Debate:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bolly Ottihw (Talk | contribs) at 11:07, April 17, 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Yes

The bible is an interpreted work and poor interpretation lead to a poor set of ethics derived from that interpretationRebiu 15:28, 8 April 2007 (EDT)


I've never read the bible completly, but alot of what I have read is soo violent and alot is degrading towards women. I am not saying the WHOLE bible is that way, but it seems that way. Yes, lets kill anyone who breaks the silliest of rules. It says thou shalt not kill for one of them comendment things, but then its like PUT THEM TO DEATH YAY FER KILLING PEOPLE. Overal, it's a poor display of morals and ethics and makes it sound okay to be mean and hurt other people and destroy stuff AtheistKathryn 23:29, 12 April 2007 (EDT)


Its all open to interpretations. I mean, don't kill, don't steal, don't cheat on your wife, obey your parents, it's not like those are a bad set of morals. Now, when the Bible contradicts itself is when you have to apply your own judgment. At least, thats how I view it.--Elamdri 23:46, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Lot was described as a righteous man, but offered to send his young daughters out to be gang raped. Czolgolz 09:45, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

i think it's only fair to point out that the ten commandments were only intended to apply to other jews (judaism being the religion of moses tribe) therefore Thou shalt not kill, means thou shalt not kill other jews (or christians) and so on. what the bible basically says is that you can do anything to someone who is not of your religion, and that there is nothing morally wrong with that. in todays multicultural society that is obviously not an accebtable source of morals.

No

The bible defines the standard of morality therefore one cannot apply a assesment of the bible ethics from a moral perspective.Rebiu 15:27, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

I have to definitly dissagree with the above statements. We really have no way of knowing wether the nations the isrealites were forced to destroy were ever warned of there imminent doom. But i can say with reasonable certainty that they were. I say this because Nineva was an evil nation who did things detestable to the Lord. God sent Jonah to warn them that if they didn't, then they would die. We really have no way of knowing if God gave them warning. Secondly, if you mess up, you have to pay the price. Moses was God's most reverent prophet, but he never got to see the promised land. Moses disobeyed. God doesn't believe in killing innocent civilians for the sake of them being innocent. He believes in punishment. And who knows, maybe in the afterlife, how he'll judge his people. DfairlyXED13 8:40, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

There is of course a distinction here between the God of the old testament and that of the new. The God of the new testament is a forgiving God, and the God of the old testament was a vengeful God. I would argue that ethics and morals vary civisilisation to civilisation, and era to era. You can only judge the God of the time by the morals and ethics of the time. Until we hear differently, we must assume the current God is that of two millennia ago. Proberts84 10:46, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Does_the_Bible_display_poor_ethics_and_morals%3F&oldid=112549"