Stodge.org

bodgerx on 22.04.2009 at 8:13 pm

Not sure what you mean “problems of his own”, but it is interesting that you have moved your argument on from criticising the bible for being out of date, and not applicable to modern life, to it simply being ‘unoriginal’.

I’m not sure that all Christians think Jesus invented these qualities; it’s obvious that there were many exhibiting them before he was born. A curious conclusion to arrive at…

I seem to remember that Jesus quoted from various sources throughout his ministry, so it is no surprise that you have found the Epicurus quote.

I would suggest that you dig a little deeper than a casual Google search in future.

Sal on 22.04.2009 at 8:58 pm

I’m not sure that all Christians think Jesus invented these qualities; it’s obvious that there were many exhibiting them before he was born. A curious conclusion to arrive at…

Read the headline – I used the word “some”. And then re-read your original comment.

A curious conclusion to arrive at…

Let me explain: In response to my original post about the redundancy of the Bible as a source of moral values you replied that forgiveness, generosity, reciprocity (etc) are not obsolete.

The implication is that you suspect that these values somehow originate from the bible. The fact is that these values are certainly pre-Christian, possibly even pre-human.

The Bible really is not a helpful source of ethical guidance. It’s no better than any other religious scripture at addressing the controversial issues of the day. It comes with a great deal of useless baggage such as preposterous dietary laws, advice on how to keep slaves, tips on warfare which we would nowdays label as genocideal and completely bonkers prohibitions such as homosexuality.

Meanwhile it fails to address modern ethical dilemmas such as cloning and stem-cell research. Those who imagine that it does are forced to make wild and fantastical interpolations in order to make this aincent bundle of myth seem relevant.

I seem to remember that Jesus quoted from various sources throughout his ministry, so it is no surprise that you have found the Epicurus quote. I would suggest that you dig a little deeper than a casual Google search in future.

Why not cut out the middle-man? Why not just study Greek philosophy instead of the hodge-podge of the Bible?

bodgerx on 22.04.2009 at 9:08 pm

>>The Bible really is not a helpful source of ethical guidance.

I think that there would be many that would take issue with you on that one.

>>Why not just study Greek philosophy instead of the hodge-podge of the Bible?

It’s all about the source, init?

It seems you are very confident in your assumptions. Some are actually plain wrong – but I’ll leave you to find out which ones those are…Google it seems, is your friend

Sal on 23.04.2009 at 8:35 pm

I think that there would be many that would take issue with you on that one.

An appeal to popular opinion? There are “many” who take the view that the books of L. Ron. Hubbard contain spectacularly important spiritual teaching. Does the number of his followers matter, when it’s painfully obvious that his teachings are bonkers?

It’s all about the source, init?

It’s important to consider the source. In the case of Christianity, much of it’s “wisdom” comes 2nd hand. There are other, better sources of moral guidance. As I said, it’s an assembly of used-parts. The “cut & shut” of religions.

It seems you are very confident in your assumptions. Some are actually plain wrong.

Anybody can shout “you’re wrong” on the internet – the challenge is to put together a coherent argument to explain why the other party is wrong. So far your argument consists of your personal faith and not a whole lot else.

bodgerx on 23.04.2009 at 9:14 pm

Who said I had ‘personal faith’? I’m merely pointing out that your blanket assumptions about the content of the Bible are faulty. Like I said, you need to your research to find out why they are incorrect – I’ve done mine.

Sal on 24.04.2009 at 10:20 am

Like I said, you need to your research to find out why they are incorrect – I’ve done mine.

The old “appeal to mysterious but unstated wisdom” ploy. Anybody can claim to have superior wisdom or have done extensive resarch. Your challenge is to demonstrate it.

I’m merely pointing out that your blanket assumptions about the content of the Bible are faulty.

I also made some specific points about moral bonkers advice in the bible which is obviously obsolete. For example:

* Prohibitions on homosexuality
* Weird dietary laws.
* Genocidal advice on how many prisoners of war you can slay when you capture their city.
* Instructions on how to treat slaves.

Furthermore, I gave examples of actual actual ethical controversies from today of which the bible says nothing. Here are the original items, plus a few more for good measure:

* Embryonic stem-cells
* Abortion
* Human cloning
* Genetic modification of foods

You didn’t respond to any of my points, which might suggests that it is you and not me who is in the habit of making sweeping generalizations.

bodgerx on 24.04.2009 at 2:40 pm

“appeal to mysterious but unstated wisdom”

This wasn’t my intention. My intention was to make you see that you have some misconceptions that you should resolve by doing your own research.

I don’t recall any sweeping generalizations on my part, but I’ll humor you on some of your points:

“Tips on warfare”. There aren’t any ‘tips’ as you would like to imagine. Documented accounts on how Israel defeated nations with instructions on how it should be done – yes. If you are taking this to mean that these should be read as instruction to your goodself in the 21st century then you are mistaken.

“Weird ditetry laws”. Not really. Again these were given to Isreal as a protection at the time to keep themselves physically clean. Also their manner of slaughter; making sure animals are correctly bled was a matter of health. Hardly ‘weird’.

“Slavery”. Read Paul’s account of Onesimus and his master and think again. This is Paul dealing with an issue that would be a factor for almost 2000 years afterwards.

If you have read your Bible, you would know that instructions such as these were given in the old law were superseded by the new Covenant given by Jesus. This is one of the whole themes of the gospels – the freedom from the specifics of the old law. You seem to have fixated on some of the very specific stuff given to an ancient nation in the Hebrew scriptures without appreciating the lessons they teach about the God of of the Bible.

I think as far as your modern issues are concerned, the principles in the Bible offer support. Life is sacred according to the Bible – abortition is clearly wrong under the principles set out in it.

Genetic Foods – “God will ruin those ruining the earth”. If it is proved that these are destructive, then yes, they should be avoided.

Sal on 24.04.2009 at 6:10 pm

For all the influence the Bible has had on western culture, it’s really not the ultimate book of morality that it’s advocates claim. There is much advice in the bible which is utterly and inexcusably bad. The fact that it’s advocates are in the habit of selectively following it’s advice does not make the book as a whole any better.

Read Paul’s account of Onesimus and his master and think again.

Is this the best the Bible has to condemn slavery? Why is the bible so vague about slavery, an inhumane act which is so obviously wrong.

Surely it would have been easy to say: “Slavery is wrong… don’t do it!”

I think as far as your modern issues are concerned, the principles in the Bible offer support. Life is sacred according to the Bible – abortition is clearly wrong under the principles set out in it.

No part of the bible specifically deals with the complex issue of abortion. How can you claim that the bible is “clear” on this subject?

Others claim to know that homosexuality is “clearly wrong”. Today we know that homosexuality is harmless and not the sort of thing that something should be executed for.

Is it moral to stone somebody to death for being gay? I think not.

Genetic Foods – “God will ruin those ruining the earth”. If it is proved that these are destructive, then yes, they should be avoided.

Why dont you admit that the Bible has very little to say that’s directly pertinent to the complex issue of GM foods.

bodgerx on 24.04.2009 at 7:51 pm

>>Slavery
Read the account!

>>GM Foods, Abortion.
I never stated the Bible said anything specific at all about these issues – so why are you asking me to admit something I never denied? It seems very strange that you would think these contemporary issues appear in clear text of a book 2000+ years old…

I think you would have to have an incredibly narrow and simplistic view point to not see how the principles apply. In the case of abortion – the bible clearly states that human life is sacred – how much clearer can you get? Why would you come to the conclusion it didn’t apply?

Sal on 24.04.2009 at 9:02 pm

I never stated the Bible said anything specific at all about these issues – so why are you asking me to admit something I never denied? It seems very strange that you would think these contemporary issues appear in clear text of a book 2000+ years old…

That’s exactly my point: The bible has absolutely nothing to say about the most controversial issues of our day. Why would we presume that a 2000 year old text has any special relevance?

Sure, the bible does attempt a simplistic kind of morality. But the good stuff in it is mostly very obvious: It makes practically no difference that the bible says “thou shalt not murder” because everybody already agreed that murdering was a bad idea since long before the Bible ever existed. Almost nobody thinks that murdering is cool – even the atheists.

the bible clearly states that human life is sacred

Where exactly does it state that “human life is sacred”? It lists trivial crimes and non-crimes for which the penalty is death by stoning. This is yet another one of your extrapolations.

Would you say that this is an example of the sanctity of life?
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/dt/20.html#13

I think you would have to have an incredibly narrow and simplistic view point to not see how the principles apply

The principles apply… except when they dont.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

bodgerx on 24.04.2009 at 9:37 pm

>>he bible has absolutely nothing to say about the most controversial issues of our day. Why would we presume that a 2000 year old text has any special relevance?

Here’s where we return to the original point. You pointed out that the Bible’s principles were Bronze-age. Period. I had hoped to at least draw your attention to the fact that that there are plenty of principles in there that aren’t. I’ve already made my point there. You continue to return to points of old testament instruction to an ancient people to disprove my point. By bringing them up it is like arguing that machine guns should be present in the original text of Hamlet and that to read it today would be irrelevant. Are not the themes of Hamlet still relevant in today’s entertainment? In this way there are many principles in the bible that still hold true.

By the wiki link you seem to accuse me of selectivity – but I think you are equally guilty in choice of citations.

There are many, many passages in the bible that afirm the sanctity of life – certainly more than the misapplied ones you have Googled and listed for your case.

Psalm 127:3.
Deuteronomy 30:19
Proverbs 24:11,12
Matthew 10:29-31
John 15:12,13

A full understanding of the Bible from start to finish is essential to appreciate the thread of the narrative, the issues and themes of the text, and to understand why some long-stated contridictions are not all they seem.

Sal on 30.04.2009 at 5:53 pm

Here’s where we return to the original point. You pointed out that the Bible’s principles were Bronze-age. Period. I had hoped to at least draw your attention to the fact that that there are plenty of principles in there that aren’t.

You obviously did not read my original post properly. What I actually said was:

…suspect the problem has more to do with the content of the bibles, specifically the fact that it is a book full of bronze-age superstition of questionable moral value with little or no relevance to the modern world.

It absolutely is a book full of bronze-age suspicion. It’s also full of stuff that is very morally questionable, the example I gave was the death penalty for gays. How can anybody think that is appropriate for today?

On another point:

By bringing them up it is like arguing that machine guns should be present in the original text of Hamlet and that to read it today would be irrelevant.

No, that’s just silly: My point is that the bible does not provide useful advice concerning the moral issues of today. My intent is to illustrate that the Bible’s usefulness in providing a moral outlook is very limited. The bible does say that we should all be nice to each other, but that was kind of obvious to begin with. We’d know that killing each other was a bad idea even without the bible. Hence it’s moral guidance is either questionable or redundant.

There are many, many passages in the bible that afirm the sanctity of life – certainly more than the misapplied ones you have Googled and listed for your case.

You too are cherry-picking your quotations. I think the most you can say is that some of the bible’s authors believed in the sanctity of some lives, while others thought it was perfectly OK to stone somebody to death just for being gay. It’s obvious that the authors of that bit did not think there was much sanctity to the life of homosexuals.

A full understanding of the Bible from start to finish is essential to appreciate the thread of the narrative, the issues and themes of the text, and to understand why some long-stated contridictions are not all they seem.

That’s another very silly statement – you do not have to be fully familiar with something to dismiss it as rubbish. If a Scientologist were to tell you that you needed a full understanding of L. Ron. Hubbard in order to appreciate his narrative you’d know that it was bunk.

Why can you not see the obvious moral contradictions in the bible for what they are?

bodgerx on 02.05.2009 at 6:48 pm

You call my arguments ’silly’, I say yours reflect your ignorance.

“the invention of the atomic bomb makes the Sermon on the Mount neither more nor less profound than it is.”

-Malcolm Muggeridge

Sal on 05.05.2009 at 2:37 pm

No, your arguments are silly because you make claims that you cannot substantiate, and when somebody tries to challenge your statements you resort to irrelivance, the quote above is a perfect example. Your arguments do not make sense – you simply dodge the issues I raise in the hope that nobody will notice.

By the way, how many times is it that I’ve mentioned the thorny issue of homosexuality i the the bible. You did not respond once. It’s a classic example of somebody who is in denial, in this case you are pretending I never even asked the question!

bodgerx on 05.05.2009 at 7:33 pm

>>No, your arguments are silly because you make claims that you cannot substantiate

Errr, I seem to recall you called my Hamlet comparison silly. That wasn’t a failure to substantiate, but a failure in your understanding in how the comparison worked. You failed to say why you thought that didn’t work; lazily resorting to calling it silly.

You say my arguments don’t make sense – how? All you have said is that there are apparent double standards in the Bible (where you have failed to understand the purpose of the new covenant) and now you point out that I avoided the issue of homosexuality. The new testament is fairly clear about this – and no, it doesn’t involve stoning/killing anyone over it. Paul lists a homosexual as one who would not inherit the Kingdom of God. Simple as that. And yes, it is a thorny issue – no denying that.

It is so easy to throw the accusation ‘delusional’ isn’t it? I did not ‘pretend’ that you didn’t ask the question, I chose not to respond when you mentioned it, picking up other more significant points, as they stood out to me as being more worthy of debunking.

You say the quote above is a further example of me resorting to irrelevance. That made me chuckle. Do you have to have everything thing explained to you? The Muggeridge quote is a reference to your original post. The fact that you think that the Bible is full of stone age superstition. Do you recall? There is relevancy for the modern day – the sermon on the mount being a very good example. Muggeridge was a man who was clearly capable of grasping this – a man who was an agnostic himself.

Sal on 05.05.2009 at 9:04 pm

Bloggerx,

Your arguments consist of fudging the issues and trying to shift the question onto safer territory. When presented with an issue you usually respond with irrelevance and vagueness… that is the source of your silliness.

Let’s recap what triggered your enthusiastic involvement with this web-site: I originally stated that my problem with the bible was that it was full of “bronze-age superstition of questionable moral value with little or no relevance to the modern world”.

Lets break this down:

* Bronze age: Check… much of the bible was written during the period we refer to as the bronze-age.

* Superstition: Check… it’s a cornucopia of myth and obvious nonsense.

* Questionable moral value: Check… there is plenty to question, especially in the old testament. Even you agreed that the idea of killing gays for being gay is at least “thorny”. You certainly win a prize for understatement of the year!

This reminds me of a famous quote:

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

I think your inability to call-out the obvious evil in killing gays for being gay is a very tangible demonstration of this truth. Why is it that you cannot admit that it is utterly reprehensible to kill a person because of their sexual preference, something which is utterly harmless and could not possibly be criminal? I asked you so many times and the best you could come up with is the admission that it’s “thorny“…

So think you have become a living demonstration of how useless the Bible is as a source of moral guidance.

… why not just admit that it is completely fucking immoral to kill people because of their sexual preference?

bodgerx on 05.05.2009 at 9:23 pm

>>Your arguments consist of fudging the issues and trying to shift the question onto safer territory. When presented with an issue you usually respond with irrelevance and vagueness… that is the source of your silliness.

Safer territory? Haven’t I just dealt with just about every single point you have mentioned – including Homosexuality?

I hardly think enthusiastic involvement in your site constitutes some comments on a couple of your posts. Although maybe it is by the standards of this site As someone once famously said about the blogosphere: “Never before have so many written so much to be read by so few.” My intention was to point out that there is maybe more to the Bible than your blanket tarring of it as out of date rubbish. Maybe the few that stumble on your post get more than one side of the argument as a result.

So now your justification for saying that the Bible contains Bronze-age superstition was that it was actually written in the Bronze-age era? Amusing.

>>>Questionable moral value: Check… there is plenty to question, especially in the old testament. Even you agreed that the idea of killing gays for being gay is at least “thorny”. You certainly win a prize for understatement of the year!

You’ve twisted what I said. I agreed that it is a thorny issue, but not for the reasons you say. As I clearly stated, the new testament does not state death as a punishment.

It was never my intention to demonstrate that the Bible’s principles were unique – merely relevant.

>>So what did you show… well the bible is as as relevant as Shakespeare.
You still don’t get it, do you? This was a comparison, an example etc. Doh!

Sal on 05.05.2009 at 10:17 pm

So now your justification for saying that the Bible contains Bronze-age superstition was that it was actually written in the Bronze-age era? Amusing.

No, I also gave explicit examples of stuff that is obvious superstitious nonsense and stuff which is obviously morally questionable. Taken together with the universally agreed fact that the book was written mostly during the bronze-age, this perfectly justifies calling the Bible a book of “bronze-age superstition of questionable moral value”

I think all of that is non-controversial. The only bit you are offering an argument for is it’s purported relevance to the modern world.

>>So what did you show… well the bible is as as relevant

as

Shakespeare.
You still don’t get it, do you? This was a comparison, an example etc. Doh!

The word “as” is often used in the English language to signify a comparison. I’m saying that both the bible and the works of Shakespeare are important works of literature. That’s a kind of cultural relevance but it’s role is rightly diminished compared to it’s role in the middle-ages.

As I clearly stated, the new testament does not state death as a punishment.

But the old testament does… really explicitly clearly. Now here’s your second chance. I double-dare you to state the obvious truth that this is utterly wrong, insane and immoral:

“If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

The funny thing I often hear from Christians is that any time they are presented with an inconvenient truth from the old-testament they claim it does not apply because it’s over-rulled by the new, but in most cases (as in this one) there’s nothing explicit or implied to justify this statement. If you can arbitrarily ignore any passage of the old-testament on a whim then you can pretty much dodge any contentious issue you like!

Which passage in the new testament informs readers that god was only joking about that “putting to death” of gays bit?

bodgerx on 05.05.2009 at 10:38 pm

>>But the old testament does… really explicitly clearly. Now here’s your second chance. I double-dare you to state the obvious truth that this is utterly wrong, insane and immoral:

It is wrong according to the new Testament. A law applied to Israel and revoked completely by the new covenant. No need for a ‘double-dare’

>>The funny thing I often hear from Christians is that any time they are presented with an inconvenient truth from the old-testament they claim it does not apply because it’s over-rulled by the new, but in most cases (as in this one) there’s nothing explicit or implied to justify this statement. If you can arbitrarily ignore any passage of the old-testament on a whim then you can pretty much dodge any contentious issue you like!

The reason you hear it a lot, is because it is also a fundamental teaching of the Bible. (Remember what I told you before about an appreciation of the entire thread of the Bible) The old law was completely revoked by the new covenant. This is explicit in the Bible. There are, though, only two timeless principals that stand from the old-law: Love your Neighbor, and Love God. That is all. This is not an arbitrary selection as you would like to portray it.

>>Which passage in the new testament informs readers that god was only joking about that “putting to death” of gays bit?

Why would it be a joke when it was one of many punishments given to protect and preserve a fledgling ancient nation (Israel) that now, thousands of years later, are not applicable as a result of a new covenant?

Sal on 06.05.2009 at 2:45 pm

>>But the old testament does… really explicitly clearly. Now here’s your second chance. I double-dare you to state the obvious truth that this is utterly wrong, insane and immoral:

It is wrong according to the new Testament. A law applied to Israel and revoked completely by the new covenant. No need for a ‘double-dare’

Why would it be a joke when it was one of many punishments given to protect and preserve a fledgling ancient nation (Israel) that now, thousands of years later, are not applicable as a result of a new covenant?

You really disapointed me: This reeks of moral relativism, and gay-panic homophobia.

If killing gays for being gay is morally abhorrent now, why can you not admit that it has always been morally abhorrent. You seem to imply that killing gays was somehow justified to “protect” the Israelites from some unstated threat… but what? How exactly did the gays threaten Israel in a way that justified such a bizarre and draconian punishment.

Some things are always wrong: It’s like torture – there’s absolutely no time when it’s justified. There’s no exception – it’s something that’s always wrong.

If you had the courage to see what was plainly obvious you’d say that the old-testament got it wrong and the new-testament did little or nothing to correct this grievous slander, and in fact by continuing to harshly condemn people for silly reasons continued to make the situation worse.

You will find explicit revocations of dietary and circumcision laws, but can you state precisely which part of the explicitly new-testament revokes the death penalty for homosexuality? I bet you cannot because no such section exists.

Let us say for argument that this passage or principle really does exist, what are we to make of the New testament’s view of this practice:

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

The author of 1 Corinthians lists homosexuality in the same category as theft, fraud and slander – all serious crimes which would be punishable in the harshest possible terms. The author is in a moral muddle.

I admit that it’s a slight improvement to go from condemning homosexuals to death to simply slandering them as criminals – but it’s all still bigotry. There’s no rational basis to fear or punish homosexuality and yet there is plenty of irrational homophobia in both old and new testament.

Now let us recap: I mentioned homosexuality as an example where the bible has clearly outlived it’s usefulness as a moral guide. Do you still insist that the bible has anything useful to say on this topic?

bodgerx on 06.05.2009 at 7:50 pm

There is no point by point revoke for every single law drawn up – why would there be when it clearly states that only the two principles apply. The old law is history.

I think it is you who is in the muddle. The verse you quote states that for each of those, the result is that you would not inherit God’s kingdom – only you have managed to come to the conclusion that they are ‘punishable in the harshest possible terms’.

I suggest you read things a little more clearly.

I can see I’m wasting my time…

Sal on 06.05.2009 at 8:43 pm

There is no point by point revoke for every single law drawn up

But some things ARE explicitly revoked: Dietary laws and circumcision. If there was a point to fixing these, why not explicitly fix the much greater wrong of homophobia?

why would there be when it clearly states that only the two principles apply. The old law is history.

For the third time, please point me to the passage in the bible which explicitly revokes the prohibition on homosexuality. I’m looking for something unambiguous.

If such a passage truly exists then it confirms that at the very least that pretty much anything in the old-testament can be considered irrelevant or redundant.

Remember that my original point was that the bible is a book full of bronze-age superstition and questionable morals. I think we’ve proved beyond any doubt that the old-testament’s opinion of homosexuality is very questionable. Your only defense is that the old testament’s advice on the matter is irrelevant and redundant.

So let’s just assume then that we can agree that the old-testament got it completely wrong on this topic. If the old-testament has been shown to be redundant and irrelevant book of superstitious bronze-age nonsense then all you have left is the new-testament. Let’s hope there’s something better in it!

I think it is you who is in the muddle. The verse you quote states that for each of those, the result is that you would not inherit God’s kingdom -

Your interpretation of this passage is dishonest and also completely out of line with the way that Christians have traditionally understood the text.

The author of 1st Corrintians is listing a bunch of “wicked” wrongs. This is not just an arbitrary list of random wrongs but a list of acts which the author considers so severe as to deny the inheritance of God’s kingdom.

There’s no evidence at all that the author thinks it’s OK to be gay. He’s just as homophobic as previous generations … just not quite as murderous.

Even you must be forced to ask, why did the author list homosexuality amongst a bunch of wicked acts which really are crimes? Only a fool could escape the conclusion that the author intended us to make an association between theft, fraud and homosexuality. It’s clear that in the author’s opinion homosexuality really was a crime: He thinks that homosexuals are criminals. It’s slander by association.

The question is, can any of this homophobic slander be justified? Today we know that homosexuality does not harm society. We do not need to be “protected” from homosexuality since it’s just a sexual preference.

only you have managed to come to the conclusion that they are ‘punishable in the harshest possible terms’.

That’s not my conclusion, but a historical fact. People have been executed for theft. People have been executed for being gay. Execution is a harsh punishment. The old and new testament passages on homosexuality have been used as a justification to persecute homosexuals for thousands of years.

By the way, were you going to respond to my point on moral relativism? You previously implied that these harsh punishments were somehow appropriate for the Israelites. I was hoping you’d admit that killing gays for being gay was as inappropriate then as it is now.