Does the bible agree with "Good"?

[Graffight]

I was wondering, can anyone think of something that is "good" that the bible is not a proponent of.

I'm sure there will be disagree on whether or not said thing is actually Good, but i just want to see how many "Good" things there are that the bible is not a proponent of.

 

[Oftencold]

First, you'll have to define Good. The Bible tells us that only God is good, no person place or thing.

For myself, I don't think Man can really define Goodness -- he can sense it I think, vaguely, but not really define it. His perspective is too limited.

 

[jfuh]

First, you'll have to define Good. The Bible tells us that only God is good, no person place or thing.

For myself, I don't think Man can really define Goodness -- he can sense it I think, vaguely, but not really define it. His perspective is too limited.

Man came up with the concept of God, hence by default, man defined what is good in the bible.

 

[The Baron]

The Bible does not "agree" with good.

The Bible "defines" good.

 

[The silenced majority]

Man came up with the concept of God, hence by default, man defined what is good in the bible.

link?.....

 

[Oftencold]

link?.....

post of the month!

 

[winston53660]

The Bible does not "agree" with good.

The Bible "defines" good.

Really? So when the bible states that slavery is okay it is good and godly? and don't give me the BS that slavery was different in Biblical times. Slavery was slavery just like it is today there are no excuses for it.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

The bible describes a god that is "arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

It describes barbaric acts, slavery, scapegoating and immoral treatment of homosexuals, nonbelievers and alleged "witches" as just.

We as a species have come along quite a bit since that bronze age morality. Those who claim to get their morality from the bible take their modern morality to the bible, and pick and choose what resonates with what they already know as good, and ignore that which they doesn't.

Its a terrible source for a moral code in this modern age.

 

[jfuh]

link?.....

Simple, manuscripts by early christians of the bible did not exist until the 1st century. To Jewish bible didn't exist until around 450BC.
We know for a fact that man existed far before both events - hence man created religion and not religion created man.

 

[jfuh]

Its a terrible source for a moral code in this modern age.

It's a terrible source of moral code for any age let alone this modern age.

 

[The Baron]

"Really? So when the bible states that slavery is okay it is good and godly?" - winston53660

Where does it say that?

 

[The silenced majority]

This explaination:

Simple, manuscripts by early christians of the bible did not exist until the 1st century. To Jewish bible didn't exist until around 450BC.
We know for a fact that man existed far before both events - hence man created religion and not religion created man.

isn't really related to this claim:

Man came up with the concept of God, hence by default, man defined what is good in the bible.

 

[winston53660]

"Really? So when the bible states that slavery is okay it is good and godly?" - winston53660

Where does it say that?

I think it is some where in the old testament. But hey you can pick and choose all you want to. I hope you don't wear blended fabrics or anything. After all the bible is the Bible:2razz:

 

[Spartacus FPV]

"Really? So when the bible states that slavery is okay it is good and godly?" - winston53660

Where does it say that?

If I cite a passage that condones slavery, will you admit that the Bible promotes immorality and should be abandoned as a source for a moral code?

 

[jfuh]

This explaination:

isn't really related to this claim:

I don't know if you're simply being obtuse or you're genuinely that ignorant.
So let me make it as simplified as possible. Man came before religion, hence man defined religion, hence man defined the bible, hence man defined god.

 

[The silenced majority]

I don't know if you're simply being obtuse or you're genuinely that ignorant.
So let me make it as simplified as possible. Man came before religion, hence man defined religion, hence man defined the bible, hence man defined god.

0 to insults in no time flat!

Too easy.

How do you feel that you've made a valid argument as to how man defined/created what GOD is?

You claim that man had defined what GOD is - a creation of man. I'd like to see some proof that GOD is a creation - defined by man and isn't something else.

Your claim would lead one to the conclusion that you have some proof to back it up.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

0 to insults in no time flat!

Too easy.

How do you feel that you've made a valid argument as to how man defined/created what GOD is?

You claim that man had defined what GOD is - a creation of man. I'd like to see some proof that GOD is a creation - defined by man and isn't something else.

Your claim would lead one to the conclusion that you have some proof to back it up.

If it were the other way around, that god revealed himself to man be it through revalation or scripture; then why would every alleged manifestation of said god in every different culture/religion/time have incompatible claims to the nature of said god, and its sense of morality?

Even the same god Yahweh offered different covenants at different times. If what is good objective, why would said god's mind and his message change at all? What is true yesterday is also true today. A moral code that can be changed based on god's will is a dictators morality. If a god exists, it would not be "good" because god said so, god would say so because it is good.

Tell me what is your opinion of every god other than yours, are they man made? Is only yours true?

 

[jfuh]

0 to insults in no time flat!

How is questioning whether or not you're obtuse or ignorant is an insult?

Too easy.

How do you feel that you've made a valid argument as to how man defined/created what GOD is?

You claim that man had defined what GOD is - a creation of man. I'd like to see some proof that GOD is a creation - defined by man and isn't something else.

Your claim would lead one to the conclusion that you have some proof to back it up.

Actually other way around, either man created religion and defined what god is, or the alternative being god created man and taught man what religion is.
If it is the former it explains as to why over the eons there exist the plethora of religious beliefs and cultural norms that are specific to each region and people as is backed up via archealogical facts.
If however the opposite is true as yourself and other religious so claim, the burden of proof rests with you to prove of, not for me to provide negative proof.
It's only logical given the fact that man came before polytheistic religion which came before monotheistic religion that god is nothing more than the supernatural to explain that which was not known.
ie, Indonesian belief that the earth is a tree and that earthquakes are a result of demons shaking that tree to gobbel up souls.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Really? So when the bible states that slavery is okay it is good and godly? and don't give me the BS that slavery was different in Biblical times. Slavery was slavery just like it is today there are no excuses for it.

And I suppose you miss the part about about how masters are to treat their slaves? And can we also assume that you were asleep when the preacher was talking about how slaves became slaves in the first place, and that the color of your skin doesn't matter?

seriously, our concept of slavers comes from race, the bible's concept of slavery is rooted to responsibility.

 

[MrFungus420]

The Bible does not "agree" with good.

The Bible "defines" good.

So, slavery, incest, rape, murder and genocide are all good?

 

[MrFungus420]

And I suppose you miss the part about about how masters are to treat their slaves?

That's exactly the point.

According to the Bible, slavery is acceptable.

[gammar Nazi]
And it should be "missed", not "miss".
[/grammar Nazi]

 

[moe]

That's exactly the point.

According to the Bible, slavery is acceptable.

[gammar Nazi]
And it should be "missed", not "miss".
[/grammar Nazi]

The bible did not institute slavery.

In the days of Moses slavery was a common practice. Scarring and mutilation was a common practice for marking slaves. If one looks at the verses in the Torah regarding slavery they are a turning point from these practices.

Slaves were not slaves in the true sense of the word as we see it today because they had rights and protection under the law and also the institution was used as a form of debt payment such as bond servants. Following the parable of the sower in the NT it can be seen that the seeds for the repeal of slavery are planted in the Torah. Slaves were to be treated humanely with mercy and compassion. It should be obvious that such conditions of treatment would lead over time to the conclusion that owner ship of another human being is wrong.

Moe

 

[MrFungus420]

The bible did not institute slavery.

I never said that it did.

It condones slavery.

The rest of your post is stale apologetics.

Slaves were treated decently in the old days. It was different back then. Slavery wasn't all that bad.

Basically, it looks like you are trying to argue that if the people are treated with a minimum amount of decency, then there is nothing wrong with slavery.

 

[The silenced majority]

If it were the other way around, that god revealed himself to man be it through revalation or scripture; then why would every alleged manifestation of said god in every different culture/religion/time have incompatible claims to the nature of said god, and its sense of morality?

Even the same god Yahweh offered different covenants at different times. If what is good objective, why would said god's mind and his message change at all? What is true yesterday is also true today. A moral code that can be changed based on god's will is a dictators morality. If a god exists, it would not be "good" because god said so, god would say so because it is good.

Tell me what is your opinion of every god other than yours, are they man made? Is only yours true?

Nice strawman. I wasn't the one who made the claim to know what GOD is. He did. He claimed that mankind created what GOD is. In order to do that, one must have travelled to the beginning and end of time, the Universe and all of the dimensions to know what GOD is/isn't.

Don't try to lay the burden of proof on me. He made a claim and couldn't back it up.

 

[moe]

I never said that it did.

It condones slavery.

The rest of your post is stale apologetics.

Slaves were treated decently in the old days. It was different back then. Slavery wasn't all that bad.

Basically, it looks like you are trying to argue that if the people are treated with a minimum amount of decency, then there is nothing wrong with slavery.

No not at all. Your saying that the bible condones slavery is the same as saying that it condones polgymy. And yet the bible does not condone it even though there were provisions made for it with in the Mosaic law

The biblical example for good marriage has always been for monogamous marriage. Polygamy is always portrayed in bad light. Always problems. Just because the bible permits something does not necessarily mean that God agrees with it. There is the directive will of God and the permissive will of God.

We can use a parent child relationship as an example. The directive will of the parent may be this is not good but the child will do it regardless. Thus the parent makes a compromise setting certain parameters that the parent hopes in the long run will help the child to outgrow the behavior.

Biblical lessons are not always apparent and direct. There are lessons that are taught in more subtle fashion

Moe