Susan's Place Transgender Resources

I don't mean to offend anyone by this, so plz forgive me if it does offend you...not that i think it will..but anyways its just a question that poped into my head. And I am interested in what christians think of this.

Anyways:

If one does wrong but did not know anything such as to lead them to think that wrongness in that way was possible. Then I would think they were innocent. Like a child running with scissors and hurting herself, or a baby throwing a sharp object at her mom.
If acting with such ignorance is then innocant then it would seem that informing someone of the wrongness of an action would be wrong because that then leaves them responsible if they take that action.

So I was thinking that since the Bible tells us what is wrong, by then knowing what is wrong we become culpable. So it would be better not to know. Thus better not to have the bible...

Perhaps this would even have something to do with eating of the tree of knowledge...

We're born with morals, the innate knowledge of what is right and what is wrong.  The interesting note about that is that even science cannot show the origin or morals in DNA, it is something that cannot be traced by any known means, there is nothing you can turn off in your brain or in someone else's brain that will get rid of their morals. 

On that note, by reading the bible or not, we are still responsible for knowing right or wrong. 

Quote from: Key on November 20, 2009, 09:25:43 PM
We're born with morals, the innate knowledge of what is right and what is wrong.  The interesting note about that is that even science cannot show the origin or morals in DNA, it is something that cannot be traced by any known means, there is nothing you can turn off in your brain or in someone else's brain that will get rid of their morals. 

I wouldn't agree that we are born with morals.
For one, what of sociopaths?
But that aside, there have been cases where parents or abducters have locked children away their entire lifes, when these children are found they are so lacking in experience in knowledge that they are effectively babies.
You say, we are born with morals. I might agree that we are born with instincts and urges that encourage us to act moraly, but regardless of being born with morals or not, it requires teaching, learning, and experince, to assertain that throwing a knife at another human results in death.
And it requires some connection developed through experience inorder for a human to have reason not to kill something. This is evident since many people think that experincing a negative connection with someone such as that someone killing a loved one warrents killing that someone.

But nontheless from what you have said it would seem that you would agree, at least, that if we were not born with morals my observation is correct?

Quote from: Key on November 20, 2009, 09:25:43 PM
On that note, by reading the bible or not, we are still responsible for knowing right or wrong.

If you are right though and we are born with morals, then we shouldn't need the bible, because we already know.

Ah, theology....the never-ending discussion in the Christian community...ever-changing...ever evolving due to modern perspectives on old ideas.
.
As a former Christian, I'll throw in my two cents:
= = = = = = = =
From a Christian perspective, they call it "The Good Book"...so you're not likely to find a Christian that will call it evil. 
.
Your argument appears to be that it is better to sin in ignorance, than to have knowledge of that sin in order to avoid such evil behavior.    Informing someone of their wrong-doing allows them to change their behavior, so that they do not sin in the future.  Leaving them in ignorance leaves them in sin.  If sin is evil...and evil things must be avoided...then how can it be morally correct for a Christian to leave people to that evil when they can prevent it?
.
Now, *IF* the sins of the ignorant are ignored (more on this later), then it is purely a matter of the convenience of the sinner to leave them in ignorance...and if god hate's sin, convenience isn't exactly a compelling argument for allowing someone to live in sin. 
.
For example: If someone kills, but is ignorant of the sin...are they better off not knowing?  Is the world better off not telling them?  In a world of ignorant people, the blind lead the blind over a cliff. 
.
Your argument is a bit like blaming the existence of law for a punishment/consequence...because perpetual amnesty based upon ignorance would be so much easier on the individual. (How many criminals today would love to take advantage of that sweet deal?  ;)  )
.
Now...a major component of your query is whether or not the ignorant are culpable for their sins:
.
By thinking that they aren't, you're most likely referring to this quote:
"If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin."  John 15:22
.
Theology can be interesting at times, because there is so much room in the bible for different opinions.  How about this quote:
.
"All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous."  Romans 2:12-13
.
If it is only the righteous who enter heaven...then where does that leave the ignorant?  Does it really leave them better off...or does it still leave them going to hell?
.
Or how about this one:
"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."  Luke 12:47-48
.
Apparently the ignorant are still punished...just not as much.  They aren't held to the same standards...but that doesn't mean that they aren't held to SOME standard.  (The old testament would be far more harsh, but we'll ignore that for now)
.
Pick your parable....biblical theology is often the art of choosing the words you prefer to hear, and twisting them to fit your own beliefs.  An easy thing to do when commands aren't given directly (as is often done in the old testament), but are rather spoken indirectly in parable (as is more frequent in the new testament). 
.
Now...the bible does prescribe a means of atonement for those who sin in ignorance.  In the old testament that would be found in Leviticus 4.  In the new testament, the exact means would be debatable, but still possible.
.
Though I do admit...it is interesting to point out that "in the beginning" apparently god was just fine allowing Adam & Eve to live in ignorance...and to sin in that ignorance.  (reading later in the old testament, nakedness is seen as a sin)  It wasn't until they ate of the tree of knowledge, and that they knew of good and evil, that god appeared to have an issue with their actions. 
.
So to answer your question...to a Christian believer...no, the bible can never be evil, because to them it is the word of god...who can't be evil, because he is innately good.  Or, on your other vein of thought...to put it simply...there is a difference between "sin" and "consequence".    Sin is evil no matter what.  Sin harms others no matter whether done in ignorance or not.  Knowledge and "Consequence" are put there to help avoid sin...because sin is evil.  Because of this, knowledge and consequence...cannot be seen as evil..as they directly oppose what is sinful/evil.  And therefore the bible which provides us with such, cannot be evil.
.
Now...that's a christian perspective that you asked for.  My agnostic perspective would probably be a bit more mixed and nuanced....and hard as it may be to believe...far more lengthy.  :P

I prefer to have the choice to do wrong and knowledge of what it is.  This way, if I act "right" it is because I have chosen to.  This means I'm acting in a way God would desire me to act because I choose to, and not out of ignorance.  Of course the statement I'm making is independent of the Bible, I'm just speaking to your point directly.

My bible says that people were innocent until they ate from the tree of knowledge. Now that they ate, they knew better where before they were innocent no matter what they did from lack of knowing it was wrong.

but whatever.

Quote from: interalia on November 21, 2009, 12:40:26 AM
I prefer to have the choice to do wrong and knowledge of what it is.  This way, if I act "right" it is because I have chosen to.  This means I'm acting in a way God would desire me to act because I choose to, and not out of ignorance.  Of course the statement I'm making is independent of the Bible, I'm just speaking to your point directly.

I agree with this.

Also, God makes the rules. He can state what the exceptions are, even if the fable of knowledge is not the answer you would like. Now, you can debate on the legitimacy of the bible being God's word or that it may be tampered with.

Quote from: Robin. on November 20, 2009, 09:46:39 PM
I wouldn't agree that we are born with morals.
For one, what of sociopaths?

sociopaths know right from wrong they simply dont care if they didnt you couldnt try them in court for their crimes as they would be legally insane. the bible can not be evil or good for that matter as it is a human construct a history if you will of the jewish people combined with moral teachings right and wrong.... a child isnt born with morals it is taught right and wrong acording to the constructs of mores and norms of the society it is brought up in i offer as evidence hitler youth. how ever the notion of good and evil are not human constructs nero has a thread on this for those who might be interested in that discussion
jessica

There some fairly evil scriptures. The devil, satan, anti-christ etcetera were all created by man. We have laws to live by that keep us all somewhat moral. I think we all know when we have done something to hurt another and most of us try to avoid hurting others. Many religious persons have good moral values and no ethics. I beleive it is highly unethical to use God to lign your pockets. My God doesn't have any bills to pay. So maybe the bible is not evil but the people involved are.

Quote from: heatherrose on November 24, 2009, 07:37:41 AM

Is a gun evil?

If you are starving?

If your life is threatened?

If you are enraged?

A gun could be considered a work of art.
Man using his God given intellect to harness the forces and elements
of nature to fashion a tool to protect, sustain or destroy life.
Evil is in the intent of the user. In literature evil is in the
interpretation and resulting deeds of the individual.

Nothing is inherently evil.

Who is the author of evil?
We are to believe that ALL things were created
by God and without God there is NOTHING.
Therefore can we not understand that God IS evil?

I like that, I'd say I agree.

The Bible is nothing more than a book.  It is what people do with that book that can be classified as evil.

Do we stone people to death for Adultery?

Eye for an Eye.  The most misquoted passage.  People use it for all sorts of crimes.

Suffer not a witch to live.  Caused the murder of thousands of people at the word of one person.

It is just a book.  Use it as guidance or for inspiration is a good thing.  Use it for atrocities and it is evil.  It is just a book.



Janet

As much as I despise this religion with every fibre in my being, regardless of my fascination with it, its not the book as much as it is the stupidity of humanity in general... I'm in art school...


We really are...

We're all the same. We're all the dumbest freaking monkeys the world has ever seen.



I think there should be an international day of shame for the things people have done to each other, the earth and the knowledge given to them.. Where it is REQUIRED that all humans call themselves A$$h0l3s all day long until they can finally be fed...

Quote from: Janet Lynn on November 24, 2009, 11:00:15 AM
Suffer not a witch to live

as an interesting side note, Joseph Smith "retranslated" a few parts of the bible and that line was one of them. He replaced the word witch with murderer.

Seeing as "evil" is only a matter of perspective, the Bible can be seen as evil.

Quote from: Miniar on November 24, 2009, 11:28:57 AM
Seeing as "evil" is only a matter of perspective, the Bible can be seen as evil.

I see Miniar as evil.


Ok no I don't - I love me some Miniar. :D

 >:-)

Quote from: Janet Lynn on November 24, 2009, 11:00:15 AM


Eye for an Eye.  The most misquoted passage.  People use it for all sorts of crimes.


Janet

And yet people seem to ignore what Jesus said in I think the sermon of the mount or whatever... When he said essentially; when slaped on one cheek one should turn the other to be slapped as well.

Well, using the morals I was 'born' with, as Key thinks they are, I think the bible is an evil book. In terms of my own morality, so much bad ->-bleeped-<- has been done in the name of the bible or been instigated by the bible, it is an evil piece of work. It is an object of an evil thing, organised religion.

I guess you could argue that it is how you use it that is evil etc.. same with guns. But I think thoughts will always be far more dangerous than guns. On a scale of evil it is much greater. I think the bible is a bit like a nuclear bomb compared to a gun. (actually I think most of us humans are stupid, and stupid people do stupid things with whatever they are given. The bible is a very dangerous and evil thing in the hands of stupid people)

P.s. If I get slapped on one cheek I want the other one slapped as well, otherwise I'll feel ripped of for paying for it....

Quote from: Janet Lynn on November 24, 2009, 11:00:15 AM
Eye for an Eye.  The most misquoted passage.  People use it for all sorts of crimes.

Quote from: Mahatma Gandhi
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind.

Quote from: Robin. on November 20, 2009, 05:52:15 PM
I don't mean to offend anyone by this, so plz forgive me if it does offend you...not that i think it will..but anyways its just a question that poped into my head. And I am interested in what christians think of this.

Anyways:

If one does wrong but did not know anything such as to lead them to think that wrongness in that way was possible. Then I would think they were innocent. Like a child running with scissors and hurting herself, or a baby throwing a sharp object at her mom.
If acting with such ignorance is then innocant then it would seem that informing someone of the wrongness of an action would be wrong because that then leaves them responsible if they take that action.

So I was thinking that since the Bible tells us what is wrong, by then knowing what is wrong we become culpable. So it would be better not to know. Thus better not to have the bible...

Perhaps this would even have something to do with eating of the tree of knowledge...

Yep, and back when I was in college, I didn't know it was wrong to smoke Mary Jane, so I shouldn't have been busted for it. . . .

As a matter of fact, I don't know that it's wrong now.  Ya got one? ;)

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fplanetsmilies.net%2Fsmoking-smiley-7562.gif&hash=9f6fb4ca0b09107bd4784e38a61bddd5668b84bf) (http://planetsmilies.net)

Interesting note on the 'witch'-thing:
The hebrew didn't have a clue what a witch was. (Well; neither did the medieval christians, but hey.. Honestly, most modern pagans don't have a clue on what makes a witch a witch, so that's hardly a point of blame.)
The original word was meant: Poisoncrafter. The translation to 'witch' is of a much later date.
Basically, the Bible doesn't hold anything against witches.

As for whether or not the bible is evil:
For our modern standards, a large portion of the bible was written by a people we would consider evil. They were mostly raiders, pillagers, murderers; attacking everyone in sight. Their God was a Volcano God; a god of wrath, fire, brimstone, destruction, hatred, selfishness and conquest.
Gradually, this God became a God of love and compassion.
Judging the whole Bible under only the latter image of JHWH simply doesn't make sense. You'll see passages of awful things, where the 'unbeliever' must be destroyed, and where God is set on the destruction of all non-hebrew people. When you leaf on, you'll see pages on how God loves all peoples, including the ones that don't even believe in him/her/whuver, and conversion isn't even in the far end of the picture. Strange, strange book.
If you'd understand that this God is in fact two Gods, and the first God changed significantly into the second God, with the... 'evolution' of the religions involved, it's much easier to see where all the inconsistencies come from.
And it shows us that the Bible isn't evil. It's not good, either. But it encompasses both.

Ya'll know this is just a collection of folk tales passed down through countless generations of oral tradition, written down in an now archaic language, then badly translated several times, rewritten to suit kings and empires, and now in your local bookstore?  And that's you're basis of proof?

Quote from: tekla on November 25, 2009, 12:47:51 AM
Ya'll know this is just a collection of folk tales passed down through countless generations of oral tradition, written down in an now archaic language, then badly translated several times, rewritten to suit kings and empires, and now in your local bookstore?  And that's you're basis of proof?

I'm issentially atheist, but its fun to talk about the stuff one side or the other.

---

Post Merge: November 24, 2009, 11:13:24 PM

---

i believe that no material item can be good or evil but i also believe that evil exists in the world just as i think absolute good exists imo evil is an intellegent manipulating entity that excist to cause suffering pain and death. It is not a human construct and opperates independant of human activities yet is intimately tied to humans.
jessica

Quoteaccording to TORAH and NEVI'IM this is not necessarily true...

Ehm.. The part you mentioned doesn't say anything about witches. It just says something about a 'wizard' with a 'familiar spirit,' which may have just been meant to be a spirit that was, you know, familiar, instead of a pet-like familiar, who did divination and necromancy. Not really what a witch should be wasting her time on, anyway. :P
Besides; witches were part of a culture the hebrews had never even heard about. Because most of Europe was in between.

Transexuals were called something different in each culture and treated differently too. To say there were no Hebrews practicing the craft is probably incorrect and insulting to them. It prolly looked differently, as the trappings of their lives were different, but meh.

In some native american cultures, transsexuals were considered sacred, and often became shamen.

Becca: Witch-craft is a purely germanic tradition. To say Hebrews didn't practice Witchcraft is about as insulting as to say Eskimos didn't practice Guna Guna.
While in these times, an Eskimo could easily learn Guna Guna, it'd be rather hard for a Jew, or anyone else, for that matter, to learn Witchcraft, since it's nearly completely disappeared, being replaced by something called Wicca. (Which is absolutely not witchcraft.)
Because of an immense distance between the old germanic countries and Israël, I find it rather unbelievable that the bible would hold any grudges against witches. (That, and the fact that that quote is badly translated.)
(I apologise if I'm being overly defensive, by the way. *blushes*)

Yer not being overly defensive at all, it's an interesting discussion. Witchcraft proper might have been germanic, but what I was getting at is we see similar religious rites through most pagan cultures. I don't know enough about judaism to be sure, but wherever it came from there are bound to be vestiges of paganism in it. Casting out the wizards and all that stuff is prolly an account of disposing an opposing political force or religious system that threatened the rising patriarchy, or it could all be made up.

I was in the hospital with a guy who pulled triples for UPS. I remember when he mentioned that in group I told all the other girls in the room "oh wow, he's the best of the best" and immediately someone they thought was a scuzzy truck driver transformed into a highly trained and experienced professional right before their very eyes. People believe what they are told to believe, wizard, witch, tomato tomatoe.

:icon_chuckel:

He didn't correct me either, Hmm, but he sure liked telling stories and everybody listened like he was a war hero. Apparently that third trailer pretty much does whatever it wants and gets rather stessful.

The bible evil? No, The Bible is a 2000 year old tome written by sexist men who were homophobic and wanted to control those unable to think for themselves, So no the bible it's self is no evil, just the people who wrote it. Now religion on the other hand is evil, or at least those who take there religion as reality and not what it is, a story... They are the evil ones... 

On the subject of distances between Israelites and Germanic Witchcraft I'd like to remind people of the merchants that traveled the world, crossing great distances, and reaching places we now call north america, russia, egypt, etc. etc. etc. and practiced trade all along those places.
Trading happened in those times. Longer distance trading than most of us realize.
The world is smaller today, yes, but it is not impossible that "witchcraft" would have made it to Israel, though in all probability, there was probably another, similar though not the same, practice already established within that region.

Miniar: Oh, I agree on that one. But calling every ritualist/herbalist/psychologist from those times a witch is like calling Inca Priests Christians.
Inca priests were religious. So are Christians. They both worship god(s). It doesn't make them the same, is all.

Quote from: tekla on November 25, 2009, 12:47:51 AM
Ya'll know this is just a collection of folk tales passed down through countless generations of oral tradition, written down in an now archaic language, then badly translated several times, rewritten to suit kings and empires, and now in your local bookstore?  And that's you're basis of proof?

What the bible proves is that human beings can take an inanimate object, make all sorts of amazing claims about its power and carry out horrifically cruel acts on fellow human beings, using the fairy tale man created around the bible as justification for their cruelty.

It's really mind boggling all we've done with this book.

Quote from: Carolyn on November 26, 2009, 03:34:53 AM
The bible evil? No, The Bible is a 2000 year old tome written by sexist men who were homophobic and wanted to control those unable to think for themselves, So no the bible it's self is no evil, just the people who wrote it. Now religion on the other hand is evil, or at least those who take there religion as reality and not what it is, a story... They are the evil ones...

I should have named the topic differently. The real question wasn't wether it was evil so much as wether, if one believes what it holds is truth and knowing that truth makes one culpable does it then make it better not to read it...

I know a preist that warns you of just that. He even stresses it in classes he teaches.

The notion that - at least for the 'people of the book' (the three major Western religions) that you're learning religion straight from god has proven pretty powerful.  No shortage of fringe nutcases in all three of those religions.

Then they quote the bible.

Imagine being one of the people who co-authored the book.  What fun it would have been to put your own beliefs down in writing and have people quote them for a couple millennium and call it the word of god.  ::)