Penn & Teller barbecue the Bible

[elliotfc]

I started this line of discussion by declaring that the bible is a poor moral guide.

I agree because it *isn't* a moral guide. It's a hodge-podge in which moral guides can be found, but the moral guides in the bible are, first, several, and second, only part of the whole.

-Elliot

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Your gone. I don't have to take this crap from you.

So, you can call me an a-hole but Tony can't call you an ignoramus.

Tony can call me whatever he wishes. Indeed, he already has done so.

I just don't have to continue interacting with him. Just like a lousy TV show, I can turn it off. *CLICK*

Isn't it clear that that further exchange with Tony will not likely bear good fruit? Where's your vaunted "logic"?

You sir are a hypocrite.

No, I'm not. Nor am I stupid.

 

[triadboy]

I think that was a nice summary of the situation triadboy. A couple of comments:

I don't think much of the OT was written with the idea of a single all knowing, all powerful god. I think there is at least credible evidence that at least some of the OT writers had the idea that Yahweh was one god among others. Even if that idea is wrong it seems clear that the OT God is not all knowing and all powerful and it is layering on that later idea that makes some of the OT stories seem crazy.

I don't think Jesus was considered to be God in any way in the earliest forms of Jesus based religions. That is not provable because exactly what the early Jewish Christians believed has been lost as that sect died out. Still Mark might be an early Jewish Christian writing and without the added last passages, I don't think there is anything in there that suggests that Jesus is God. My sense of it is that there was lots of theorizing early on about exactly what Jesus was and it was only after about three hundred years that the most implausible and logically inconsistent idea of the trinity came to almost completely dominate Christian theology. Without these notions the idea that Jesus was just a divinely inspired and created messiah put on earth to help mankind seems to be at least an idea without the paradoxes created by the current Christian concept of Jesus, God, the trinity and the holy ghost.

Agree. My scenario is what a current xian most likely believes. THAT is what is ridiculous.

As for the authorship of the OT. J and E lived in a henotheistic society, so they would have entertained the idea of other gods. But P and D may have started the ball rolling for a single god.

 

[RandFan]

I agree because it *isn't* a moral guide. It's a hodge-podge in which moral guides can be found, but the moral guides in the bible are, first, several, and second, only part of the whole.

-Elliot

Of what value are moral guides where you have to first decide which ones are right and which ones are wrong?

 

[I less than three logic]

I agree because it *isn't* a moral guide. It's a hodge-podge in which moral guides can be found, but the moral guides in the bible are, first, several, and second, only part of the whole.

-Elliot

What, exactly, are the criteria one uses to determine which sections of the Bible should be moral guides and which shouldn’t? Wouldn’t you already need morals to make that distinction? At that point your just picking the ones that already agree with you, what kind of guidelines are those?

 

[triadboy]

I agree that the way you describe this is fitting for an idiot.

-Elliot

That's the way the Bible describes it. So you are agreeing the bible is for idiots too?! (Actually 'idiot' may be too strong a word. 'Ignorant' is better)

 

[RandFan]

Isn't it clear that that further exchange with Tony will not likely bear good fruit? Where's your vaunted "logic"?

By that logic should I not conclude that any further exchange with you will not likely bear good fruit?

You abuse others but you won't put up with anyone who abuses you. That fits hypocrisy. It certainly isn't consistent with the golden rule. If you don't want Tony calling you an ignoramus perhaps you shouldn't call other people a-holes, right?

 

[elliotfc]

Of what value are moral guides where you have to first decide which ones are right and which ones are wrong?

For some, a hell of a lot. For others, none at all. It's a subjective matter.

-Elliot

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

I have season 1 and 2 of P&T’s BS. This episode is on disk 3 of season 2, 3rd episode on the disk if I recall correctly.

Anyone know when season 3 is being released on DVD, or has it already?

Next Tuesday (Oct 3rd)

 

[elliotfc]

What, exactly, are the criteria one uses to determine which sections of the Bible should be moral guides and which shouldn’t?

In my opinion...

1)first appreciate the Bible as a whole, and as a very human book where the writers wrestle with the idea of God.
2)accept that God became Incarnate to help us get a *theological* view of morality sorted. (I accept that morality can be figgered out in other ways)
3)understand where the OT people were coming from, and the ideas which surrounded them, the ideas that they evolved away from.
4)use some discernment.

It seems to me that the OT is very specific to a particular group of people. With the NT you see Jesus opening things up to everybody. Also, Jesus sums up the law with generalities, not destroying the OT laws but I guess placing them in perspective or something.

This isn't black/white stuff. You've got to interact with the Bible in my opinion.

Wouldn’t you already need morals to make that distinction? At that point your just picking the ones that already agree with you, what kind of guidelines are those?

First, I agree that you do already need morals to make that distinciton.

Second, the Bible can and does change the morality of people, to varying degrees.



I ought to say that I don't advocate using the Bible as a moral guide. Rather, I would say that the Bible *could* be used as a moral guide, and if so, it would be best to go with this particular list of passages, as opposed to a list of passages that could be compiled by someone else.



-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

That's the way the Bible describes it. So you are agreeing the bible is for idiots too?! (Actually 'idiot' may be too strong a word. 'Ignorant' is better)

It's not too strong a word. I see idiots describing the Bible all the time around here.

-Elliot

 

[Huntster]

Of what value are moral guides where you have to first decide which ones are right and which ones are wrong?

One must choose right and wrong in virtually every activity under the sun.

I fail to understand why you think moral guidance would be different, especially with a book which is a series of books by different authors, and especially when many of those books were clearly written with the intent of being historical accounts of a particular race of people.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by elliotfc
I agree because it *isn't* a moral guide. It's a hodge-podge in which moral guides can be found, but the moral guides in the bible are, first, several, and second, only part of the whole.

What, exactly, are the criteria one uses to determine which sections of the Bible should be moral guides and which shouldn’t?

The highly vaunted "logic" notwithstanding, a bit of common sense helps at the beginning.

If you live in a culture that is commonly repulsed by genocide, isn't it pretty well a slam-dunk that such acts described might be questionable?

Further, isn't it wise to consider the reality that you might be looking from the perspective of a common citizen rather than the leader of a nation? Moses and President Bush have the authority and responsibility to make decisions like warfare. I don't have that horrible responsibility, and I doubt you do either.

Wouldn’t you already need morals to make that distinction?

Don't we learn morality as we live and grow? Isn't it a process in the works?

At that point your just picking the ones that already agree with you, what kind of guidelines are those?

The kind that confirm what you have already learned.

A key point in your scenario is that by rejecting those described questionable events is also evidence of one's moral growth and decision making.

It doesn't help to have other people claiming that if you accept the wisdom from a particular source, you must also accept that which clearly doesn't work for them.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Isn't it clear that that further exchange with Tony will not likely bear good fruit? Where's your vaunted "logic"?

By that logic should I not conclude that any further exchange with you will not likely bear good fruit?

Gee. You're quick.

You abuse others but you won't put up with anyone who abuses you.

If I have offended you, I am sorry. I do have a short temper, and I sometimes do use abusive language when I shouldn't. I need to do better.

Yes, I've learned that cutting exchange with someone who wishes to abuse me is wise in order to avoid my own sin of getting abusive back. If you wish to call it hypocrisy, that's fine with me.

I call it wise.

That fits hypocrisy. It certainly isn't consistent with the golden rule. If you don't want Tony calling you an ignoramus perhaps you shouldn't call other people a-holes, right?

Yep, however, I didn't call Tony anything until he exhibited his own poor behavior.

 

[I less than three logic]

Further, isn't it wise to consider the reality that you might be looking from the perspective of a common citizen rather than the leader of a nation? Moses and President Bush have the authority and responsibility to make decisions like warfare. I don't have that horrible responsibility, and I doubt you do either.

“I have as much authority as the Pope. I just don't have as many people who believe it.” – George Carlin

President Bush has no more “authority” to declare war than what we allow him. The same is true for Moses, God, or anyone/thing else.

Don't we learn morality as we live and grow? Isn't it a process in the works?

I could have sworn you said that morality was absolute earlier. How can it be absolute and a work in progress?

The kind that confirm what you have already learned.

A key point in your scenario is that by rejecting those described questionable events is also evidence of one's moral growth and decision making.

If you’re simply picking the ones that you agree with, it is not a guide at all, and it lends unwarranted credibility to it to refer to it that way.

It doesn't help to have other people claiming that if you accept the wisdom from a particular source, you must also accept that which clearly doesn't work for them.

Perhaps, but when people refer to the Bible as a moral guide it certainly implies they mean the whole thing. You’d have to add some qualifiers to that statement. Like saying something along the lines as, “The Bible can be used by anyone as a moral guide, as it contains such a wide variety of possible moral or immoral actions, ranging from the slaughtering of children or selling your daughter as a sex slave to helping the poor or caring for the sick, so no matter what you may consider moral, you’ll be sure to find some passages to suit you.”

 

[triadboy]

It's not too strong a word. I see idiots describing the Bible all the time around here.

-Elliot

...and on TV

 

[triadboy]

In my opinion...

1)first appreciate the Bible as a whole, and as a very human book where the writers wrestle with the idea of God.

And in one case, they actually wrestle god! I agree it is a totally human book.

2)accept that God became Incarnate to help us get a *theological* view of morality sorted.

Not asking for much are you? Once again you are describing a god that is not all-powerful, all-knowing, nor all-loving. You are anthropomorphilizing god. With this kind of statement, I can assume your god has a beard.

3)understand where the OT people were coming from, and the ideas which surrounded them, the ideas that they evolved away from.

E wrote in Israel. J wrote in Judah. They didn't agree on a lot - but both their stories are in the OT. They shouldn't be lumped together as OT people coming from a single point of view.

4)use some discernment.

It seems to me that the OT is very specific to a particular group of people.

If you mean the Jews - the OT means nothing to them. The Torah however is a different story.

With the NT you see Jesus opening things up to everybody.

Jesus was Jewish. He didn't open things up to everybody. You're thinking of Paul.

Also, Jesus sums up the law with generalities, not destroying the OT laws but I guess placing them in perspective or something.

Jesus adhered to OT laws. He was Jewish.

This isn't black/white stuff. You've got to interact with the Bible in my opinion.

Some people who interacted with the bible justified wars, slavery, anti-semitism, bigotry, close-mindedness, polygamy, etc.

 

[triadboy]

I agree that the way you describe this is fitting for an idiot.

-Elliot

Was anything wrong with the way I described it?

 

[I less than three logic]

Was anything wrong with the way I described it?

Yes. Your blatant lack of euphemisms in the way you described the story made God look bad.

 

[Marc L]

I ought to say that I don't advocate using the Bible as a moral guide. Rather, I would say that the Bible *could* be used as a moral guide, and if so, it would be best to go with this particular list of passages, as opposed to a list of passages that could be compiled by someone else.
-Elliot

If you've already answered this elsewhere, I apologize. How do you decide which list of verses is the best list of verses to go with? If you're doing that, aren't you just picking and choosing verses that match your philosophy? If you try hard enough, you can use the Bible to justify just about anything (I once used it to argue that it was a sin to drink decaf coffee*). If you're going to use it as a moral guide, what makes the list of verses you choose inherently better than the ones someone else chooses?

*While I was still a fundamentalist. I forget the verse, but I think it was in Revelations, where it calls a curse upon people who take things out. No, I wasn't serious.

Marc