn't harm a neighbor. Love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.
Romans 13:8-10

If person does that, he fulfills the Law.

Wait, what?

Are you saying that the commandment to stone gay men to death is fulfilled by the commandment to "love your neighbor as yourself"?

Is the commandment to kill anybody who worships a different God fulfilled by the commandment to "love your neighbor as yourself"? Would you want your neighbor to kill you for your religion? If not, then by killing him for his religion you're not loving him as you love yourself.

What are you talking about?

How is murder a form of neighborly love?

It would seem to me that some commandments, such as "don't murder" and "don't steal", can indeed be re-worded more broadly as the commandment to love your neighbors.

But there are a LOT of commandments in the Bible that are NOT manifestations of neighborly love, but rather manifestations of neighborly hatred. Stuff like kill children who misbehave, don't let women speak in church, dont let women have positions of authority, own slaves, kill any member of other religions, kill witches, kill gay people, rape the women of neighboring tribes you've exterminated, kill people who gossip, etc.

Are you saying that you follow the edicts of the Bible that are about love, and don't follow the edicts of the Bible that are about hate, murder, rape, slavery, genocide?

Why is it that you disobey the words that God inspired St Paul to write down and AREN'T in favor of killing people who gossip? Are you better than St Paul at desciphering the will of the Almighty?

I'm really glad that you are against rape, genocide, slavery and forbidding women from speaking in church. I'm glad you agree that the Bible is immoral for commanding those things and I'm glad you therefore igore it, and instead only follow the parts of the Bible about loving your neighbor.

I'm also really glad that you are in favor of gay marriage. You wouldn't want your neighbor to prevent you from getting married to whoever you love, right? Therefore, since you follow the commandment to love thy neighbor as yourself, you wouldn't prevent gay marriage either, right?




And another thing. The concept of treating others as you'd like to be treated was first presented in the Annals of Confucius "What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others." which predate the Old Testament by many centuries.

So what you're saying is that the core message of the Bible boils down to this: "Go ahead and ignore the Bible entirely, and live life as per the rules that Confucius had already figured out way before the Bible was written". Bible = IRRELEVANT


I love it when a theist's statement is simultaneously self-refuting in multiple ways!

[bluethread]

Post 4: Wed Jun 10, 2015 12:28 pm

I'm wondering why no theist is replying to this.

The answer is a number. Like 50%. Or 20%. Or 70%.

What's the problem?

It's called priorities. Theists don't sit around with nothing better to do than watch this site for the latest new thread to respond to, especially when it appears to be another list of questions from the bibliophobe template. So, again, let's go over this well worn path.

What percentage of the Bible's edicts and decrees do you follow?

As many as it is possible for me to follow.

On what basis do you determine which decrees should be followed and which ones shouldn't?

Does my present circumstance make it possible?

Are there any decrees in the Bible that if you knew your neighbor followed them, you'd be tempted to call the police, or move to a different neighborhood, or forbid your children from visiting your neighbor's home?

You mean, when did you stop beating your wife? If you have a complaint, spit it out. There is no reason to bias the discussion by asking leading questions.

If you look back to 500 or 1000 years ago, would you guess that on average people followed a higher or lower percentage of Bible decrees than you do now?

No, on average, people have not known as much as I do about Adonai's way, let alone lived by them. I hope you realize that movable type was invented less than 1000 years ago and the printing press less than 600 years ago. So, the average human being knew little of HaTorah. Even so, interest in knowing Adonai's ways has never been a popular endeavor.

If you had to guess, would you think that 500 or 1000 years from now, if things continue to follow recent trends, people on average will follow a higher or lower percentage of Bible decrees?

It is not relevant to me. This is not a popularity contest.