Are the Bible authors just keen observers of human nature?

[Hestha]

It seems to me that the Bible authors are very keen observers of human nature. A reader may sit and read the story about how Jacob tricks Esau into giving his firstborn birthright or how Abel murders Cain. It feels as if, even though human societies change, human nature stays constant, and this human nature is at odds with morality. If human nature were inconsistent, how do you think that humans would understand each other's motivations and feelings? Also, just because it feels "natural" to a human doesn't mean that you should do it, as it's right; that's the naturalistic fallacy. Now, one may think, "what is righteous? Why are humans expected to be moral or righteous? Are humans just animals?" Indeed, everything living on earth is related, as we are all descended from those single-celled organisms billions of years ago. Perhaps, this may be why certain Christians reject the theory of evolution? Perhaps, some Christians do not like the philosophy that theory entails, which is to imply that humans are descended from other animals, and if humans are descended from other animals, where is the moral obligation? One question that has always stumped me is the origin of morality and how I should base it on. In addition, I find that debates about morality impossible to come to an end, because one person may say so-and-so is right, and the other person may say so-and-so is right, and none of them will have much of a foundation, because moral debates are often based on someone else's opinion or worldview.

So, perhaps the Bible authors are just very keen observers of human nature, and this is why the book has survived so long?

 

[Faulty]

Have you ever read the scriptures? How can you get through the hundreds of times where they state something to the effect of "the word of the Lord came to me", and think they were just keen observers?

 

[Hestha]

Have you ever read the scriptures? How can you get through the hundreds of times where they state something to the effect of "the word of the Lord came to me", and think they were just keen observers?

Let's just say that partial knowledge does not provide an accurate model.

I have read parts of the Bible (Old Testament from Genesis to Book of Job, Book of John, and Book of Acts). If your quote is mentioned in those books, then I have a high tendency to overlook certain things, because I have been speed-reading just to get the gist of it.

 

[ebia]

It seems to me that the Bible authors are very keen observers of human nature. A reader may sit and read the story about how Jacob tricks Esau into giving his firstborn birthright or how Abel murders Cain. It feels as if, even though human societies change, human nature stays constant, and this human nature is at odds with morality. If human nature were inconsistent, how do you think that humans would understand each other's motivations and feelings? Also, just because it feels "natural" to a human doesn't mean that you should do it, as it's right; that's the naturalistic fallacy. Now, one may think, "what is righteous? Why are humans expected to be moral or righteous? Are humans just animals?" Indeed, everything living on earth is related, as we are all descended from those single-celled organisms billions of years ago. Perhaps, this may be why certain Christians reject the theory of evolution? Perhaps, some Christians do not like the philosophy that theory entails, which is to imply that humans are descended from other animals, and if humans are descended from other animals, where is the moral obligation? One question that has always stumped me is the origin of morality and how I should base it on. In addition, I find that debates about morality impossible to come to an end, because one person may say so-and-so is right, and the other person may say so-and-so is right, and none of them will have much of a foundation, because moral debates are often based on someone else's opinion or worldview.

So, perhaps the Bible authors are just very keen observers of human nature, and this is why the book has survived so long?

They (or some of them at least) certainly were keen observers of human nature. But just... ?

 

[motherprayer]

Exodus 34:32 And afterward all the children of Israel came nigh: and he gave them in commandment all that the LORD had spoken with him in mount Sinai.

Numbers 11:25 And the LORD came down in a cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and gave it unto the seventy elders: and it came to pass, that, when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease.

Deuteronomy 1:3 And it came to pass in the fortieth year, in the eleventh month, on the first day of the month, that Moses spake unto the children of Israel, according unto all that the LORD had given him in commandment unto them

Judges 14:19 And the Spirit of the LORD came upon him, and he went down to Ashkelon, and slew thirty men of them, and took their spoil, and gave change of garments unto them which expounded the riddle. And his anger was kindled, and he went up to his father's house.

2 Chronicles 24:20 And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, which stood above the people, and said unto them, Thus saith God, Why transgress ye the commandments of the LORD, that ye cannot prosper? because ye have forsaken the LORD, he hath also forsaken you.

Matthew 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 13:47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.

Ephesians 4:17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind

Matthew 13:51 Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea, Lord.

I confess, I simply did a search and copied and pasted those verses that were most relevant. But I would like to note, these last 2 are important. Paul said in Ephesians that he testified "in the Lord." As in he said what the Lord wanted him to say. And Jesus said in Matthew, "Do you understand?" Remember, knowledge is important, but more so is understanding and wisdom.
One thing I found in the course of my studies is that when God talks about knowledge and wisdom, wisdom almost always comes first. To make this into a parable, a trigonometry instructor understands that one can always use a calculator to answer an equation, but their goal is to impart the wisdom of how to answer using paper.

 

[Hospes]

It seems to me that the Bible authors are very keen observers of human nature. A reader may sit and read the story about how Jacob tricks Esau into giving his firstborn birthright or how Abel murders Cain. It feels as if, even though human societies change, human nature stays constant, and this human nature is at odds with morality. If human nature were inconsistent, how do you think that humans would understand each other's motivations and feelings? Also, just because it feels "natural" to a human doesn't mean that you should do it, as it's right; that's the naturalistic fallacy. Now, one may think, "what is righteous? Why are humans expected to be moral or righteous? Are humans just animals?" Indeed, everything living on earth is related, as we are all descended from those single-celled organisms billions of years ago. Perhaps, this may be why certain Christians reject the theory of evolution? Perhaps, some Christians do not like the philosophy that theory entails, which is to imply that humans are descended from other animals, and if humans are descended from other animals, where is the moral obligation? One question that has always stumped me is the origin of morality and how I should base it on. In addition, I find that debates about morality impossible to come to an end, because one person may say so-and-so is right, and the other person may say so-and-so is right, and none of them will have much of a foundation, because moral debates are often based on someone else's opinion or worldview.

So, perhaps the Bible authors are just very keen observers of human nature, and this is why the book has survived so long?

Hestha,

I think you nail it on one of the inconsistencies-with-life I find in naturalistic evolution. Absolutely everyone believes certain things are universally good or universally bad. (You do find those that make a philosophical argument for there being no good/bad, but if you observe their lives, they behave inconsistently with their argument, i.e. they don't really believe it.) As far as I can see, there is no explanation for this derived from naturalistic evolution. So I understand why you'd be stumped.

BTW, because I find few that see naturalistic evolution as not providing an answer for real-life moral behavior, I'm kind of impressed you recognize your stumpedness. (George Bush and I practice the same English.)

 

[Elioenai26]

It seems to me that the Bible authors are very keen observers of human nature. A reader may sit and read the story about how Jacob tricks Esau into giving his firstborn birthright or how Abel murders Cain. It feels as if, even though human societies change, human nature stays constant, and this human nature is at odds with morality. If human nature were inconsistent, how do you think that humans would understand each other's motivations and feelings? Also, just because it feels "natural" to a human doesn't mean that you should do it, as it's right; that's the naturalistic fallacy. Now, one may think, "what is righteous? Why are humans expected to be moral or righteous? Are humans just animals?" Indeed, everything living on earth is related, as we are all descended from those single-celled organisms billions of years ago. Perhaps, this may be why certain Christians reject the theory of evolution? Perhaps, some Christians do not like the philosophy that theory entails, which is to imply that humans are descended from other animals, and if humans are descended from other animals, where is the moral obligation? One question that has always stumped me is the origin of morality and how I should base it on. In addition, I find that debates about morality impossible to come to an end, because one person may say so-and-so is right, and the other person may say so-and-so is right, and none of them will have much of a foundation, because moral debates are often based on someone else's opinion or worldview.

So, perhaps the Bible authors are just very keen observers of human nature, and this is why the book has survived so long?

The writers of the books in the Bible were inspired by God when they wrote all that they did. Therefore, they were writing not from merely their own perception, but God's, who knows the heart's of men.

God knows all and sees all. Those who were inspired by Him were given insight into many things that would have otherwise remained hidden.

 

[Hestha]

Hestha,

I think you nail it on one of the inconsistencies-with-life I find in naturalistic evolution. Absolutely everyone believes certain things are universally good or universally bad. (You do find those that make a philosophical argument for there being no good/bad, but if you observe their lives, they behave inconsistently with their argument, i.e. they don't really believe it.) As far as I can see, there is no explanation for this derived from naturalistic evolution. So I understand why you'd be stumped.

BTW, because I find few that see naturalistic evolution as not providing an answer for real-life moral behavior, I'm kind of impressed you recognize your stumpedness. (George Bush and I practice the same English.)

Actually, in my original post, I mentioned the theory of evolution, because I suspected that something about the theory was bothersome, philosophically, to certain people, which made those people reject it, despite the scientific validity and reliability. I think, if the theory of evolution could be explained and taught in such a way that it could console people's emotional fears about existentialism and life after death and morality, then the theory of evolution could truly prevail over pseudoscientific thinking.

The problem is... how? Perhaps, for now, it's safe to say that both religion and science have their place.