Was the Bible intended to be metaphorical?

Norsefire said:
You don't understand. You're providing exercpts that mention punishment for wrongdoings. How is punishing wrongdoers immoral?:bugeye:
Click to expand...

"Let us go and serve other gods... thou shalt surely kill him"

So, you're claiming it's a wrongdoing for one person to entice another person to their religion, and that they should be killed for attempting it?

"If there be found among you, transgressing his covenant... Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die."

And, you also claim that anyone who doesn't share your beliefs should be stoned to death?
 
No. I do not agree that those things are wrong.

However, from that perspective they ARE immoral and therefore, the stoning is a punishment for an immoral deed (from their perspective)
 
Norsefire said:
No. I do not agree that those things are wrong.

However, from that perspective they ARE immoral and therefore, the stoning is a punishment for an immoral deed (from their perspective)
Click to expand...

By simply stating they are immoral does not support your argument.

So, I'm going to close this pointless argument by saying that enticing people to different religions and people who do not share your beliefs are common activities. If you were to kill them for these activities, you would probably spend a lifetime in prison, since those activities do not represent immoral behavior, but instead represent freedom of religion.

I understand that freedom of religion is widespread in Islamic states, so long as the religion is Islam, hence one could make a case in your favor, from an Islamic perspective.
 
They are activities which, from specific viewpoints, are immoral. Therefore, a punishment for an immoral act is not immoral in itself. That is why the Bible or any other religious text do not have immoralities, because immorality is subjective.
 
Meanwhile, the LORD instructed one of the group of prophets to say to another man, "Strike me!" But the man refused to strike the prophet. Then the prophet told him, "Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, a lion will kill you as soon as you leave me." And sure enough, when he had gone, a lion attacked and killed him. (1 Kings 20:35-36 NLT)


So, a man refuses to strike another innocent person, and God makes a lion eat him.
 
That is, once again, an example of punishment, spidergoat
Click to expand...

This is really silly. So, as long as something is a punishment it can't be immoral? Therefore if you break the greenhouse and your mother sets you on fire, kills your sister, rapes your brother, and electrocutes your pet cat all as a punishment... then it's not immoral?

Ok Norse, Ok. :bugeye:
 
But that's a double-bind situation. If they did hit an innocent person, that would be immoral too. God is commanding them to do something immoral. That makes God immoral. If immorality can apply to us, it can apply to God. Any way you look at it, it's immoral.
 
In your situation, people not related to the crime are being punished.
Click to expand...

So are those made to be eaten in my earlier quote.

Or, failing that - the women that got their wombs closed by god because Abimelech made a mistake and chatted up Abrahams wife - but only because Abraham had said she was his sister.
 
spidergoat said:
But that's a double-bind situation. If they did hit an innocent person, that would be immoral too. God is commanding them to do something immoral. That makes God immoral. If immorality can apply to us, it can apply to God. Any way you look at it, it's immoral.
Click to expand...
God is not Human, therefore I'm quite sure hardly anything that applies to us, including the very laws of physics, applies to God, assuming he exists.

SnakeLord said:
So are those made to be eaten in my earlier quote.

Or, failing that - the women that got their wombs closed by god because Abimelech made a mistake and chatted up Abrahams wife - but only because Abraham had said she was his sister.
Click to expand...
Nonetheless, "immoral" is in the eye of the beholder, right? Besides, we are forgetting that the Bible was written in an entirely different time period by an entirely different civilization.

Also, you need to understand the difference between the civil law and moral law. For instance, adultery being wrong is the moral law. Stoning for adultery is the civil law.

The civil law can change, the moral law doesn't. Today adultery is still, by and large, considered "wrong" but there is no punishment for it in most places.
 
Norsefire said:
God is not Human, therefore I'm quite sure hardly anything that applies to us, including the very laws of physics, applies to God, assuming he exists.


Nonetheless, "immoral" is in the eye of the beholder, right? Besides, we are forgetting that the Bible was written in an entirely different time period by an entirely different civilization.
Click to expand...

You asked:
Show me a single exercept from any religious text that is "immoral"
Click to expand...
I quoted one that was immoral on every level, from our point of view of course. There is no society that considers assaulting an innocent person for no good reason to be a moral act.
 
Nonetheless, "immoral" is in the eye of the beholder, right?
Click to expand...

Not at all.

Besides, we are forgetting that the Bible was written in an entirely different time period by an entirely different civilization.
Click to expand...

What's that got to do with anything? A god making people eat their own family members is immoral - unless of course you think family member cannibalism is a moral act in which case... ok Norse, ok.
 
spidergoat said:
You asked:

I quoted one that was immoral on every level, from our point of view of course. There is no society that considers assaulting an innocent person for no good reason to be a moral act.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but there are plenty of societies that think disobeying God is immoral.
SnakeLord said:
Not at all.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is entirely.

What's that got to do with anything? A god making people eat their own family members is immoral - unless of course you think family member cannibalism is a moral act in which case... ok Norse, ok.
Click to expand...

Of course I think that is immoral. But THEY did not and it is THEIR opinion that counts.
 
So, if God commands me to do an immoral thing, it's not immoral? You see, that is why people say that religion is a source of evil. People will do evil things thinking God commands it, and they think they will be doing good.
 
Yes, it is entirely.
Click to expand...

No it isn't.

Of course I think that is immoral.
Click to expand...

So therefore you have been lying all this time. Defending immorality in this instance under the basis that it's a "punishment" and therefore not a moral issue. But, having been put straight, you now recognise that it is - the action of making someone eat their own family members is an immoral act. Hence the god of the bible is an immoral entity or..

  1. Any act that [the Christian god] commits, causes, commands, or condones is morally permissible. (by definition)
  2. The Bible reveals to us many of the acts that [the Christian god] commits, causes, commands, or condones.
  3. It is morally impermissible for anyone to commit, cause, command, or condone acts that violate our moral principles. (by definition)
  4. The Bible tells us that [the Christian god] does in fact commit, cause, command, or condone acts that violate our moral principles. (as we have seen)
  5. The Christian god does not exist. (from 1, 2, 3 and 4)
 
spidergoat said:
So, if God commands me to do an immoral thing, it's not immoral? You see, that is why people say that religion is a source of evil. People will do evil things thinking God commands it, and they think they will be doing good.
Click to expand...
The lesser of the two evils; is it more immoral to disobey "God" or to hurt an innocent person?
SnakeLord said:
No it isn't.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. I can decide entirely for myself what I think is right and wrong. I could think rape is right, and you can't say I'm wrong.

So therefore you have been lying all this time. Defending immorality in this instance under the basis that it's a "punishment" and therefore not a moral issue. But, having been put straight, you now recognise that it is - the action of making someone eat their own family members is an immoral act. Hence the god of the bible is an immoral entity or..

  1. Any act that [the Christian god] commits, causes, commands, or condones is morally permissible. (by definition)
  2. The Bible reveals to us many of the acts that [the Christian god] commits, causes, commands, or condones.
  3. It is morally impermissible for anyone to commit, cause, command, or condone acts that violate our moral principles. (by definition)
  4. The Bible tells us that [the Christian god] does in fact commit, cause, command, or condone acts that violate our moral principles. (as we have seen)
  5. The Christian god does not exist. (from 1, 2, 3 and 4)
Click to expand...
No, I haven't. I said that there are no immoralities in the bible, and that's true, mostly because morality is subjective. I can still find things wrong but they aren't wrong IN THE BIBLE.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top