The Philosophy Discussion Forum

On what moral basis should the Bible be taken seriously as the truth concerning the creator of all that is? (I mean, aside from asserting, by definition, that morality is whatever Yahweh said or did.)

Should we scrap the Bible and start fresh? Or is the Bible salvageable?

Gary Childress, you post really educated posts.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2026 3:01 am On what moral basis should the Bible be taken seriously as the truth concerning the creator of all that is? (I mean, aside from asserting, by definition, that morality is whatever Yahweh said or did.)

Should we scrap the Bible and start fresh? Or is the Bible salvageable?

"There is no original text" - Nietzsche

-Imp

puto wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2026 4:01 pm Gary Childress, you post really educated posts.

Haha. Right.

"Tell the holy truth and nothing but the holy truth ..."

so help you God.


Commentary: In other words, God has to help you to tell the truth.
The truth is itself inherently holy, i.e., synonymous with the good or Godly.

That is an absolute basis for morality, and truth.

This meaning is an explicit legal oath, as anyone who has watched a dramatic ration of TV oath-swearing before God and witnesses knows.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2026 3:01 am On what moral basis should the Bible be taken seriously as the truth concerning the creator of all that is? (I mean, aside from asserting, by definition, that morality is whatever Yahweh said or did.)

Should we scrap the Bible and start fresh? Or is the Bible salvageable?

It is a good moral teacher.

It begins by telling us that we know good and evil thanks to Adam's sin, a happy fault to Christianity, and are to judge all things, including the Gods.

It has Moses rejecting Yahweh as a fit God. This shows it's worth if nothing else.

On the other hand.

We should take the Bible seriously as it can also have some/many adore a rather evil Trinity.

The supernatural side creates inquisitions and jihads.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2026 5:25 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2026 3:01 am On what moral basis should the Bible be taken seriously as the truth concerning the creator of all that is? (I mean, aside from asserting, by definition, that morality is whatever Yahweh said or did.)

Should we scrap the Bible and start fresh? Or is the Bible salvageable?

"There is no original text" - Nietzsche

-Imp

True for authorship as well.

Nice that what is said is more important than who said it.

That is how the WORD OF GOD stands out to individual minds.

We should all recognize that the Bible is a consolidation of many belief systems. That is a part of it's worth.

Constantine ruined Christianity with a supernatural Jesus for the genocidal lovers side.

Read the Bible as a naturalist for a start.

"Sin: The Path to Excellence"

Sin has long been associated with moral failure, but what if we reframe it? I see sin as something essential to human growth—a necessary part of striving for excellence.

At its core, sin simply means “missing the mark.” It’s not about wickedness but about falling short of an ideal. Christianity and even Gnostic traditions acknowledge this idea in different ways. The concept of felix culpa—the “happy fault”—suggests that sin is necessary for God’s plan. Whether or not one believes in the supernatural, the wisdom of this idea is clear: missing the mark is a natural part of aiming for something greater.

To evolve, both as individuals and as a species, we must take risks and inevitably fall short. This process—of setting goals, failing, and trying again—is what drives progress. Every moment of “sin” is evidence that we’re pushing ourselves beyond our comfort zones and striving toward our best possible selves. This is what we do, consciously or unconsciously, at every point in our lives.

Even competition, often seen as divisive, is tied to this idea. Competition highlights our shortcomings, creating a contrast between where we are and where we want to be. It creates leaders, innovators, and excellence by encouraging us to improve. Of course, competition produces losers, and those losses can feel like failures or even evoke the idea of "evil." But in truth, every loss is an opportunity—a moment to learn, adapt, and grow stronger.

This is why I celebrate sin—not as a call to moral failure but as an embrace of imperfection and growth. Without sin, without missing the mark, we would have no benchmarks for greatness. There would be no leaders to inspire us, no innovators to challenge us, and no progress to drive humanity forward.

I don’t believe in the supernatural, but I see wisdom in the way ancient scribes wove this idea into their teachings. Sin, in its truest sense, is not something to avoid but something to engage with thoughtfully. It is the evidence of our striving, our courage to try, and our commitment to evolve.

So, I invite you: aim high. Take your shot. Miss the mark. Become a sinner in the best way possible. In doing so, you’ll not only create a better version of yourself but also contribute to the collective excellence of humanity.

Walker wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2026 8:27 am "Tell the holy truth and nothing but the holy truth ..."

so help you God.


Commentary: In other words, God has to help you to tell the truth.
The truth is itself inherently holy, i.e., synonymous with the good or Godly.

I see holy as a label that is to be applied.

I think it should be applied to the bringer of the ideal seen or reached; not to the idea itself.

A truth of the number of legs I have is 2. To make that truth inherently holy, would a waste of holy.

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2026 9:03 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2026 8:27 am "Tell the holy truth and nothing but the holy truth ..."

so help you God.


Commentary: In other words, God has to help you to tell the truth.
The truth is itself inherently holy, i.e., synonymous with the good or Godly.

I see holy as a label that is to be applied.

I think it should be applied to the bringer of the ideal seen or reached; not to the idea itself.

A truth of the number of legs I have is 2. To make that truth inherently holy, would a waste of holy.

That’s true.

The customary vow is “Tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God.”

The OP modifies the customary vow by adding the word “holy” and eliminating the word God. Why? Who knows, probably not even the author, but because it was done implied meanings emerge.

Rather than attempting to negate the OP by saying there is no holy without God, the alternative is to accept the implication in the OP that there is holy without God, as implied in the changes to the customary vow that are made by the OP.

In accepting the premise that there is holy without God, for the purpose of analysis, then it becomes obvious that the OP is saying that truth itself is holy, since holy is a description of something, even behavior.

The customary vow beseeches God for help in telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth, which implies that the whole truth requires the help of God. But, in this special modification the OP asserts holiness without God. How can this be?

Without reference to God it can only be, by making the holiness of truth dependent on spirit building rather than spirit crushing. Accepting the oxymoronic premise of holiness without God, this fills the bill by making the holiness of truth situationally dependent upon skillful means, skillful being that which is the most beneficial truth within a matrix of relativity.

Without referencing God, what would an unholy truth be? It would be unskillful application of truth relative to the situation. It would be an application of truth that needlessly attempts to crush another’s spirit. Or else, spirit crushing could be the skillful application of an intent to assert more of the brutal part than the truth part, of brutal truth.

For example, if someone would stare at your nekked legs and state the truth that they are fat, hairy, shaped like stovepipes and riddled with varicose veins and topped off by fungus on those pre-diabetic stubs you call toes, that may or not be objectively true, but if it is true it’s also needlessly spirit crushing, even if proclaimed by a health professional.

If someone would stare at your nekked legs and state the truth that you possess two powerfully muscled, strong physical extensions of your will that can take you anywhere you want to go at any time, and caring for such gifts is something you get to do rather than have to do, that would be more along the lines of spirit building, and without the mention of God’s help as was not mentioned in the OP, then the relative nature of the situation combined with skillful spirit building would make the truth holy, because of the long-term positive effects of that truth.

Therefore, in such a relativistic view that eliminates God as was done to the customary vow in the OP, then holy would indeed apply to the skillful means of the bringer.

Gary, thanks for reminding me that we have the ability to create a poll when starting a new thread here. I had completely forgotten about that. Haven't seen it used for years.

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2026 8:48 am
Therefore, in such a relativistic view that eliminates God as was done to the customary vow in the OP, then holy would indeed apply to the skillful means of the bringer.

Yes, but the application is fully ones own subjective standard.

What I name holy, another might name garbage.

IE. Yahweh.

Some think his genocides to be holy.

Not yet considered.

When swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth, what are we swearing to do? Do we mean the truth as we know it or the absolute truth (which we do not know). Quiytev different.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2026 11:43 pm Not yet considered.

When swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth, what are we swearing to do? Do we mean the truth as we know it or the absolute truth (which we do not know). Quiytev different.

I don't think even people who recognize their fallibility are swearing to tell the truth as they know it. It confuses the possibility of error with the meaning of the claim. When a witness says “Joe Blow hit me,” they don’t mean “from my perspective Joe Blow hit me.” They mean that Joe Blow hit them. The fact that humans can be mistaken doesn’t change the content of the assertion—it only means we might occasionally get it wrong. Even those who, when waxing philosophical, and would acknowledge that they can't be 100% sure, and that perspectives, including their own are limited, don't mean something like 'from my perspective Joe Blow hit me.' And a DA would be rightly horrified if they put it that way. (I am thinking of situations where you are sure, in the everyday sense of the word, that Joe Blow hit you. You weren't drunk, the light was good, etc.)

Another way to come at this: If I mean 'from my limited perspective Joe Blow hit me', a regress problem arises. If a speaker claims that all his or her statements merely express perspectives, then that statement itself must also be merely a perspective, undermining its status as a general claim about language or testimony, at least their own. There's certainly a lot of evidence that we people's sense of themselves and their attitudes can be false or partially true.

If any of this comes off as me saying I or some people have objective, unlimited perspectives and speak absolute truth, then I my not have written this well. I don't think we mean the truth as we know it, even if we realize that others need to take it this way and we take it that way when thinking philosophically.

Within the Bible, and in several places, it tells you to learn judgment, which is a product of literacy.
Within the Bible, and in several places, it tells you that you cannot even read it.

So, What the fuck is a vote on something you have done since the day you were born? Assume you know what you provably do not.

So, grammatical genius, how many kinds of truth are there, or again, how many relative differences are in an absolute? Or in plain terms, how many verbs are a noun?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2026 7:34 am

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2026 11:43 pm Not yet considered.

When swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth, what are we swearing to do? Do we mean the truth as we know it or the absolute truth (which we do not know). Quiytev different.

I don't think even people who recognize their fallibility are swearing to tell the truth as they know it. It confuses the possibility of error with the meaning of the claim. When a witness says “Joe Blow hit me,” they don’t mean “from my perspective Joe Blow hit me.” They mean that Joe Blow hit them. The fact that humans can be mistaken doesn’t change the content of the assertion—it only means we might occasionally get it wrong. ..........



*****************
If any of this comes off as me saying I or some people have objective, unlimited perspectives and speak absolute truth, then I my not have written this well. I don't think we mean the truth as we know it, even if we realize that others need to take it this way and we take it that way when thinking philosophically.

You are being perfectly clear but this is CULTURAL. I agree with you, in this time and place it is understood that this is what we mean when we swear. But not so in all timed and places and cultures. I'll let the Bible (original part) and Talmud provide examples of a different point of view. The reluctance of people to swear to what they obviously believe to be true makes sense only if you understand that they thought they were swearing to TRUTH (and needed "false swearing forgiveness" if reality turned out otherwise). It's also how rabbinic courts of that time period managed not to convict in capital cases.