Hijack - Endless rehash of contradictory bits of the bible

[Moontanman]

So by that right, you are also saying that the military seeks to control its members. I choose to follow Christian values, not because I had been raised that way, but because those are in line with my own beliefs that I have formed in my adult years.

Christian values? So keeping slaves is ok? Do you follow the commandments of the bible? all 613 of them?

[Thorham]

Christian values? So keeping slaves is ok?

You're forgetting that Christians will tell you that those parts of the bible need to be interpreted

Edited September 1, 2013 by Thorham

[John Cuthber]

You're forgetting that Christians will tell you that those parts of the bible need to be interpreted

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MFmC6BD1B4

[Moontanman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MFmC6BD1B4

 

 

Gotta love the nonstampcollector...

[WWLabRat]

Christian values? So keeping slaves is ok? Do you follow the commandments of the bible? all 613 of them?

 

 

 

 

If you already formed those beliefs, by yourself, what's the need of adopting the Christian version of those beliefs, or a deity for that matter? Christianity relies on absolute moral values, surely you would want to continue forming your values based on rationale and experience, rather than outdated absolutes? I just don't see the logic in that, especially with the way which Christianity contradicts its fundamental values countless numbers of times, and considering the immorality of some of the values it teaches.

 

 

 

 

Not at all, the pointers are appreciated and useful. I just felt I'd made my point already, and it reached the point where I was tripping myself needlessly and at the expense of my original argument. The debate became more a contest of arguing skills rather than whose point was more logical and evidence supported, IMO.

 

 

My reply to both of these statements are essentially the same thing. I say Christian values only because it's the closest approximation to what my feelings on the matter are. It's a lot simpler than going through and listing everything I think is right, wrong, and mitigating circumstances that might add a touch of grey to either. I don't believe in absolutes, part of what I inadvertently learned in the military. By all rights, if things were absolute, then anyone who has served in the military has already broken at least 2 of the primary 10 commandments set forth when Moses talked to a flaming bush. In order to be in the military, unless you are a chaplain, God, in any form, is not going to be the number one thing in your life, so there goes the first commandment. If you've spent time in battle, there's a certain likelihood that you've killed someone and would have broken thus 6th commandment which is also considered to be an unpardonable sin.

 

But this brings about the grey areas. What if someone invades your home and tries to beat or kill you or your family? Would you just sit idly by and let them have their way? If you're like me, you have a firearm sitting locked in a safe right next to your bed and in easy reach if needed. Someone invades my home they would either make it out of my house with a couple holes in them or wheeled out by the coroner. Do I think that would be considered murder? No. I was defending myself and my family.

[Iota]

Alright, so let's say for the sake of argument you broke the commandment "thou shalt not kill". Yet God often ordered the Israelites to go to war with other nations, Christian scripture orders the murder for sins as petty as breaking the sabbath:

 

"While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. 33 And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. 34 They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. 35 And the LORD said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” 36 And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the LORD commanded Moses."

 

(I like how explicit it is "... and stoned him to death with stones".) ... no s***.

 

So really, like most fundamental values of the Bible, it's contradicted heavily, and open to any old interpretation. Maybe if you have a schizophrenic priest nearby, you can ask him to talk to God and find out whether it was his work or not. Otherwise there's no way of telling really.

 

 

 

But this brings about the grey areas. What if someone invades your home and tries to beat or kill you or your family? Would you just sit idly by and let them have their way? If you're like me, you have a firearm sitting locked in a safe right next to your bed and in easy reach if needed. Someone invades my home they would either make it out of my house with a couple holes in them or wheeled out by the coroner. Do I think that would be considered murder? No. I was defending myself and my family.

 

 

Precisely, so the absolutes of Christianity will be broken, even in situations where it seems OK to do so. But I suppose so long as you're sorry for what you did and pray, you're forgiven anyway, so it doesn't matter either way?

 

 

 

I say Christian values only because it's the closest approximation to what my feelings on the matter are.

 

Is this the same as following Christianity? I think scripture might tell you its not. I still don't understand, why not live by parts of the Bible you like, without affiliating yourself with the whole religion, which comes out with disturbing garbage like this (clearly written by uncivilised people):

 

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+19%3A30-38&version=NIV

 

"He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up"- yeah alright mate, sure... he wasn't aware of it TWICE. If you ask me whoever wrote this part of the Bible was an incest and paedophile apologist.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Iota

[Thorham]

If you ask me whoever wrote this part of the Bible was an incest and paedophile apologist.

Where does it say his daughters were children when they did this? And also, is someone a pedophile if children do something like that without that person's consent?

 

And just to make it clear, I'm not defending this biblical nonsense. This sort of thing is clearly absurd.

[Iota]

...without that person's consent?

 

And just to make it clear, I'm not defending this biblical nonsense. This sort of thing is clearly absurd.

 

If you read that in a newspaper today, would you buy it? (the story, not the newspaper)

 

I think there's a point where you should stop playing the devil's advocate and just read between the lines and accept something that is self-evidently sick, as being such.

[pears]

Is this the same as following Christianity? I think scripture might tell you its not. I still don't understand, why not live by parts of the Bible you like, without affiliating yourself with the whole religion, which comes out with disturbing garbage like this (clearly written by uncivilised people):

 

http://www.biblegate...-38&version=NIV

 

 

 

Relating an action is not the same as condoning it.

Edited September 2, 2013 by pears

[Iota]

 

Relating an action is not the same as condoning it.

 

Bible apologist. What about stoning a man to death for breaking the Sabbath? That's beyond condoning it, that's commanding it. And if you want I'll bring you lots more quotes which DO condone mass genocide and much worse.

[pears]

I'm talking about the passage YOU just quoted! Relating an action is not the same as condoning it.

[Iota]

I'm talking about the passage YOU just quoted! Relating an action is not the same as condoning it.

 

I ALSO quoted the law for stoning people to death, so YOU have no excuse for turning a blind eye to it.

[pears]

So you get to make all the points, I have to respond to them, but you don't have to respond to any of mine? Yes that seems a reasonable basis for a sensible conversation.

[Thorham]

If you read that in a newspaper today, would you buy it? (the story, not the newspaper)

Depends on the newspaper If this was written in a newspaper today, then at least it would be possible to work out whether it actually happened or not.

 

I think there's a point where you should stop playing the devil's advocate and just read between the lines and accept something that is self-evidently sick, as being such.

Yes, two women raping and old man is quite sick, and I'm not denying that. I was just asking what any of this has to do with pedophilia.

[Iota]

Yes, two women raping and old man is quite sick, and I'm not denying that. I was just asking what any of this has to do with pedophilia.

 

OK even if they were of an adult age, Lot is still getting drunk with his daughters, alone in a cave... God strictly forbids getting drunk off of wine. Then they have sex with him twice and he doesn't notice either time, so therefore he has no responsibility for it happening? Completely backward. He also gives up his daughters to an angry mob, to be raped.

 

The Bible is sex obsessed, in a really sick way. It's little wonder why sex is such a taboo subject with most Christians.

So you get to make all the points, I have to respond to them, but you don't have to respond to any of mine? Yes that seems a reasonable basis for a sensible conversation.

 

Yes, I get to make points. Not ALL of them. I would happily respond to your points, but first you have to make some.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Iota

[pears]

Yes, I get to make points. Not ALL of them. I would happily respond to your points, but first you have to make some.

 

Relating an action is not the same as condoning it.

 

Your response to this was not to answer it, but to insist I address another of your points.

[Iota]

 

Your response to this was not to answer it, but to insist I address another of your points.

 

That's a ridiculous form of nit-picking; to point out that condoning isn't the same as relating, even when I didn't make either of those assertions in the first place, and then completely ignore the other quote in my post which makes my point. Stop being ridiculous.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Iota

[pears]

How rude! I made a perfectly valid comment on a point you made which you have called nit-picking to avoid addressing it. Don't worry I shall leave you in peace now and you can get back to making your invalid points!

[Iota]

How rude!

 

Being offended doesn't make you right.

 

 

 

I made a perfectly valid comment on a point you made which you have called nit-picking to avoid addressing it. Don't worry I shall leave you in peace now and you can get back to making your invalid points!

OK man, thanks.

[Thorham]

To Iota:

 

You don't have to convince me of the ridiculousness of the bible

[Moontanman]

 

Relating an action is not the same as condoning it.

 

I agree Pears, the two are not the same but it is also true that god demanded or condoned actions much worse than this. I pointed one out in post #161 but there many more things like slavery, murder, rape, genocide, and just killing children for reasons of petty vanity.

[pears]

That's fine. I wasn't arguing about any other passages than the one I commented on.

[Moontanman]

That's fine. I wasn't arguing about any other passages than the one I commented on.

 

 

IMHO you can't cherry pick and get a reasonable determination of what is going on. Yes you are correct, relating something that happened is not the same as condoning it but if you are to make a clear call on this you cannot give passes for some things but ignore others. IOW if you are going to assume Lot's story is true and the result of humans acting immorally not God condoning it you have to examine the places where God is clearly condoning or demanding immoral acts and acting immorally as well...

[WWLabRat]

Alright, so let's say for the sake of argument you broke the commandment "thou shalt not kill". Yet God often ordered the Israelites to go to war with other nations, Christian scripture orders the murder for sins as petty as breaking the sabbath:

 

"While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. 33 And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. 34 They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. 35 And the LORD said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” 36 And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the LORD commanded Moses."

 

(I like how explicit it is "... and stoned him to death with stones".) ... no s***.

 

So really, like most fundamental values of the Bible, it's contradicted heavily, and open to any old interpretation. Maybe if you have a schizophrenic priest nearby, you can ask him to talk to God and find out whether it was his work or not. Otherwise there's no way of telling really.

 

 

 

Precisely, so the absolutes of Christianity will be broken, even in situations where it seems OK to do so. But I suppose so long as you're sorry for what you did and pray, you're forgiven anyway, so it doesn't matter either way?

 

 

Is this the same as following Christianity? I think scripture might tell you its not. I still don't understand, why not live by parts of the Bible you like, without affiliating yourself with the whole religion, which comes out with disturbing garbage like this (clearly written by uncivilised people):

 

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+19%3A30-38&version=NIV

 

"He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up"- yeah alright mate, sure... he wasn't aware of it TWICE. If you ask me whoever wrote this part of the Bible was an incest and paedophile apologist.

 

For the first point, Keep the Old and New Testaments separate. Judaism focuses on the Old Testament (plus additional scripture) while Christianity focuses on the New Testament (while recalling things from the Old). There's also a noticeable difference in the attitude of God during the Old and New Testaments. The Old God was vengeful, the slightest thing against the rules was punishable, much in the same way as the old gods of the Roman Pantheon. However, during the New Testament, God's attitude changed and He was seen as a more loving and just God, not at all like the Old. Was this because, according to Scripture, his son had been born? Who knows.

 

Please do not assume that anyone with schizophrenia believes themselves to speak with a deity. Schizophrenia is a mental illness that is passed down genetically and happens to run in my family. As with most things, there are varying degrees of it. As such it's a little inappropriate and shows ignorance towards the disease to assume that all those, especially priests, with it speak with their respective deity.

 

And I clearly never said that I follow Christianity. I merely said that I follow Christian values: you get one shot at life (which is inconsistent with reincarnation, so saying I follow Buddhism is out), there is only one deity (which puts out polytheism, however my more in depth beliefs on this would take a while to type out.), live a good and just life and you will be rewarded. Granted this is just a very brief look at my beliefs and doesn't include anywhere near everything.

 

Where does it say his daughters were children when they did this? And also, is someone a pedophile if children do something like that without that person's consent?

 

And just to make it clear, I'm not defending this biblical nonsense. This sort of thing is clearly absurd.

 

By this time, they would have been considered adults by the community after having their menstruation cycles and able to bare children.

 

 

OK even if they were of an adult age, Lot is still getting drunk with his daughters, alone in a cave... God strictly forbids getting drunk off of wine. Then they have sex with him twice and he doesn't notice either time, so therefore he has no responsibility for it happening? Completely backward. He also gives up his daughters to an angry mob, to be raped.

 

The Bible is sex obsessed, in a really sick way. It's little wonder why sex is such a taboo subject with most Christians.

 

Yes, I get to make points. Not ALL of them. I would happily respond to your points, but first you have to make some.

 

First of all, the rape from his daughters were one night then the other, not both at the same time. Second, he was drunk. This doesn't excuse him, but it is entirely possible that he wasn't conscious for either time. And yes, scripture does forbid getting drunk off the wine. Again, this doesn't entirely excuse him that his daughters both got him drunk. What's completely backwards is your order on the events. He didn't sleep with them and then give them up to a mob, the mob was there before God smote Sodom and Gomorrah. He offered up his daughters to keep the angels from being put on trial. The mob never touched the daughters. When they went to lie with Lot, they still hadn't known a man's touch. Also, the daughters slept with him to keep their bloodline going. Although the X and Y chromosomes weren't known of back then, it's knowledge now that you can trace lineage back through the males of a family. A son will always have the same Y chromosome that his biological father had. However, and I don't understand this, Judaism is considered to be passed down from the mothers of the family. So the daughters were right in that it would keep their bloodline going since they both gave birth to sons. And as a final not on that line, yes, incest is against scripture, even if the relationship between people isn't even by blood (husband's brother sleeps with wife's sister). There was a time in Genesis when a man was following God's law instead of a direct order from God and he smote him. All this because the guy wouldn't get his dead brother's wife pregnant to continue their lineage...

 

And it's taboo only within the realm of premarital/extramarital sex.

[Iggy]

IMHO you can't cherry pick and get a reasonable determination of what is going on. Yes you are correct, relating something that happened is not the same as condoning it but if you are to make a clear call on this you cannot give passes for some things but ignore others. IOW if you are going to assume Lot's story is true and the result of humans acting immorally not God condoning it you have to examine the places where God is clearly condoning or demanding immoral acts and acting immorally as well...

My favorite image is from Joshua 10:11 where God kills people by throwing big stones down from heaven on top of their heads. Like a kid with a magnifying glass.

---

 

 

However, and I don't understand this, Judaism is considered to be passed down from the mothers of the family...

I can explain that.

 

In ancient times you could never really be sure who your dad was. I mean, it isn't something you could prove. If it were passed down patriarchally then there would have no doubt been many people who thought they were Jewish (by their dad) when, in fact, they were unrelated to the tribe at all because Mom isn't Jewish and Dad was an unsuspected secret visitor in the night.

 

Easy to prove who mom is. That really was the smart way to do it.