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?

[OnceConvinced]

Who, in their right mind, would put the commandment not to commit adultery right between the commandments against murder and theft? That implies that somehow adultery (having sex with someone without the church's approval - yes that's what it is) is just as bad as muder and stealing.

It's just a list. It's thrown in there as it's one of the 10 commandments. But the thing is no sin is greater than any other sin when it comes down to it. Even an insignificant sin is going to result in you separating yourself from God. No doubt there are extremes, but any sin no matter how trivial is going to result in death. So they are all equal in that respect.

"Love your neighbor as yourself" is the worse one of all. If you are suicidal and love yourself so little that you want to kill yourself, does that therefore give you the right to kill other people?

Jesus taught love not hate. When he said "Do unto others" he was talking about loving acts not hateful acts. Killing yourself is not an act of love.

Secondly, why does Jesus say that one should honor his parents, but not that you should treat your children well? It seems weirdly unbalanced. It directly implies that one should honor his parents even when they mistreat you as a child.

"love your neighbour as yourself" covers this. This would include your own children. So no you shouldn't mistreat your child.

You know who loves his neighbors as much as himself: A SUICIDE BOMBER. That's right. He doesn't treat them any different than he treats himself.

How is there any love in this situation? Suicide bombers hate.

Also, isn't there something missing here? Wouldn't any 8 year old be able to come up with a couple additional things that should have been added and which Jesus NEVER EVER did? "Do not own slaves" and "Do not treat women as anything other than equal".

Do unto others would surely cover these. You don't want to keep yourself a slave, you would want freedom for yourself so therefore you would want freedom for others. You would want to be treated equal so therefore you treat women as equals too.

Lastly, the 800 pound gorilla in the room: When asked Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life? Jesus totally endorses the notion that one should be moral so as to get rewarded for it later. That's not morality. That is fundamentally misguided. What Jesus should have said is "If you are doing good things to avoid punishment or to earn rewards, you are not truly being good. As a moral person, you should do good thing for no ulterior motive, but just because it's good to do good things.

Big fail.

Not at all. What is wrong with positive reinforcement? Don't good parents use positive reinforcement to get their kids to do good? Promises of rewards? Do we call children immoral simply because they were good to gain rewards?

Being good is a learning process. If you love your parent you will want to do good anyway. Same with God. Great if we could all learn our morals straight away, but sometimes it takes time. We often have to learn by trial and error before we get to the point where we realise it's better to be moral without the need for rewards.

Anyway, I'm guessing that deep down you are a moral person because you see benefits in being moral. People like you. You fit in better. You get more responsibility, better pay, more respect, etc etc. Are you really any more morally upright?

[Blastcat]

Who, in their right mind, would put the commandment not to commit adultery right between the commandments against murder and theft?

One who thinks they are all wrong?

Why would you imagine that?

Is this a joke answer, or a seriously considered one?
What are you trying to say here... what is your POINT?

That implies that somehow adultery (having sex with someone without the church's approval - yes that's what it is) is just as bad as muder and stealing.

That does appear to be what Jesus is implying.

It DOESN'T "appear" to you .. ok.. then WHAT does it appear to be .. And can you give us your REASONS for why it doesn't "appear" to you?

Could you SHARE your reasoning with us?

Secondly, why does Jesus say that one should honor his parents, but not that you should treat your children well? It seems weirdly unbalanced. It directly implies that one should honor his parents even when they mistreat you as a child.

That depends on what you understand "honor your parents" to mean.

Can you give us what this APPEARS to be?
We don't know because you don't tell us.

HOW do YOU understand "honor your parents" to mean?
Can you tell us so we can see if it makes any sense at all? Or do we have to guess that it really DOESN'T?

"Love your neighbor as yourself" is the worse one of all. If you are suicidal and love yourself so little that you want to kill yourself, does that therefore give you the right to kill other people?

No, because suicide wouldn't fall under loving oneself.

OF COURSE IT DOES. Maybe you can't think that way because you look at everything through a religious filter, and really can't think any other way. BUT.. there are other ways to think.

It falls under LOVING ONESELF in the sense that wanting to live is NOT AS STRONG as the desire to avoid some pain.

Normal people try to avoid pain. Some people come to believe that they can't endure some pain, and desire to end the pain and suffering. We might think they aren't well in the head, but this is their motivation. They suffer TOO MUCH PAIN.. and want to STOP it.

That comes from a belief that a human should NOT FEEL so much pain. This is an act of SELF LOVE, but it takes a bit of thinking to arrive at this kind of empathetic conclusion.

Barbaric moral codes have very LITTLE in the way of empathy.

Many suicide patients report that their desire to kill themselves WAS due to self love. They could not TOLERATE living what they felt was PURE TORTURE day after day, and wanted to END the useless pain.

We need to love ourselves AT LEAST enough to WANT TO end the pain. To DESIRE an end to unsupportable pain.

Otherwise, the person would not CARE if it was in pain or not.

There is self-caring at the bottom of every suicide act.

Maybe you could talk to someone who attempted suicide who AREN'T describing everything through a religious framework.

They exist.

[sf]

Apologists are prone to harp on abortion as though Believers had some moral high ground in being opposed to a woman's right to choose what happens to her own body. They seem to claim to set high value on embryos and fetuses (and perhaps ovum and sperm?).

The problem isn't that women are doing something to their own body, it's that they're doing something to another (yet to be born) person's body (or soon to be body) as well.

[bluethread]

.

So rather than wade through your examples, let me simply ask you this. If I am wrong please tell me the precise value of a woman's right to choose in abortions? How many abortions is a woman's right to choose worth? We all know that a woman's right to choose is a value(principle) that many hold. Everyone agrees on that. However, what is the intrinsic value(worth) of that value(principle)? Is it one abortion, two abortions, maybe two and a half abortions? What is that precise intrinsic value(worth)?

A common dodge when not faring well in debate is to raise a different issue. Apologists are prone to harp on abortion as though Believers had some moral high ground in being opposed to a woman's right to choose what happens to her own body. They seem to claim to set high value on embryos and fetuses (and perhaps ovum and sperm?).

However, they seem unable to explain why Christian women account for half a million abortions per year in the US. Self-identified Christian women have as many abortions proportionately as other groups. The claimed "high morals" don't seem to matter much when those decisions are being made.

Where is the evidence of high value on embryos and fetuses in those cases?

There is no dodge, I addressed the concept of intrinsic value directly. Another dodge is to cut a quote so that it looks one sided and is designed to make a point that is not being made. I also said, "To be fair, we also all agree that the right to life is a value(principle) that many others hold. However, what is the precise intrinsic value(worth) of an unborn child? Is it the inconvenience of a woman, the health of a woman, the life of a woman?" In neither case, did I state what the intrinsic value(worth) of either of those values(principles) are. My point is that one can not establish a specific value(worth) for either a woman's right to choose, or an unborn child's right to live. In fact, one can not establish a specific value(worth) for any moral value(principle). That is the point regardless of where one stands on a particular value(principle). If there were such a thing as intrinsic value(worth), one would be able to state what that value(worth) is.

Let me show where intrinsic value might work. When we talk about a weight or time measure, one might say it has an intrinsic value, though it would probably be more accurate to say it has a designated value. One could possibly do this because there is a specific gravitational or cyclical measurement that can be applied to it. We all agree on what one pound is or what one hour is. It doesn't matter whether it is a pound of apples or oranges, it is still a pound. It doesn't matter what one does during that hour, it is still an hour. That is not the same with moral principles, ie values. One can not establish the absolute worth(intrinsic value) of a moral principle(value). The one simply does not apply to the other.

[OnceConvinced]

No, because suicide wouldn't fall under loving oneself.

OF COURSE IT DOES. Maybe you can't think that way because you look at everything through a religious filter, and really can't think any other way. BUT.. there are other ways to think.

It's not just about killing yourself though. You have to take into account the pain and suffering you are inflicting on others in the process. How might they suffer if you take your own life? Your family? Friends? Would you want to lose your loved one as a result of suicide? If not then you shouldn't take your own life because it would cause harm to others too.

It seems the only way it would be considered a loving act is if you were a complete loner with no family and friends. But how many suicides occur where no one else is affected negatively?

There is self-caring at the bottom of every suicide act.

What about caring for others? Those who care about you and love you? Should you just flag their feelings away? Would you want others to ignore your feelings?

[DefenderofTruth]

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?

Dont confuse yourself man... Has scripture not covered this? I suggest you read the Bible fully to find the answer for this question, but if you wish not to then why ask "how much of it should you follow"??

Is circumcision necessary to have Faith in Christ? No, its not... The "law" is more of a concept in the New Testament, and by no means does salvation hinge on observing the law. Instead, the law is here to convict people for sin. If you are breaking the law you are guilty of sin but if you are living in spirit you are not under law. So live with spirit.

Just as it is written, The righteous shall live by faith.

[onewithhim]

Who, in their right mind, would put the commandment not to commit adultery right between the commandments against murder and theft? That implies that somehow adultery (having sex with someone without the church's approval - yes that's what it is) is just as bad as muder and stealing.

It's just a list. It's thrown in there as it's one of the 10 commandments. But the thing is no sin is greater than any other sin when it comes down to it. Even an insignificant sin is going to result in you separating yourself from God. No doubt there are extremes, but any sin no matter how trivial is going to result in death. So they are all equal in that respect.

"Love your neighbor as yourself" is the worse one of all. If you are suicidal and love yourself so little that you want to kill yourself, does that therefore give you the right to kill other people?

Jesus taught love not hate. When he said "Do unto others" he was talking about loving acts not hateful acts. Killing yourself is not an act of love.

Secondly, why does Jesus say that one should honor his parents, but not that you should treat your children well? It seems weirdly unbalanced. It directly implies that one should honor his parents even when they mistreat you as a child.

"love your neighbour as yourself" covers this. This would include your own children. So no you shouldn't mistreat your child.

You know who loves his neighbors as much as himself: A SUICIDE BOMBER. That's right. He doesn't treat them any different than he treats himself.

How is there any love in this situation? Suicide bombers hate.

Also, isn't there something missing here? Wouldn't any 8 year old be able to come up with a couple additional things that should have been added and which Jesus NEVER EVER did? "Do not own slaves" and "Do not treat women as anything other than equal".

Do unto others would surely cover these. You don't want to keep yourself a slave, you would want freedom for yourself so therefore you would want freedom for others. You would want to be treated equal so therefore you treat women as equals too.

Lastly, the 800 pound gorilla in the room: When asked Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life? Jesus totally endorses the notion that one should be moral so as to get rewarded for it later. That's not morality. That is fundamentally misguided. What Jesus should have said is "If you are doing good things to avoid punishment or to earn rewards, you are not truly being good. As a moral person, you should do good thing for no ulterior motive, but just because it's good to do good things.

Big fail.

Not at all. What is wrong with positive reinforcement? Don't good parents use positive reinforcement to get their kids to do good? Promises of rewards? Do we call children immoral simply because they were good to gain rewards?

Being good is a learning process. If you love your parent you will want to do good anyway. Same with God. Great if we could all learn our morals straight away, but sometimes it takes time. We often have to learn by trial and error before we get to the point where we realise it's better to be moral without the need for rewards.

Anyway, I'm guessing that deep down you are a moral person because you see benefits in being moral. People like you. You fit in better. You get more responsibility, better pay, more respect, etc etc. Are you really any more morally upright?

You answer AtheistBuddy very well. No sin is worse than another sin because all sin shows that humans are in conflict with God and His truly good and beneficial standards. If someone continues to sin willfully and never is repentant, he is showing that he doesn't respect his Creator and doesn't care about being nice to his fellow humans. That's all God wants---to have true friends in us, and that we live in harmony, peace, and compassion with our fellow humans and the earth.

Jesus also said about children that to get into the Kingdom of the heavens, we must be like them, and if anyone stumbled one of these little ones they might as well have a weight tied around their neck and thrown into the sea. (Matthew 18:3; Luke 17:2) He obviously cared a great deal about children. His Apostles also taught that we must treat our children with love and tenderness.

"Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger (or, do not be irritating your children), but bring them up with the training and instruction of the Lord." (Ephesians 6:4, NAB, NWT)

"You fathers, do not be exasperating your children, so that they do not become downhearted." (Colossians 3:21, NWT)

There are also many verses that admonish us to show LOVE in all that we do, and that would include our children, of course.