The Lovely Bible - The Ethics and Morality

[Aetixintro]

.
The Bible is lovely with all its metaphors and other literary tricks blended with actual story as message to the Future for all of us to benefit from!

The Old Testament
So it starts as conviction that God has created the Universe and all in it.
Within all the twists and turns,
the Bible lays down The 10 Commandments.
With lots of life's lessons to be learned, poetic justice among them.

The New Testament
It begins with an agenda of creating Heaven on Earth, after all the formalities:
Matthew 6:9-13

9 "This, then, is how you should pray: " 'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, 10 your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. 11 Give us today our daily bread. 12 And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. 13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.' "

We are warned about the ill fate of Jesus in various ways as death on the torturous crosses and how Jesus defeats death itself. The 1000 Jesus who have met injustice and died by cruelty, but victorious still and gone to Heaven in all their brilliance of goodness.
The rest of the New Testament is about the aftermath and final best wishes to the Readers.

For discussion, now, why are people objecting so much to the Bible?
It starts in an evil World, trying to impart meaning and hope for a better future yet so much "howling" is created. I guess the World is still evil to some degree, having thrown off the worst of it, hopefully. I mean, the reincarnations, also of the worthy children, seems to be a badly hidden police game or Alfred Hitchcock movie. It can't be it. So why the outcry? Leave the religious alone? Complain about the meaning of life itself, perhaps?
Would the Atheists ever make the World a better place themselves "with their scientific reasoning"? Do ethics and morality have a biconditional relation with being religious? Does life require the fine touches of the religious? All the best!

[brunumb]

The Bible, then, is no worse than what some atheists have done.

That doesn't say much for what the Bible is supposed to represent.

[brunumb]

...Do you really think that the crusaders, the Inquisition, and the witch hunters knew nothing of the Bible passages speaking of love? What good did those passages do for them?

If they knew, why do you think they didn’t believe those teachings?

Perhaps the Bible is guilty of giving mixed messages. Everyone seems to take from the Bible exactly what suits their own agenda.

[JoeyKnothead]

That's revealing. I'll never forget an experience I had in an "infidels" forum years ago. At that time I was involved in human-rights activism. I was trying to get some of the atheists there involved in my efforts. Most of them just ignored me, but one of them dialogued with me a bit. He seemed very suspicious of me. At one point he asked me: "What about human rights?" He honestly seemed to have little idea of what I was talking about as if he had no familiarity with the notion of human rights! Needless to say, I didn't recruit any of those atheists for my human-rights activism.
...
...

Please present such dialogations for analysis.

It'd be a shame if folks were to think you weren't being completely honest in an effort to gain some sort of leg up in a debate.

[Miles]

My point was that the Bible isn't so lovely at all.

The bible is perfectly lovely.

It tells of a god who creates evil (Isaiah 45:7), kills innocent children and infants (1 Samuel 15:2-3), sent bears to kill 42 kids whose only offense was to make fun of a bald man (2 Kings 2:23-24), turned a woman into a block of salt for disobeying him (Genesis 19:26), killed a guy for refusing to knock-up his sister-in-law (Genesis 38:9-10), and allows slave owners to kill their slaves without retribution (Exodus 21:20-21).
And to illustrate this proclaimed "love" I chose the Bible's account of god's approval of slavery.

I see nothing unlovely about the bible in the verses above.

And I'm coming to see why. By default god can do no bad. Why? Because that's the way you need him to be, and what you need god to be will always supersede reason, which is why there's nothing wrong with one person owning another.


.

[JehovahsWitness]

... that's the way you need him to be, and what you need god to be will always supersede reason, which is why there's nothing wrong with one person owning another.


.

Unless you are employing your mindreading capacities you are merely guessing as to my reasoning or motivation. You are free to speculate away but in serious debate, it is usual good form to stick to facts. Do you have any or are we expected to debate your imagination?





JW

[Miles]

... that's the way you need him to be, and what you need god to be will always supersede reason, which is why there's nothing wrong with one person owning another.


.

Unless you are employing your mindreading capacities you are merely guessing as to my reasoning or motivation. You are free to speculate away but in serious debate, it is usual good form to stick to facts. Do you have any or are we expected to debate your imagination?

Oh, you mean "facts" such your, "The bible is perfectly lovely."

................................................................................. You funny guy, JW.


.

[JehovahsWitness]

Oh, you mean "facts" such your, "The bible is perfectly lovely."

You expressed your opinion....

My point was that the Bible isn't so lovely at all.

Are you suggesting nobody else can do what you have just done and express their opinion? You made a subjective opinion based "point". Do you hold some kind monopoly on such matters we should all know about?






JW

[JoeyKnothead]

... that's the way you need him to be, and what you need god to be will always supersede reason, which is why there's nothing wrong with one person owning another.


.

Unless you are employing your mindreading capacities you are merely guessing as to my reasoning or motivation. You are free to speculate away but in serious debate, it is usual good form to stick to facts. Do you have any or are we expected to debate your imagination?

JW

That's rich, condering your signature - displayed nigh on every time you engage in these debates, declares as fact there's this Jehovah guy, and how bout that. All you can do is show this "Jehovah" guy is a product of your imagination.

But that's cool. Ya get to hide such claim behind it being a signature - because ya dang well can't show it to be fact.

It never fails to amuse me when the theist insists we "stick to facts" as they promote as "fact" that which they themselves can't show to be.

Alas, that's the game we have to play when dealing with religious "apologetics".

They assert stuff as "fact" only don't it beat all, they do so in a manner that keeps their claim from scrutiny.

Just look through these threads, and see how often the theist refuses to support their claims. Heck just the challenges I present to those claims, and the willful - naw now, let's be fair - magical ability to not see those challenges in order to address em ought be it nough to have the reasonable person conclude so many theists' herein are up to trickery.

They wanna play at "debate", it's just they need us to ignore the fact that so often they can't show they speak truth.

So they hide their claims in their signatures.

Then have em them the unmitigated gall to demand others "stick to the facts".

[Miles]

Oh, you mean "facts" such your, "The bible is perfectly lovely."

You expressed your opinion....

You're quite correct, which is why I never said it was a fact; although considering the definition of "unlovely,"---"not attractive; ugly"--- it's about as close as one could come to being a fact.

My point was that the Bible isn't so lovely at all.

Are you suggesting nobody else can do what you have just done and express their opinion? You made a subjective opinion based "point". Do you hold some kind monopoly on such matters we should all know about?

Not at all, I pretty much take everything you say as opinion. But tell me, assuming I'm wrong about your reason for seeing "nothing unlovely about the bible in the verses above," why do you see such Biblical approvals as: killing innocent children and infants; allowing slave owners to kill their slaves without retribution: and sending bears to kill 42 kids whose only offense was to make fun of a bald man, to be "nothing unlovely," OR, in other words: lovely?

love·ly
/ˈləvlē/
adjective: lovely; comparative adjective: lovelier; superlative adjective: loveliest
exquisitely beautiful.


un·love·ly
/ˌənˈləvlē/
adjective: unlovely
not attractive; ugly.
Source: Oxford Languages Dictionary

.

[1213]

...
Perhaps the Bible is guilty of giving mixed messages. Everyone seems to take from the Bible exactly what suits their own agenda.

I think it is not Bible’s fault, if people take only part that fits to their own agenda. It is unfortunate thing and no wonder if then people have difficulties to understand anything.