Good to Live By

[¿Que?]

So the other night, a chap told me that he wasn't really religious, but that he thought that the Christian Bible was at least a good book to "live by" quote unquote. I haven't read the bible, nor do I intend to, but I did wiki the 10 commandments and I found that out of the 10, only 2 could be said to be absolutely and unambiguously good moral lessons. The other 8 are, quite frankly, shite. What do you guys think? What else besides the ten commandments would you point to as an answer to this kind of religious apologetic?

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't have a problem with religious people but imo: morality < politics. "Living by the bible" doesn't tell us much about someone's values or what their political thinking is.

Religion is always on some level of moral code of conduct. Sometimes the moral code speaks to people's hopes and often it is the expression of the ideas of the ruling group.

So the sort of insurgent aspects of Christianity or Islam or Buddhism express morals that are sort of critiques of the old ruling order: Buddhism was originally against the ridged cast-system upheld in Hinduism and so it stressed that people can change and perfect themselves where Hinduism basically stressed that you are in your position in life because that's where you are supposed to be.

Early Christianity (and then Protestantism) and early Islam (and then Shiite movements) stressed opposition to the false idols of the old religious order essentially because (as the new religions saw it) it was tied to a corrupt ruling class and an intolerable social order.

So most major religions are a grab-bag of old ruling class morality with insurgent aspirations and then all refracted again through modern interpretations and often the needs of the modern ruling class. So I don't think anyone can really say they totally live true to the words of any modern religion - to do so would be schizophrenia because there is just too much contradictory stuff - which is probably part of the appeal and mysticism for many people.

But in the end everyone who is religious "picks and chooses" what is most important about their religion even if they claim not to. Christians are the example I have run into the most and if you read the bible and then listen to the christian right, the hypocrisy and the hilarity of their selective reading of the bible is pretty apparent. But the same is true with versions of christianity that might be more appealing to my political outlook such as revolutionary theology. They pick the redemptive and insurgent parts of Jesus and then throw out the ruling class ideas mixed into it.

Sorry, this is so long winded. So, long story short, I think if someone says I want to live by the golden rule, then fine that's a decent way to live and I think more empathy and understanding is good, but someone saying "I live by the bible" doesn't really mean much politically.

[Philzer]

Hi agustin,


only 2 could be said to be absolutely and unambiguously good moral lessons. ...

I would like to know which two commandments do you mean and why?

Kind regards

[Havet]

...and I found that out of the 10, only 2 could be said to be absolutely and unambiguously good moral lessons. The other 8 are, quite frankly, shite.

You're not the only one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzEs2nj7iZM

[Dean]

You're not the only one...

I'd thank you but that system isn't implemented yet. He's right about the 10 - most of them are narrowly interested in the propagation and perpetuation of their religious dominance.

[Havet]

I'd thank you but that system isn't implemented yet. He's right about the 10 - most of them are narrowly interested in the propagation and perpetuation of their religious dominance.

Well, you could always rep me ^^

Anyway, what did you think of the whole "marketing thesis", that christians chose 10 because it sounded official?

[spiltteeth]

Whats yr basis for morality? By what standards do you judge somthing moral or immoral?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Whats yr basis for morality? By what standards do you judge somthing moral or immoral?The golden rule essentially (or the analogous versions in other moral systems such as "do no harm"). So that means if I ever exploit any of you, I want to to strike; if I oppress any of you, I want you to overthrow me.:lol:

[¿Que?]

Hi agustin,
I would like to know which two commandments do you mean and why?
Kind regards
Do not murder and do not bear false witness. Mainly because I think these can be universally applied and I think it's unlikely anyone will ever be in a position where the moral/ethical thing to do is to do the opposite.

[¿Que?]

Whats yr basis for morality? By what standards do you judge somthing moral or immoral?
Good question. To be honest, it was somewhere between what Jimmie was saying and a type of secular democratic values system.

[Philzer]

Hi!


Do not murder

cannot be realized in a democracy:

1. in the sense of Obama: a little bit of war is always necessary .. or the like

2. how would you beat the boergeois? To stroke death?

-->> No! With wake I had an enlightenment! By elections! :D


and do not bear false witness.

also not achievable in a democracy:

democracy => unscientific freedom of opinion => contains the lie as one part => esoteric pluralism => pantheisms => practize of religion

( communism needs scientific pluralism not democracy ! )

-->> parliament is the church of the bourgeois = there they become gets agreed theirs religious wars.

Kind regards

[MarxSchmarx]

Forward your friend this link:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm

Perhaps starting with this:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

But I prefer these:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/inj/long.html

e.g.,

Samuel 21: Let seven men of his sons be delivered unto us, and we will hang them up unto the LORD in Gibeah of Saul, whom the LORD did choose

Jeremiah 33:5 They come to fight with the Chaldeans, but it is to fill them with the dead bodies of men, whom I have slain in mine anger and in my fury, and for all whose wickedness I have hid my face from this city.

Zecharia 12:4 In that day, saith the LORD, I will smite every horse with astonishment, and his rider with madness: and I will open mine eyes upon the house of Judah, and will smite every horse of the people with blindness.


Ad nauseum

[¿Que?]

Philzer (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=28069), I realize you have to keep things in their particular context, but with moral ideals, it's OK to deal with abstractions. As moral/ethics, I don't distinguish (should I?), they represent ideas that are not bound to the particular historical, materialist "real individual, their activity and the material conditions...". At least not in the sense that they have not been realized yet. Strictly speaking, I was trying to think in terms of a communist ethic.

In any case, are you against democracy, or bourgeois democracy?

[Philzer]

Hi agustin!


In any case, are you against democracy, or bourgeois democracy?

a partial answer here, more later

http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-pantheism-bourgeoisie-t131250/index.html

Kind regards