I do. The bible tells you how to treat others, though it is my nature to be kind and respectful of others.

Could simply be that the message to be good to each other is something we all know instinctively at birth and find difficult to reject.

I value any good point made regardless from where that point comes, and the bible is no exception to that rule for me.

I don't value or respect the teachings of the Bible. It's necessary to cherry pick the bits that are ethically sound, which means we're already applying our own standards of morality to the text to distance ourselves from the teachings about killing disobedient children, adulterers, homosexuals, workers on the Sabbath, etc., the teachings that women could have no authority over men and shall not teach men, the tacit approval of slavery, the treatment of women as property, and on and on. But what about "turn the other cheek" and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," I hear someone ask. Ah, that's where the cherry picking begins. Jesus says some peaceful things, but even within the Gospel there's a difference in tone and message depending on where you're reading. Jesus also says that he hasn't come to abolish the law but to fulfill it, that he has come bearing a sword rather than an olive branch, that he's here to turn parent against child, sibling against sibling, and neighbor against neighbor, that you should leave your family, sell your belongings, and give no thought to the future because the end times are upon us. You can read into Christian scripture almost anything, because it says almost everything. This is why liberals think of Jesus as a hippy who gives away free healthcare and cares about poor people and conservatives see him as a capitalist who says if you don't work you don't eat. It's the reason the KKK thinks Jesus supports them in their hate. As much as I dislike the Westboro Baptist Church, everything they stand for is in the Bible and can be fully justified by scripture; they're living their faith. And I haven't even gotten to the motivations of Paul and others who used the early Christian movement to their advantage, twisting it for social influence to bring about political change in ways that may or may not have been worthy at the time but have no bearing today. So, no, I don't value the teachings of the Bible. Whatever areas of overlap exist is irrelevant and when people identify with one passage that sounds reasonable they're more likely to accept the more questionable teachings of that anthology text. It's better, I think, to ignore the teachings of the Bible (but not be ignorant of them) and use secular ethics to guide our lives.

If you can't tell the difference from right and wrong,
you don't lack religion, you lack empathy.

No need for an ancient book to tell you that.

You assume that there are "the teachings of the bible". But the book contradicts itself numerous times and then there are multiple interpretations. By ignoring the supernatural you are cherry picking and when you choose which part you like you add another layer of cherry picking. Sorry but this approach seems worthless to me. You already have a moral compass. You already know what you think is morally correct. In the bible you will find nothing new. There are a lot of better books to get inspired by that don't also condone murder, rape, genocide, slavery ect. ect.

Some, certainly not all. Remember, the Bible is only a collection of stories.... Written by man... So it's actually the teachings of man from a long time ago.

There’s nothing original in that book ?

I think you've got it backwards, good ethics existed long before the bible

There is one all important teaching you can get from the bible, if not find in the bible, and that is.
Don't base your whole life on just one book, if you do read more than one book make sure they are not all derived from one book, and if you can only read one book try to find a better one.

"The teachings of the Babble"... not so much........do you mean sacrificing your only child? Pimping out your wife for grazing land? Sleeping with your daughters after your wife gets turned into a pillar of salt? How about offering your daughter to a raging mob? Worshipping a gawd who kills off your entire family, gives you dire physical problems, and reduces you to poverty...but then "replaces" all of it.
Or, on a bigger scale, burning & pillaging & raping/murdering entire countries because your gawd told you it was yours? (Oh, wait.........)

What a colossal waste of time..... What's the value in trying to find meaning in obscure and cryptic passages of a specific place and time completely out of our own context?

In my opinion, there is very little to value in the bible that was not already there before the bible or has been replaced by modern humanist society.

The general teachings of the bible dealing with basic human behavior in terms of ethics and some of the morals are things that all peoples of the world have known and to one extent or another have adhered to from sometime before we left the African savanna. There is nothing particularly unique about what is spelled out in the bible and what was delineated in the Code of Hammurabi. Even the 'Golden Rule' is not original. So, it makes no difference where one picks up their generally accepted values/morals/ethics as long as they are picked up and implemented. There is equally no reason whatsoever to refer to them as biblical. They are human and they have been developed over the entire time we have been evolving. Something else to consider: We continue to evolve and our values/morals/ethics are subject to change as we do so.

The "teachings of the bible?" The bible is a 2000 year old book written by people who were four hairs removed from orangutans. There is nothing of value to be learned from the bible. It's filled with Iron Age superstition, scientific ignorance, immorality, contradictions, and outlandish claims of magical beings who wield infinite supernatural power.

It;s Mother Goose with gods, well, god.

Objective ethics is kind of a sham. There's plenty of reasons why crimes can happen and be well justified. Beyond that you need to specify what you mean by removing the super natural elements. Removing the character of God or changing him to be a human both have dire consequences on the narrative so unless what you're trying to say is "is there value for the Bible if you cherry pick currently valid norms?" The answer would be yes.

Similar to Confucius and his anelects, the old testament likely codified certain practices in ancient society that were widespread in acceptance(for whatever reason)and contributed to societal stabilization.
The new testament, was an attempt to reconcile a modern day teacher(Jesus) to these Torah stories, in the process to establish a new church.
Today we live in a post-christian world. While our laws and mores are based on Christian values, very few actually believe the underpinning beliefs.

The ethics you are pushing here are subjective ethics so I cannot go along with this idea at all. For the most part religions do not have ethics. You post is similar to saying Superman can run fast and he is strong, but he cannot fly.

I think there'd be far fewer assholes in the world, if Christians actually followed the teachings of the man they are supposed to follow. To me, Jebus' teachings are the important part, it is totally irrelevant if he is the Son of God or not. Plus, the entire thing of Christ is My Savior, really is only a selfish way to ensure you get to Heaven, not whether you gave a plug about humanity or being nice to people.

Yes, I think JC was a pretty tough, smart guy and I agree with most of what he reportedly taught. There’s nothing divine or unique there—other books are equally interesting.

Hindu scriptures especially attract me. Those ancient Indians actually addressed the deep questions of existence while the Hebrew Bible is a mixture of myth and history.

Why does it always have to be the bible. There are other early writings that can have just as much (or even more) positive teachings. For instance Greek writings as the Iliad and Odyssey.
Also the Bible(s) (there are more than one version) has gone through a lot of transformations over the Millennia and every age put it's own values on the book. Right now the whole idea of Christian dogma is being upended to "the ends justify the means." Not a good example of ethics.

See my post with the link to the video about fairly recent findings from Sumerian clay tablets and archeological artifacts from millenia ago. Copied down and translated from Mesopotamia through Babylonian, Akkadian, Phoenician, Egyption, Hebrew; abbreviated and used in the brief compendium called the Bible.

That which is good in the bible is not original, and that which is original is most certainly not good.

So NO.

Thou shall not kill, Thou shall not commit adultery. To me, these are common sense. God made these laws and he himself broke them, so "F" the bible

Very selectively sure, Ive learned some valuable things. I do wish I hadnt been forced/brainwashed into wanting to study it in as much detail as I did though. I could have gotten the good parts down in a day or two worth of sparks notes and casually read the few more interesting, poetic books over a summer. The main value in learning the bible as well as I did isnt because of its intrinsic value: its being unshakable in my lack of faith because I know more about the bible than 90% of christians.

Id second the others who remind you that the best biblical ethics didnt exactly originate there, but I agree in not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. There are plenty of benefits of myths and ritual to be gleaned and adapted from the religious. Id stress an equal study of eastern philosophy and ethics too, to help you see the similarities and differences between abrahamic and eastern cosmologies.