Context!!!!!!

Here are a few kernels of truth, wrapped liberally in extreme exaggeration. I know. It's pretty over the top. But so is the assertion that the bible is a holy book. That's a massive exaggeration. Most of it isn't even "pleasant".
Twitter: https://twitter.com/nonstampNSC
The bible is revolting. It is sickening. It is nowhere NEAR as nice a book as what an ethical human could come up with, so why on earth does it have this reputation as having been written by the very author of love itself? It wasn't. It was written by human men - and pretty horrible men by the sounds of things.

And why is it that it only ever seems to be the ugly bits of the bible that are ever taken out of context? Why don't we ever hear christians complaining of John 3:16 being taken out of context?

Look, I know it's possible for things to be taken out of context. Creationists do it all the time, and it bugs the hell out of scientists and rationalists. Even I've been quoted out of context. Sure, it's annoying. But no context is large enough to write off some of the horrors of the bible. I mean - is September 11, for example, completely justified by recourse to a larger "context"? No, and neither are some of the horrors mentioned in the video.

I had a conversation recently (on youtube) and we talked about stoning. It occurred to me, that as an atheist, I will never, ever be called upon to defend the appalling practice of stoning. However, a christian who believes that their heavenly father mandated stoning, does have some kind of obligation to EXCUSE those who practiced stoning, and to even implicitly, DEFEND the practice, seeing, as it was, Yahweh's favored punishment.

THIS is what's wrong with christianity. And yes, I know that there is more to it than that. But how warped are your morals, compared to those of an atheist, if the atheist can outright condemn practices such as stoning and burning alive, but you can't, due to your apparent deep personal relationship with the supreme moral law giver of the universe? You know, that supreme moral law giver who said burning people alive was OK? Something is seriously wrong there.

Or, come out and say that the old testament laws were absolutely hideous! Come and join the rest of us. It's far clearer over here. No double-think. Come and live an ethical life based on what you TRULY believe about how best to live among others.

• Category

  Nonprofits & Activism

[Nloveru]

We know killing is wrong because we wouldn't want to be killed. We know stealing is wrong because we wouldn't want to be stolen from. We know rape is wrong because we wouldn't want to be raped or have our loved ones be raped.

So we can logically assume that others won't want that to happen to them either.

Pure logic, no god involved.

[88rat88]

This video is brilliant. And spot-on accurate, as anyone who has ever tried to reason with a bible-bot knows.

Funny how bible-bots think that they alone are capable of knowing the "correct" context or interpretation of a passage, and yet they can't even agree among themselves what it is. Hence the hundreds of different sects...

[ezeepeezee]

Yes, absolutely - that's the message in this video. For further information, google "free domain radio" and look for the book "Universally Preferable Behavior" under the 'free books' tab, it's a book about secular morality.

[julittok]

1:28 no no that's fine. lol

[Darthmufin1]

classic. the bible tells you how to beat your slave. yup, racism is totally wrong according to the bible. totally. haha

[GauntDusk]

Alright, I'll concede that point. Morality is an evolutionary benefit, I'd have conceded it before hand since that's just good sense. However, while morality itself is beneficial to a good society the morals themselves can be all over the spectrum from practical to downright harmful (since morals vary from society to society). Obviously there are some universals but wouldn't you agree that some morals themselves are more of a societal thing? For instance the prohibitions against sex and so on?

[EluaSL]

If it is, then is the same as "I exists because of god, god exists because god exists". This is what in the context of OCCAM's razor is an unnecessary proposition: it explains nothing, buy adds complexity (in this case, adds an entity). So, following Occam's razor, from both propositions, the "Universe exists without creator" is more likely to be true than "Universe exists because god, which exists without creator".

[EluaSL]

Repeating your comment like a parrot, hahahaha, funny thing.

[GauntDusk]

Well I'd really consider morality specifically a philosophy thing and while behavioral evolution is interesting it's not really morality it's more like "why we behave this way" while morality is more "we should behave like this".

[ezeepeezee]

There are connections between behavior and evolution. Deep, manifold connections. You can't be serious with this.