Quote:
|
(killing without apparent necessity of preserving life, limb, or property, or without provocation that genuinely overrides the self-control of the killer is wrong because life is the single most precious thing a mortal being has and etc etc etc).
|
Well, that one in particular is fairly easily solved by using the original texts, which say more like thou shalt not murder, which is different, than thou shalt not kill.
Further reading of the same bible, different book will give you a famous Beatles song, To every thing there is a season..... A time to kill a time to die , time for peace, war, etc..
So, with a reasonable approach to the scripture, one can find a rational message. It is typically when people pick and choose to suit thier purposes that things seem to go awry. Granted, there are some difficult ideas, and things in there, that I will admit that there is not an easy way of understanding them.
I do whole heartedly concur with the idea of not wishing to have the use of force implemented in religeous practice.
Hypocracy absolutely is the measure of the person, not neccisarily the measure of the moral they espouse. That is why I like to be able to read for myself the belief a given individual espouses, and justification for why they think things ought to be a certain way. If I have no place for them to refer me to, how am I to know if they are scrupulous enough to keep even their own values?
You see, without that, you have only what they say, and your memory of what they've said in the past (I've learned not to trust my own memory very well, documentation is key) so I find people justifying thier belief system with a document I can get my hands on to read for myself to be valuable in deciding whether to trust this person.
What do you think of the "self evident truths" in the constitution?
In my mind certain things like the ablility to defend one's self and property seem naturally to be expected in a good society. for example.
Yet, they don't really point to any real thing other than that they hold it to be self evident that our creator (such as he is) has endowed us with inalienable rights.
They don't point to any source of this as proof, and simply claim that it should be obvious to anyone thinking about this subject..
The problem with that line of thinking is, that it isn't so obvious, since this nation was one of the first to recognize these self evident truths, after roughly 6,000 confirmed years of civilization.
Don't get me wrong, I totally concur with the constitutional rights, but I just wanted to throw an example out there of a value system as a sample to see what you mean by wanting to hear a reason why x is right, and y is wrong..
My answer for right and wrong is my gut (the inner one, not my intestine) simply tells me so, and the bible pretty much channels it in the same direction.
Kinda like when Jesus said, to love the lord with all you heart, all your mind, and all your strength, and love your neighbor as yourself, upon these two hang all the laws and the prophets.
Even the ten commandments has the same formula, the first few are having to do with how you treat God, the rest on how you treat others.
For me, it is easier to know how to treat others, basicly like Jesus said, the way I would like to be treated, to put others first, help people out, and so forth.
The harder part, the part that I need the bible for moreso is how to treat God.
Now, if you don't neccisarily care as much about how you treat or act towards God, I can see how the bible may not be as usefull, but I guess I just have a hard time quantifying the whole thing, maybe I am not understanding what you mean by pointing to a holy book for justification.
Is my inner most feeling of percieved right and wrong explenation any better?
I guess I don't think it is, so really is there any way to explain it that is valid to you?