|
| Thread: Bible |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV |
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
posted August 12, 2007 09:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I mean working at the same job. If you are hardworking, you will get more assuming that all other conditions are the same.
No.
Your natural traits decide. If you are charismatic, you can convince your boss i.e. to give you a higher salary when you're at the interview.
These conditions are never the same.
The ammount of work means very little in the very end.. you need to be sly, not hardworking.
Quote:
Except those who worked hard harvesting wheat had more bread for the winter. They were directly dependent on their work for their food.
Those who worked "incredibly hard" just died earlier because of overwork. Humans ain't robots.
Quote:
If you are dead, you can't work for your master. He realizes that, and it would be harmful for him to kill you.
He doesn't need to threat you that he will kill you. A solid beat-up is enough.
Quote:
And fear is the best motivation? No. Think about Stalin's time. Think about the productivity of the Kolkhoz compared to a capitalist farm of the same size.
There is a difference between "slave camp" and "death camp". These people worked, but they were offered nothing for their work. I read a book written by a polish kolkhoz laborer. Those who worked above the norm received something like extra spoon of soup. And a clever slave overlord would give them more, which would actually make them much more potent workers. Slavery doesn't mean you beat the slaves to death at start.
Besides, these ppl taken to kolkhozes were often intelectuals dragged there from occupied countries. They weren't what slaves usually were - unskilled and dragged from some lost village in africa. No wonder they acted different.
Quote:
Or you can fire him and find a better comp.
Which will act exactly like the previous one. In capitalism, everyone acts the same, remember that.
Quote:
If the quality of his work is worth it, then you will give him sick leave. If it's ulimately unprofitable, don't offer him sick leave when hiring.
you have to (law forces that, at least here..)
|
|
Shadey
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted August 12, 2007 09:21 PM |
|
Edited by Shadey at 21:27, 12 Aug 2007.
|
Let's get this thread back on track by addressing the filth of what TA wrote about the Old Testament.
Quote:
For starters there's the story of Noah, where god decided to kill every man woman and child and every animal of every species bar two.
God decided to destroy the entire planet because humanity had become so evil that it was beyond saving at that point. God simply allowed humanity to become that evil to show people who would live in the future that if they disregarded God that the world would become a pure unadultered evilfest. It isn't God's fault that heart of man is desperatly wicked.
Quote:
Or you might fancy the allegory (TA's opinion) of Sodom and Gomorrah where god nuked a town because it housed some homosexuals, with blatant disregard to collateral damage. All this despite the fact that Lot even offered up his own virgin daughters to be raped to spare the angels. Sure, they might have spared Lot because he got out in time, but no such luck for Lots wife who god turned into a pillar of salt for looking over her shoulder as her home was obliterated. Though not to worry, Lot got over it pretty quick as his aforementioned virgin daughters got him drunk and had sex with him, getting them both pregnant.
Thank god he is so merciful to spare such a morally righteous family.
Wrong TA, if you read the entire story and don't leave out the important details you will find that Abraham pleaded with God for the salvation of Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham convinced God to spare the city if ONLY 10 righteous people lived within the city. The story states that ALL the men of the town both young and old came and surrounded the house to sodomize the two angels. Lot did what he could do to spare the two angels, but the crowd would not have it any other way. The cry against the evilness of Sodom and Gomorrah was so great that not even 10 righteous people could be found in that wicked city.
They gave them the simplest of instructions. Do no stop, do not look back, flee to the mountains or you will be swept away. Lot's wife couldn't even obey the simplest of instructions and it's entirely her fault that death became her.
As far as your ridicule of the daughters. The daughters in their foolishness believed that they had to preserve the family through their father. Lot's passive role in this matter was not without blame because he became drunk and commited incest. The result of this brought forth the ancestors of the Moabites and Ammonites, which became bitter enemies of Isreal. God shows that the sins and mistakes of our lives can bring terrible consequences whether by God's justice or the worlds justice played out on our families and decendents.
Quote:
If that great tale wasn't enough, the bible sends it back for a re-run: The Misogynistic Men Strike Back in the book of Judges, I mean, if it worked once it can work again right? A priest and his concubine are staying in a mans house when again the people ask if they can sodomize the priest, the old man politely declined their offer, instead offering the concubine and his own maiden daughter for them to have their way with, and humble them. Good thing women have no rights or free will, otherwise they might protest! But no, both women were merely gang-raped by the men of the city, and when they collapsed on the doorstep of the kind old man at dawn, he greeted them with an abrupt "Up, and lets be going." But lo, there's a twist! She was dead, surprisingly.
What ever shall the old man do? The audience is riveted.
Cry? Sissy. Mourn? Cliche. Bury her? Boring. Try something original;
He "took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces and sent her into all the coasts of Israel."
Right....
As you do.
Though one might say that story was just the story of Sodom, lost and found again with a little creative license. Good book, though, the Bible, even if it isn't so reliable.
I'm not entirely sure what your trying to show or prove here TA, but the purpose of the story is to illustrate an account of an Israelite town that revived the ways of Sodom. The tribe of Benjamin defended the evil actions of that wicked town Gibeah. Is God somehow responsible for a mob of men comming to rape and murder someone? Is it God's fault that two callous selfish men offered up two women to be raped and bruttally abused all night? God brought his justice upon that town and the tribe of Benjamin for that awful sin. Perhaps you just brought up this story to sear our minds with your hateful sarcasm of the Bible?
Quote:
Then there's everybody's favourite, when god asks Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Now anyone in their right mind would find such a demand insane, and anyone who asks you to MURDER YOUR OWN SON is surely deranged, let alone worthy of worship. But nu-uh, not this god. He's a sly fox, and was just having a laugh. Abraham of course, being the golden head boy he is, passed with flying colours by demonstrating his ability to discard all common sense and morality, and subject himself to gods simultaneous act of child abuse and bullying.
The moral of this story? Um.... ****, uh.... Well, god spared Abraham, didn't he!
He's so forgiving, even of his own pranks.
First off, Abraham commited himself to a covenant with God. So lets not leave out important details... ok? God indead tested Abraham with the ultimate show of faith and loyalty. From your comments above I'd say you know nothing of faith or loyalty and look out only for yourself, but I won't judge you for it...
The story also forshadows the perfect consecration in sacrifce that another offspring of Abraham would undergo. In the matter of you thinking that Abraham was disregarding all commonsense and morality, remember that GOD is the auther of morality. So your ideas of common sense and morality really don't have much to speak of themselves.
I understand your ridicule and sarcasm of God and the Bible, but to call this a prank is downright disrespectful and frankly stupid...
Quote:
But wait, maybe not the case in Judges chapter 11 when Jephthah made a bargain with god. God would make him win a war (what a great lord) if he'd sacrifice "whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return." Yes, you hear correctly. WHOEVER COMES TO HIS HOUSE! He doesn't even know who he's going to sacrifice! It could be anyone! It could be Jesus himself! But of course, knowing god's record on the matter, he wont have to sacrifice anyone, god will spare him, right? He comes back from slaughtering in his war to find his daughter (they get a hard run in this book don't they?)
So he explains the situation to his daughter, who says fair enough, he is the all-loving god, but just let me go into the mountains and get laid. So she did, and returned. So here Jephthah is, her in the pot, waiting.... Nothing. Absolutely nothing from gods part. No sparing. All that's left is one cooked daughter.
TA after reading this I'm convinced that you are comming very close to a complete liar. "get laid"? Excuse me but please shut up. The story mentions nothing of the sort.
God requires faith, but the actions of Jephthah were evil and he reaped the rewards of his foolishness. It's his fault that he himself made a vow to sacrifice whatever came out of that door to God. God did not require such a vow to be made. I think the moral of the story is don't make promises to God that you will regret.
Quote:
Or what about all the chatter about god's jealousy. Like, for instance, when Moses went up to Mount Sinai (which the people below would be killed for merely touching) to get the 10 commandments, and came back to see they'd made a golden cow and started sacrificing to it. So moses smashes the commandmens, and the cow, melts the gold and makes the people swallow it, then commands Levi to take a sword and slaughter them (around 3000). Surely this is enough to sate god's jealous rage. Oh how wrong you can be. God sends his favourite plague down to them, like a Christmas card.
So God rescues millions of people with a myriad of miraculous acts and the first chance they get they erect a god of their own to worship and somehow thats ok? It seems your sense of justice is as twisted as you would like us to believe God's is TA. Besides the entire point of the law was that if they Isrealites obeyed the law they would be blessed, and if they broke the law they would be cursed. Obviously they intentionally broke the law, perhaps you think that it's ok to do that?
Quote:
But at least Moses had a fairly clean record other than that.
That is, if you forget the men he slaughtered in the Midianite cities in the book of Numbers. He did leave the women and children, however, but on gods command, slaughtered all the boy children, and raped all the virgin girls; "But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
Or when Moses was ordered to "Take all the heads of the people (Moabites) and hang them up before the Lord against the sun, that the fierce anger of the Lord may be turned away from Israel."
Hmm. maybe this Moses character isn't so innocent after all, or is he just the victim of god's jealous wrath?
ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves. For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.
Exodus 34:13-17
Let see, another lie...
No mention of raping the virgin girls in numbers. 31:18
The purpose of killing all the others is so that they could not gain the inheritance right of Israelites, but I don't have an entire week to explain why that's important in God's plan of redemption. God has the right to be jealous. He created you, if you don't worship God, then God has the right to hate whatever you worship instead of God.
Quote:
If Moses was a little dull you can always flick the channel and check out Joshua in the battle of Jericho, who did not rest until "they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword." (Joshua 6:21)
A little excessive, but hey, nobody's perfect.
A little excesive to you, but then again from your previous examples you don't seem to understand God's plan for Israel. Obviously that isn't God's plan of action for this period of history.
Quote:
But god is a fan of slaughter. He professes in Deuteronomy 20 how if the people who do not live in the holy land that all the men should be killed and all the women carried off for breeding.
Fine compared to those who already lived in the promised land; for "But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing tht breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them... as the Lord they God hath commanded thee."
God isn't a fan of slaughter, but instead offered up the law to the Isrealites to follow. They chose to take the law and live by it instead of faith. Of course you already knew that.
Quote:
It's also useful for laying down the law, the bible.
It's handy to know that the following are punishable by death according to Leviticus 20:
-cursing your parents
-committing adultery
-making love to your stepmother or your daughter in law
-homosexuality
-marrying a woman and her daughter
-bestiality (the beast is killed too)
-working on the sabbath
Even just gathering sticks on the sabbath, as they found a man doing; "And the Lord said unto Moses; the man shall surely be put to death: all the congregation brought him without the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died."
I guess at this point TA I must ask the question. What do you know about the law and what is the purpose of the law? If all you can do is make fun of it, then certainly you can give a reason for it's existance in the first place. You claim to have read the entire Bible and have gone through all the motions of a Christian life at a young age, but your inept explainations of those stories makes me wonder how much you really know about the Bible.
It seems to me all you really care about is writing lies and sarcasm to cloud the real message of the Bible.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 12, 2007 09:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I mean working at the same job. If you are hardworking, you will get more assuming that all other conditions are the same.
No.
Your natural traits decide. If you are charismatic, you can convince your boss i.e. to give you a higher salary when you're at the interview.
These conditions are never the same.
The ammount of work means very little in the very end.. you need to be sly, not hardworking.
I said, if all other conditions are the same (meaning that this is theoretical). And put yourself in the position of the boss. Would you promote someone who shows up early and works hard, working overtime when necessary, or someone who shows up barely on time, works a bare minimum, and leaves incomplete work at the end of the day, but sucks up to you? I think that you would promote the first.
Quote:
Quote:
Except those who worked hard harvesting wheat had more bread for the winter. They were directly dependent on their work for their food.
Those who worked "incredibly hard" just died earlier because of overwork. Humans ain't robots.
And those who didn't work hard enough died of hunger. So there was an incentive not just to work, but to work hard.
Quote:
Quote:
If you are dead, you can't work for your master. He realizes that, and it would be harmful for him to kill you.
He doesn't need to threat you that he will kill you. A solid beat-up is enough.
If you are beaten up, if your bones are broken, you will work less efficiently. And a carrot is often more effective than a stick.
Quote:
Quote:
And fear is the best motivation? No. Think about Stalin's time. Think about the productivity of the Kolkhoz compared to a capitalist farm of the same size.
There is a difference between "slave camp" and "death camp". These people worked, but they were offered nothing for their work. I read a book written by a polish kolkhoz laborer. Those who worked above the norm received something like extra spoon of soup.
That's not much of an incentive.
Quote:
And a clever slave overlord would give them more, which would actually make them much more potent workers. Slavery doesn't mean you beat the slaves to death at start.
But it is still forced labor. You are punished if you don't work. And slave owners have to put forth effort just to get their slaves to work. It would be a lot easier if they were self-motivated. Thus, capitalism.
Quote:
Quote:
Or you can fire him and find a better comp.
Which will act exactly like the previous one. In capitalism, everyone acts the same, remember that.
No. Not all workers have the same productivity and not all of them are equally demanding.
Quote:
Quote:
If the quality of his work is worth it, then you will give him sick leave. If it's ulimately unprofitable, don't offer him sick leave when hiring.
you have to (law forces that, at least here..)
Socialists...
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Shadey
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted August 12, 2007 09:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Why is the New Testament worse?
The New Testament morally bankrupt and it's later date gives it more relevancy and a more profound effect on society.
Here's a makeshift list:
Quote:
-Jesus teaches his disciples to abandon their families. "If any man come to me and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."
No, Jesus teaches using a vivid hyperbole to mean that people must love Jesus even more than they love their immediate family.
Quote:
-Teaches sado-masochism. God incarnated himself as a man; Jesus, in order that he should be tortured and executed in atonement for the hereditary sin of Adam.
No, it doesn't teach sado-masochism. God's pleasure came from redeeming mankind to himself, not taking pleasure from torture and death. Your words are twisted and sick to suggest such a thing.
Quote:
-Jesus wanted to be betrayed and then murdered in order to redeem us, why take it out on Judas and the jews? As is revealed in the long lost Gospel of Judas, the case is made that Jesus asked Judas to betray him.
The Gospel of Judas was wrote in the third century by a gnostic heretic. It's a worthless piece of literature in regards to the true Gospel story.
Quote:
-If god wanted to forgive our sins, why get himself tortured in order to persecute the jews?
To fulfill the law, and the prophesies. Who cares about that though, it's only the most important part of the Bible.
Quote:
-If the Old Testament is symbolic, then Jesus had himself tortured and executed in a vicarious punishment for a symbolic sin committed by a nonexistent individual.
The Old Testament is not symbolic. The rest of your statement a moot point them.
Quote:
-In Revelations, the number of those 'sealed' is limited to 144,000; 12000 from each of the 12 tribes of jews. These people can only be sealed if they "did not defile themselves with women", which means that they cannot be women.
What about women that didn't defile themselves with women? That probably didn't cross your mind though while you acuse God of hating women.
Quote:
-Matthew and Luke cannot agree on the Virgin Birth. They contradict each other, Matthew saying that Joseph was "warned in a dream" to make an immediate escape and Luke says that all three stayed in Bethlehem until Mary's "purification according to the laws of Moses"
Sorry TA, but the Magi weren't present the night of the birth of Jesus. They came several months after his birth giving Mary more than enough time to perform her perification and present him at the Temple. The two stories do not contradict each other, only your poor understanding of them.
Quote:
-Luke states that Jesus was born the year when Caesar Augustus ordered a census, at the same time as when Herod resigned in Judaea and Quirinius was governor of Syria. However, Herod died 4 years BC, and there is only one claim ever made to support a census by Augustus, and even that is six years after Jesus birth.
More than one Herod alive at the time...
Quote:
-One of the lost gospels uncovered 6 years ago, claims that the god of the old testament is a ghastly emanation from sick minds, and hat Judas claimed that Jesus was from the immortal realm of Barbelo (a heavenly desinatin beyond the stars), and that Jesus is an avatar of Seth, the third son of Adam. Regognizing that Judas is at least a minor adept of this cult, Jesus takes him to one side and awards him the special mission of helping him shed his fleshly form and thus return heavenward. He also promises to show him the stars that will enable Judas to follow on.
Sounds alot like Scientology to me.
That lost gospel was wrote by a gnostic heretic in the third century. It's as useful the divinci code.
Quote:
-The prophecies in the old testament say that the messiah will be born in the city of David, Bethlehem. However Jesus parents were from Nazareth and if they had a child it was most likely delivered in that down. This accounts for the fabricated tales of Augustus, Herod and Quirinius, in order to move the nativity scene to Bethlehem (where no stable is ever mentioned)
Yeah, thats great TA... So you don't think that it's likely to have occured in Bethlehem. So what? Obviously you weren't there to disprove the first account perspectives of the people who were there and alive during that time period.
Quote:
-Jesus makes large claims for his heavenly father but never mentions that his mother is or was a virgin, and is repeatedly very rude to her when she makes an appearance to ask how he is getting on.
Why do you think that it's important that Jesus mention his mother or that she is a virgin? God is more important than Mary. Jesus wasn't rude, only your opinions claiming he is rude. Besides what does being rude have to do with anything?
Quote:
-The Virgin Mary appears to have no memory of the Archangel Gabriel's visitation, or of the swarm of angels. In fact it appears as if Jesus birth was a shock, in all accounts.
-Luke refers to the "parents of Jesus" as only Joseph and Mary
-Mary had four other sons, including another called Jesus, in the gospel according to James. How did she go on producing children, by the man Joseph who only exists in reported speech?
This whole series of statements are so pointless and ridiculous I'm not even going to bother humoring you with a reply.
Quote:
-In Matthew 15:21-28 we read the contempt for a canaanite woman who asked for help, saying he would not waste his energy on a non-jew
Jesus knows the best way to get to the heart of the matter. Perhaps the only way she would have responded correctly was by doing what he did? Apparantly the story had a good ending to it, but what do you care? You want to paint a picture of Jesus as some jerk.
|
|
friendofgunnar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
|
|
posted August 12, 2007 10:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
-Mary had four other sons, including another called Jesus, in the gospel according to James. How did she go on producing children, by the man Joseph who only exists in reported speech?
Can you imagine the type of psychological complex a person would develop if they found out their brother was the son of god? 
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted August 13, 2007 09:22 AM |
|
|
Quote:
There goes again, everyone with their constant stories... MVas with his social contract...
Quote:
These are fights involving religion.
If religion is involved, then religion is at fault.
Wtf are you on about dude? If religion is involved, it's religion's fault; but if atheism is involved, it isn't atheism's fault? Well that sure makes sense
No. I'm not pointing blame at a person. Without religion, atheism doesn't exist.
If an atheist attacks someone else, then it has nothing to do with their atheism.
If an atheist attacks someone because they are religious, then sure the atheist person is at fault, but without religion it would not have happened.
I don't see whats so hard to understand about that. I'm blaming religion as a whole, not the specific culprit.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted August 13, 2007 09:30 AM |
|
|
we can go further.. if there were no skin colours, there would be no rascism.. if there were no clouds, there would be no bad weather.. if there was no humanity, there would be no wars.. if there was no world, there wouldn't be a single bad thing about it.
You see why it's pointless to think that way, TA?
Killing each of the humanity's unique factors, like the religion, culture, would surely prevent some of the bad sh*t that happened in this world, but would make it dull, less colourful.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted August 13, 2007 10:11 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Let's get this thread back on track by addressing the filth of what TA wrote about the Old Testament.
Lets.  
Quote:
God decided to destroy the entire planet because humanity had become so evil that it was beyond saving at that point. God simply allowed humanity to become that evil to show people who would live in the future that if they disregarded God that the world would become a pure unadultered evilfest. It isn't God's fault that heart of man is desperatly wicked.
A poor shepherd blames his tools. Or something. Why kill the animals? And the children?
Justify killing an evil person if you will, but the world has never experienced mass genocide so severe and extreme.
Quote:
They gave them the simplest of instructions. Do no stop, do not look back, flee to the mountains or you will be swept away. Lot's wife couldn't even obey the simplest of instructions and it's entirely her fault that death became her.
By that logic, it should be fine if I told you never to look at me, as I destroyed your home, and you did glance, and then I shot you.
It was the simplest of instructions.
Or does god talk the talk and not walk the walk of morality that he enforces upon us with such a merciless hand?
Any god who does this is not worthy of worship, and should be locked up.
Quote:
As far as your ridicule of the daughters. The daughters in their foolishness believed that they had to preserve the family through their father. Lot's passive role in this matter was not without blame because he became drunk and commited incest. The result of this brought forth the ancestors of the Moabites and Ammonites, which became bitter enemies of Isreal. God shows that the sins and mistakes of our lives can bring terrible consequences whether by God's justice or the worlds justice played out on our families and decendents.
'Becoming drunk' does not justify incest. Nor would it justify pleading a bunch of Sodomites to have their way with these virgin daughters.
If this dysfunctional family was the best Sodom had to offer by way of morals, some might begin to feel a certain sympathy with God and his judicial brimstone.
Quote:
I'm not entirely sure what your trying to show or prove here TA, but the purpose of the story is to illustrate an account of an Israelite town that revived the ways of Sodom. The tribe of Benjamin defended the evil actions of that wicked town Gibeah. Is God somehow responsible for a mob of men comming to rape and murder someone? Is it God's fault that two callous selfish men offered up two women to be raped and bruttally abused all night? God brought his justice upon that town and the tribe of Benjamin for that awful sin. Perhaps you just brought up this story to sear our minds with your hateful sarcasm of the Bible?
It's the same story of Sodom and Gomorrah, just more sickening. It eerily echoes the story with a more distinct misogynistic ethos, showing how they offered up the women to be 'humbled' in order to save the guest who is of course male. But let's just charitably put this story down again to the ubiquitous weirdness of the Bible.
And it's not the first time the Bible's copied from somewhere.
In fact the protagonist isn't even original, came from Greek myth.
' Next came the son of the virgin. Dionysus.
bringing the counterpart to bread. wine
and the blessings of life's flowing juices.
His blood, the blood of grape,
lightens the burden of our mortal misery...
it is his blood we pour out
to offer Thanks to the Gods. And through him.
we are blessed.'
Sound familiar?
Quote:
First off, Abraham commited himself to a covenant with God. So lets not leave out important details... ok? God indead tested Abraham with the ultimate show of faith and loyalty. From your comments above I'd say you know nothing of faith or loyalty and look out only for yourself, but I won't judge you for it...
The story also forshadows the perfect consecration in sacrifce that another offspring of Abraham would undergo. In the matter of you thinking that Abraham was disregarding all commonsense and morality, remember that GOD is the auther of morality. So your ideas of common sense and morality really don't have much to speak of themselves.
I understand your ridicule and sarcasm of God and the Bible, but to call this a prank is downright disrespectful and frankly stupid...
That may have affected Abraham's actions but it sure as hell doesn't affect why god is such a sick kid with a magnifying glass that he has to ask some guy to sacrifice his son.
Testing his faith and loyalty? More like testing his basic morals. Is it right to murder your own son? No. Does something wrong become right if god says it does? No, unless god is a dictator. So god commanded Abraham to do something wicked. And he obliged.
Failed the test right? Wrong. Passed with flying colours.
If, hypothetically, god asked Abraham to torture infants, by your logic that would be right, regardless of whether or not he actually would. Which would be absurd. And since when is unquestioned loyalty ever a good thing?
Don't call me stupid.
God in this story takes on the role of a bully. As a figure of authority, like a parent or a teacher that the student Abraham looks up to, he has placed Abraham in the ultimate conundrum. Does he a) disobey god and be punished severely or b) murder his own son, possibly the most vicious crime you could ever commit so that god continues to love him (selfish?)
Abraham is considered to be the founding father of all three monotheistic religions. But with such skewed morals, which modern moralist would wish to follow him?
But this is the same bible that condones the wholesale beating of slaves, and wives, and kill disobedient children and people that think differently to you.
If god asked you to murder your own son, would you do it?
Quote:
God requires faith, but the actions of Jephthah were evil and he reaped the rewards of his foolishness. It's his fault that he himself made a vow to sacrifice whatever came out of that door to God. God did not require such a vow to be made. I think the moral of the story is don't make promises to God that you will regret.
Because he'll make you regret it
Quote:
So God rescues millions of people with a myriad of miraculous acts and the first chance they get they erect a god of their own to worship and somehow thats ok? It seems your sense of justice is as twisted as you would like us to believe God's is TA. Besides the entire point of the law was that if they Isrealites obeyed the law they would be blessed, and if they broke the law they would be cursed. Obviously they intentionally broke the law, perhaps you think that it's ok to do that?
No, but it's a little harsh for a seemingly mild crime of praying to a cow. It just shows how violently jealous god is, he cant stand it to the point that he is more than willing to not only kill but torture his very people for it. God's monumental rage whenever his chosen people flirt with a rival god resembles nothing so much as sexual jealousy of the worst kind.
I won't even ask if you think it's ok to do that.
Quote:
Let see, another lie...
No mention of raping the virgin girls in numbers. 31:18
The purpose of killing all the others is so that they could not gain the inheritance right of Israelites, but I don't have an entire week to explain why that's important in God's plan of redemption. God has the right to be jealous. He created you, if you don't worship God, then God has the right to hate whatever you worship instead of God.
"But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
Quote:
A little excesive to you, but then again from your previous examples you don't seem to understand God's plan for Israel. Obviously that isn't God's plan of action for this period of history.
Yes but for me regardless of who did it, it's not alright. Obviously, it was his plan. It's still excessively violent and destructive by any terms.
Why go to the extent of even killing the ox?
Sounds like the actions of a deranged psychopath.
It all comes down to whether or not the Bible is held up to us as the source of our morality. And the Bible story of Joshua's destruction of Jericho, and the invasion of the Promised Land in general, is morally indistinguishable from Hitler's invasion of Poland, or Saddam Hussein's massacres of the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs.
Quote:
God isn't a fan of slaughter, but instead offered up the law to the Isrealites to follow. They chose to take the law and live by it instead of faith. Of course you already knew that.
He commanded them to do it, no different to commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son, which he obviously by your view had no other option than to oblige.
And according to the bible god has slaughtered more people than anyone else ever, and is the perpetrator of the most extreme and greatest genocide in history. So maybe you should rethink his hobbies
Quote:
I guess at this point TA I must ask the question. What do you know about the law and what is the purpose of the law? If all you can do is make fun of it, then certainly you can give a reason for it's existance in the first place. You claim to have read the entire Bible and have gone through all the motions of a Christian life at a young age, but your inept explainations of those stories makes me wonder how much you really know about the Bible.
It seems to me all you really care about is writing lies and sarcasm to cloud the real message of the Bible.
They always say this.
You said the exact same thing as Baklava. "You claim to have read the entire Bible"... "makes me wonder how much you really know."
Because my views on the Bible are not unquestioned and blinded by your default assumption that 'because it is in there it must be right', does not mean I do not understand it. On the contrary, my good friend.
The purpose of the law is to give structure to a thriving society, not stone people for picking up sticks.
Please, I beg of you. Point out to me where I am going to horribly wrong here.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted August 13, 2007 10:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
we can go further.. if there were no skin colours, there would be no rascism.. if there were no clouds, there would be no bad weather.. if there was no humanity, there would be no wars.. if there was no world, there wouldn't be a single bad thing about it.
You see why it's pointless to think that way, TA?
Killing each of the humanity's unique factors, like the religion, culture, would surely prevent some of the bad sh*t that happened in this world, but would make it dull, less colourful.
I know it's pointless to do that.... I'm not trying to destroy religion altogether. I was trying to make Baklava understand what I'm saying but he's misunderstood it a few times and I've forgotten the original point..
'It supposedly wouldn't have happened either if atheism was taken out of the equation.'
This still makes me laugh
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted August 13, 2007 10:29 AM |
|
|
Quote:
No, Jesus teaches using a vivid hyperbole to mean that people must love Jesus even more than they love their immediate family.
That's still wrong at a fundamental level.
Quote:
No, it doesn't teach sado-masochism. God's pleasure came from redeeming mankind to himself, not taking pleasure from torture and death. Your words are twisted and sick to suggest such a thing.
Not as twisted and sick as the Bible by a long shot anyhow. The whippings and torture were superfluous, and it permeates the New Testament and Christianity itself.
According to Lenny Bruce; 'If Jesus had been killed twenty years ago, Catholic school children would be wearing little electric chairs around their necks instead of crosses.'
If god wanted to forgive our sins, why didn't he just forgive them? Who was he trying to impress?
Robert Green Ingersoll so rightly suggested that the concept of the atonement is simply an extension of the Mosaic tradition of blood sacrifice and "is the enemy of morality".
Quote:
Quote:
-Jesus wanted to be betrayed and then murdered in order to redeem us, why take it out on Judas and the jews? As is revealed in the long lost Gospel of Judas, the case is made that Jesus asked Judas to betray him.
The Gospel of Judas was wrote in the third century by a gnostic heretic. It's a worthless piece of literature in regards to the true Gospel story.
If you tell yourself that.
But you still ignored the first half, which isn't in the Gospel of Judas.
Quote:
To fulfill the law, and the prophesies. Who cares about that though, it's only the most important part of the Bible.
yes, but the law and prophecies that god in turn made.
Why?
Quote:
The Old Testament is not symbolic. The rest of your statement a moot point them.
Neither is Alice in Wonderland.
Quote:
What about women that didn't defile themselves with women? That probably didn't cross your mind though while you acuse God of hating women.
Are you so blind that you disagree that the Bible is sexist? If so, then we are so far from being on the same level that we cannot even communicate.
Quote:
Quote:
-Matthew and Luke cannot agree on the Virgin Birth. They contradict each other, Matthew saying that Joseph was "warned in a dream" to make an immediate escape and Luke says that all three stayed in Bethlehem until Mary's "purification according to the laws of Moses"
Sorry TA, but the Magi weren't present the night of the birth of Jesus. They came several months after his birth giving Mary more than enough time to perform her perification and present him at the Temple. The two stories do not contradict each other, only your poor understanding of them.
I think if you look into it instead of being prejudice you'll find I understand it perfectly.
I'm merely pointing out a direct contradiction between Matthew and Luke. Matthew says that they made an immediate escape. Luke says they stayed there for at least 40 days.
Quote:
Quote:
-Luke states that Jesus was born the year when Caesar Augustus ordered a census, at the same time as when Herod resigned in Judaea and Quirinius was governor of Syria. However, Herod died 4 years BC, and there is only one claim ever made to support a census by Augustus, and even that is six years after Jesus birth.
More than one Herod alive at the time...
Only one Herod The Great who resigned from Judea, whom both Matthew and Luke refer to. Get your facts straight.
Quote:
Yeah, thats great TA... So you don't think that it's likely to have occured in Bethlehem. So what? Obviously you weren't there to disprove the first account perspectives of the people who were there and alive during that time period.
This isn't a matter of opinion but of historical evidence and research, so it really doesn't change no matter how much you discredit me.
Quote:
Why do you think that it's important that Jesus mention his mother or that she is a virgin? God is more important than Mary. Jesus wasn't rude, only your opinions claiming he is rude. Besides what does being rude have to do with anything?
Only that Jesus is the founder of a religion whom millions of people base their lives and their morals on. If everyone based their morals on a rude person, maybe people would be rude today? Wait a minute...
Quote:
This whole series of statements are so pointless and ridiculous I'm not even going to bother humoring you with a reply.
As I thought.
Quote:
Quote:
-In Matthew 15:21-28 we read the contempt for a canaanite woman who asked for help, saying he would not waste his energy on a non-jew
Jesus knows the best way to get to the heart of the matter. Perhaps the only way she would have responded correctly was by doing what he did? Apparantly the story had a good ending to it, but what do you care? You want to paint a picture of Jesus as some jerk.
The end does not justify the means.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
posted August 13, 2007 12:44 PM |
|
|
Shadey, you're not being very helpful here :P
Quote:
No, Jesus teaches using a vivid hyperbole to mean that people must love Jesus even more than they love their immediate family.
He didn't teach they MUST love Jesus, he said how they would feel better if they loved him. And I already answered that to TA - Jesus told only his immediate followers to abandon their families because he didn't want those families involved in the harsh and dangerous adventures too. He knew what fate awaits him and his followers, and how grim it was.
Lol @ Lenny Bruce, but that's still hardly an argument for this discussion...
Quote:
If god wanted to forgive our sins, why didn't he just forgive them? Who was he trying to impress?
I actually gave you 5 freaking answers to that. What, now you want every forum member to answer on your questions separately?
Same for the "-Jesus wanted to be betrayed and then murdered in order to redeem us, why take it out on Judas and the jews?" part. You repeat yourself too much, and you make me repeat myself too.
Quote:
This isn't a matter of opinion but of historical evidence and research
Historical evidence and research still couldn't prove that Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem. :/
Quote:
Only that Jesus is the founder of a religion whom millions of people base their lives and their morals on. If everyone based their morals on a rude person, maybe people would be rude today? Wait a minute...
Again, something I already answered, and then explained my answer in another post. Jesus was not a rude person.
You're telling Shady he isn't on the same level of communication with you, yet you're constantly reading only what you want to read.
That is why, my friend, you are definitely not the right person to discuss this with.
But we play along...
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted August 13, 2007 01:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Lol @ Lenny Bruce, but that's still hardly an argument for this discussion...
Not everything is an argument
Quote:
I actually gave you 5 freaking answers to that. What, now you want every forum member to answer on your questions separately?
Same for the "-Jesus wanted to be betrayed and then murdered in order to redeem us, why take it out on Judas and the jews?" part. You repeat yourself too much, and you make me repeat myself too.
Not everyone. But you have very different views to Shadey, I wanted to see what he thinks. I'm not repeating myself, he's quoting me.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
| |
|
|
