Bible Justice, Mmmmmmmmmmm-mm!

Post by **snarl** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:36 am

http://www.liberator.net/articles/Adams ... stice.html

Obfleur · Post by **Obfleur** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:48 am

Sweet fancy Moses!

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:55 am

Its typical of the bible tho - it was written by man, and since then has had to be 'changed' to fit in with modern times and ideas - A method of controll.

Post by **Best First** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:53 pm

no no no.

you can only take ceratin bits of the Bible literally.

the bits that suit you. At that particular time.

The rest is, like, a metaphor and mistranslated. and er, other mitigating stuff.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:59 pm

Crap like this, it kind of makes you want to kill them, doesn't it?

der2 · Post by **der2** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:13 pm

An inquisition would sort everything out.

The Last Autobot · Post by **The Last Autobot** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:55 pm

Professor Smooth wrote:Crap like this, it kind of makes you want to kill them, doesn't it?

And that solves everything I guess, spoken as a true satanist

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:11 am

[composite word including 'f*ck'] it, kill every religous person and this world would be at peace!

saysadie · Post by **saysadie** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 8:08 am

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:**** it, kill every religous person and this world would be at peace!

Unless they, y'know... fight back...

The Last Autobot · Post by **The Last Autobot** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 8:44 am

saysadie wrote:
Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:**** it, kill every religous person and this world would be at peace!
Unless they, y'know... fight back...

And even after that, men always find ways to have trouble.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:47 am

the way its going, its us or them.

Bouncelot · Post by **Bouncelot** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:18 pm

Best First wrote:no no no.

you can only take ceratin bits of the Bible literally.

the bits that suit you. At that particular time.

The rest is, like, a metaphor and mistranslated. and er, other mitigating stuff.

Um, it's worth pointing out that pretty much all of the stuff in the article is taken from the Mosaic Law, which the New Testament specifically says is not binding on Christians. So it's not a case of not taking it literally, but of letting the Bible as a whole interpret itself.

Post by **Best First** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:29 pm

er, and that sentance means what exactly?

also, is your contention that God was just kind of chucking random stuff out there until he sent Jesus along?

Bouncelot · Post by **Bouncelot** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 8:49 pm

Best First wrote:er, and that sentance means what exactly?

That the Bible specifically says that that stuff isn't binding on Christians.

also, is your contention that God was just kind of chucking random stuff out there until he sent Jesus along?

No, but the Mosaic Law was intended for the circumstances of the people of Israel between Moses and Jesus, rather than as something that Christians should seek to implement after Jesus.

Post by **Best First** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 9:07 pm

oh, ok, so pre his new favourite group of people God was pro all kinds of nasty sh*t, but its ok that God was pro all this stuff that he later says is wrong (being infinite and eternal as he is...) because things like rape and genocide can be justified "in context", and also its ok because its 'non binding' for Christains because... Christans say so and indeed that makes it all alright.

all in all pretty watertight.

also, you haven't answered what 'letting the Bible interprit itself' actually means, although if its 'choose to read whatever suits me' you appear to be spot on.

Bouncelot · Post by **Bouncelot** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:03 pm

Best First wrote:oh, ok, so pre his new favourite group of people God was pro all kinds of nasty sh*t, but its ok that God was pro all this stuff that he later says is wrong (being infinite and eternal as he is...) because things like rape and genocide can be justified "in context", and also its ok because its 'non binding' for Christains because... Christans say so and indeed that makes it all alright.

Um, no. With one single exception (the conquest of Canaan being God's judgement on the peoples who lived there for the sins they had committed), the Mosaic Law wasn't condoning the nasty stuff, it was limiting it and in some cases making allowances for it for the time being - an obvious example would be "eye for an eye", which was intended to limit the scope of revenge to be proportionate to the crime. The New Testament shows that God's ideal is for us to "turn the other cheek" and let God deal with the sin.

There are other things in there which were about avoiding specific pagan practices of the peoples aroud Israel, keeping Israel culturally distinct, and there was the sacrificial system. Oh, and it also functioned as the law of the land for the nation of Israel, and was more progressive than the laws of most/all of the other peoples Israel would have had any contact with.

also, you haven't answered what 'letting the Bible interprit itself' actually means, although if its 'choose to read whatever suits me' you appear to be spot on.

Letting the Bible interpret itself isn't "choose to read whatever suits me". If one passage in the Bible expounds on the meaning of another passage in the Bible, then you take the Bible's interpretation of itself as (at least part of) the message of the earlier passage. It's quite a simple concept which I thought had been conveyed by the term.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:58 am

It seems to me that with the bible you read somthing, pretend it says what you want (in relation to the 10 commandments) and thats it.

The bible was written hundreds of years after events X happened - why belive what man wrote?
Why not just think for yourself?

How come god changed his mind? - didnt think gods were wrong, and as he was why would anyone follow an imperfect being? because who is he to judge you if he himself has made mistakes?

otherwise know as - plot holes.

Post by **Best First** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:14 am

edit - to Bounce not Impy:

I’m assuming you type all this with a straight face, but I’m not entirely sure how (unless you are in fact one of Em Vee'’s Alt id’s)

You say Mosiac law wasn’t condoning the ‘nasty stuff’ (although exceptions like, hmm, conquering nations (that just happen to be nearby, so convenient) are ok by you), but how can the notion of ‘not condoning nasty stuff’ apply to, to pluck a few:

- Handicapped people could not approach god. Their presence would profane his sanctuary. (Lev 21:16-23)
- Menstruating women and everything they touch are unclean. (Lev 15:19-30)
- Homosexual men were to be executed. (Lev 20:13)
- False prophets are to be killed by their own parents. (Zech 13:3)
- Stubborn children were to be stoned, and the stoning was to be instigated by their parents. (Duet 21:18-21)

How can any of this (and as stated these are a few examples), in any way be considered to not be condoning nasty stuff? The answer, in case you are struggling is: it can’t.

And lets not forget of course that this is the same god that murdered (that’s murdered) more or less every living thing on the planet having decided he didn’t like how they were acting. Despite the fact it is omnipotent and so must have known how they were going to act when it created them, because if it isn’t all powerful then its judgement can’t be trusted.

Something also borne out by the fact that the man it picked to carry the lineage of man through the flood decided to celebrate his survival by inventing wine and getting pissed and naked, before cursing his grandson because his dad spotted Granddaddy nekkid.

Also good that the message there seems to be that we should be ashamed if our bodies (the one’s god created)

Good choice Mr All Powerful and All Knowing.

I like the stawman of ignoring all of the examples in the linked article and instead raising the example of an eye for an eye (a concept Yaya has raised twice in the other thread but doesn’t actually seem to understand, given its Torah origins which don’t actually encourage physical retribution). Well done, you also threw me off the scent there.

Why not just type “Hey, look over there!”?

Of course, turn the other cheek is a laudable goal and arguably the best and most morally virtuous way to terminate the possibility of long running feuds and disputes. However if this is god’s ideal, once again the mind numbingly obvious question is why does this ideal not consistently encouraged by ‘god’ prior to the arrival of Jesus?

Why would an infinite source of love and justice “some cases making allowances for [such things] for the time being”, when “such things” include genocide and nailing your sister?

And if ‘god’ (or its representation through the Bible, which naturally it can control, seeing as it is all powerful) is not consistent how can it’s proclamations be trusted? You wouldn’t trust a judge who issued wildly differing verdicts for similar crimes would you?

There are other things in there which were about avoiding specific pagan practices of the peoples around Israel, keeping Israel culturally distinct, and there was the sacrificial system. Oh, and it also functioned as the law of the land for the nation of Israel, and was more progressive than the laws of most/all of the other peoples Israel would have had any contact with.

Yes but again this is a strawman – “more progressive” is not a concept that has any relevance in terms of an omnipotent force. Why should an all powerful being update its own mandate (except to get the middle class vote, eh Tony?)? Is It changing its mind? If so it can’t be all knowing and all seeing because if it was it would have got sh*t right the first time. And so again it’s proclamations cannot be trusted.

The fact that it was the law of Israel, that it kept Israel culturally distinct (strange how god can’t spread it’s message all across the globe at the same time despite being all powerful isn’t it? Oh, ok, given all the other evidence it actually isn’t that strange) and that there was a sacrificial system (a statement which I note comes with no justification whatsoever attached) in no way serve to justify or mitigate the point that god’s message over time (according to the Bible) is both inconsistent and at times f*cking brutal.

You might as well have written, and also in that time there were some goats and a nice house with a south facing garden and children played games so there.

also, you haven't answered what 'letting the Bible interpret itself' actually means, although if its 'choose to read whatever suits me' you appear to be spot on.
Letting the Bible interpret itself isn't "choose to read whatever suits me". If one passage in the Bible expounds on the meaning of another passage in the Bible, then you take the Bible's interpretation of itself as (at least part of) the message of the earlier passage.

So, simply, once again god is incapable of getting his message right in one go, despite the fact he is all powerful etc etc.

So letting the Bible interpret itself actually means that it is subject to revision at a later time, which means if it so desire god can send someone else along to modify it whenever it fancies it.

Which means, again, best to play it a bit cool on the “placing all your faith in its creed” front.

It's quite a simple concept which I thought had been conveyed by the term.

Yes, the turn of phrase ‘let the Bible interpret itself’ is in no way nebulous at all… Its also blindingly self evident that what you believe (or at least what you believe about the aspects mentioned above) is about as watertight as an old man’s bladder (got to love that ageing process that the infinite source of love and justice has blessed us with) but that doesn’t stop you from not spotting it.

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 12:03 pm

Best First wrote:I’m assuming you type all this with a straight face, but I’m not entirely sure how (unless you are in fact one of Em Vee'’s Alt id’s)

He's not, but Yaya is.

The Bible (like the Koran, and most other 'holy' books) contains a lot of nasty **** and I'm certainly not putting an ounce of faith in a book that condones genocide, murder, rape, incest and all the other fun stuff God used to encourage his people to do.

Bouncelot, it sounds like you're in some kind of cult. I've read all of your posts with Karl in the other thread and I'm still having trouble how you manage to believe the things you do without acknowledging their inherent inconsistencies. Oh right, you have faith.

Bouncelot · Post by **Bouncelot** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 8:24 pm

Best First wrote:You say Mosiac law wasn’t condoning the ‘nasty stuff’ (although exceptions like, hmm, conquering nations (that just happen to be nearby, so convenient) are ok by you), but how can the notion of ‘not condoning nasty stuff’ apply to, to pluck a few:

- Handicapped people could not approach god. Their presence would profane his sanctuary. (Lev 21:16-23)

It's actually the case in the Mosaic Law that only the High Priest (and Moses) could actually approach God. And in the High Priest's case only once a year. This law prohibits the high priest from being somebody with physical imperfections because the high priest had to be a symbol of purity. It's a purely ceremonial law, and hardly something nasty.

- Menstruating women and everything they touch are unclean. (Lev 15:19-30)

Being unclean in the Mosaic Law was really a ritualistic thing, and certainly not an indication of status. I'm not sure why you consider this to be God ordering nasty stuff.

- Homosexual men were to be executed. (Lev 20:13)

Well, I could point out some conceptual stuff about the severity of sin, or I could go with the interpretation that claims the specific practise being referred to being male prostitution as part of pagan worship. But I think for the moment I'll stick with pointing out that it's the practise (whether all same-sex sex or ritualised forms of it) rather than sexual orientation that's being got at.

- False prophets are to be killed by their own parents. (Zech 13:3)

Hm, quoted slightly out of context there. Here's what Zechariah 13:3 actually says:

2 "On that day, I will banish the names of the idols from the land, and they will be remembered no more," declares the LORD Almighty. "I will remove both the prophets and the spirit of impurity from the land. 3 And if anyone still prophesies, his father and mother, to whom he was born, will say to him, 'You must die, because you have told lies in the LORD's name.' When he prophesies, his own parents will stab him.

4 "On that day every prophet will be ashamed of his prophetic vision. He will not put on a prophet's garment of hair in order to deceive. 5 He will say, 'I am not a prophet. I am a farmer; the land has been my livelihood since my youth. [a] ' 6 If someone asks him, 'What are these wounds on your body ?' he will answer, 'The wounds I was given at the house of my friends.'

That's not a command to kill your children if they are false prophets. It's prophesying a time when false prophets won't be tolerated at all by society.

- Stubborn children were to be stoned, and the stoning was to be instigated by their parents. (Duet 21:18-21)

You mean this passage?

18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

I doubt that the description "a profligate and a drunkard" is likely to apply to children. The case being presented appears to be a grown-up son who is seriously wayward and who refuses time and time again to listen to his parents warnings. And bringing someone to the elders at the gate of the town is the ancient equivalent of bringing somebody to court. So the passage is applying due legal process - and giving the man a chance to defend himself - in a situation which might well have escalated to murder (along the lines of the honour killings in some Muslim communities) without it.

How can any of this (and as stated these are a few examples), in any way be considered to not be condoning nasty stuff? The answer, in case you are struggling is: it can’t.

Well unless you're saying that the death sentence is inherently "nasty stuff" actually I don't agree.

And lets not forget of course that this is the same god that murdered (that’s murdered) more or less every living thing on the planet having decided he didn’t like how they were acting. Despite the fact it is omnipotent and so must have known how they were going to act when it created them, because if it isn’t all powerful then its judgement can’t be trusted.

So you're saying that God knowing something is going to happen means that He can't hold people responsible for the choices they make and judge them on the basis of those choices?

Something also borne out by the fact that the man it picked to carry the lineage of man through the flood decided to celebrate his survival by inventing wine and getting pissed and naked, before cursing his grandson because his dad spotted Granddaddy nekkid.

Hm, so you're saying that because the person God used in one circumstance was flawed and imperfect (despite living in an age when everybody around him was far far worse), that's somehow a reflection on God?

Also good that the message there seems to be that we should be ashamed if our bodies (the one’s god created)

Look at the context of the book of Genesis, and you'll see that being ashamed of nakedness was something that happened after the fall. It's a result of human sin impacting the universe. I'm not sure that the context backs up your point.

Of course, turn the other cheek is a laudable goal and arguably the best and most morally virtuous way to terminate the possibility of long running feuds and disputes. However if this is god’s ideal, once again the mind numbingly obvious question is why does this ideal not consistently encouraged by ‘god’ prior to the arrival of Jesus?

Look at the Mosaic Law and it's as much a law of the land as it is a moral law. Which is why the limitation in that context was "eye for an eye". The Old Testament consistently expounds on the Mosaic Law in a way that widens it to apply to heart attitudes rather than merely external attitudes. In addition, the Bible portrays living God's ideal to the full as impossible without the power of the Holy Spirit, who was only "freely available" after Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension to heaven.

Why would an infinite source of love and justice “some cases making allowances for [such things] for the time being”, when “such things” include genocide and nailing your sister?

In the case of genocide, the Bible portrays the conquest of the promised land as being God's judgement on the people living there for their sins. And yes, the idea is unpalatable to a 21st Century Western Worldview, and no I don't completely get it, although many of the practices these religions were into were truly truly evil. In the case of incest, well I guess you're referring to Abraham being married to his half-sister Sarah. They were already married before God called Abraham, so it's a case of God taking a situation that is not good, but turning that situation into something that is good.

And if ‘god’ (or its representation through the Bible, which naturally it can control, seeing as it is all powerful) is not consistent how can it’s proclamations be trusted? You wouldn’t trust a judge who issued wildly differing verdicts for similar crimes would you?

Cite a real inconsistency, please. And I wouldn't judge a judge on his verdicts except in exceptional circumstances, because he almost always knows an awful lot more about the specific circumstances of the crime than I do.

There are other things in there which were about avoiding specific pagan practices of the peoples around Israel, keeping Israel culturally distinct, and there was the sacrificial system. Oh, and it also functioned as the law of the land for the nation of Israel, and was more progressive than the laws of most/all of the other peoples Israel would have had any contact with.

Yes but again this is a strawman – “more progressive” is not a concept that has any relevance in terms of an omnipotent force. Why should an all powerful being update its own mandate (except to get the middle class vote, eh Tony?)? Is It changing its mind? If so it can’t be all knowing and all seeing because if it was it would have got sh*t right the first time. And so again it’s proclamations cannot be trusted.

If you imposed a system that was too far beyond the culture of the time you imposed it, then there is no way it would be even remotely workable. In the time and place in which the Mosaic Law applied, life was very different to what it is like today. The law had to be shaped to a point where it could work in a bronze age agricultural society and, as such, has to be vastly different from the standards we apply today in a 21st Century computerised society. It is inevitable that we would consider ourselves to have moved on from the sorts of laws that could actually have been made to work in the context the Mosaic Law was intended for.

The fact that it was the law of Israel, that it kept Israel culturally distinct (strange how god can’t spread it’s message all across the globe at the same time despite being all powerful isn’t it? Oh, ok, given all the other evidence it actually isn’t that strange) and that there was a sacrificial system (a statement which I note comes with no justification whatsoever attached) in no way serve to justify or mitigate the point that god’s message over time (according to the Bible) is both inconsistent and at times f*cking brutal.

Well, at that point in time, the overall Biblical plan was that God was gradually shaping Israelite society so that it would be ready for the eventual coming of Jesus and, along the way, produce the Old Testament which would be useful in understanding the coming of Jesus. So the point wasn't to spread the message worldwide. I'm not sure what your problem is with the sacrificial system. If you would spell it out, I might be able to explain it for you. But given what I've said about how the message was put in a way to be relevant to the time and place in which any given portion of it was delivered, I don't see that it's inconsistent.

also, you haven't answered what 'letting the Bible interpret itself' actually means, although if its 'choose to read whatever suits me' you appear to be spot on.

Letting the Bible interpret itself isn't "choose to read whatever suits me". If one passage in the Bible expounds on the meaning of another passage in the Bible, then you take the Bible's interpretation of itself as (at least part of) the message of the earlier passage.

So, simply, once again god is incapable of getting his message right in one go, despite the fact he is all powerful etc etc.

So letting the Bible interpret itself actually means that it is subject to revision at a later time, which means if it so desire god can send someone else along to modify it whenever it fancies it.

Which means, again, best to play it a bit cool on the “placing all your faith in its creed” front.

No. Just because it is explained in more detail doesn't mean that God failed to get the message across at the time. Yes, there are things that are hinted at, but not fully revealed until later, and passages which have a double meaning - the second part of which wasn't made clear until later. But that doesn't mean that God failed to get the message across first time. It may, however, mean that something that was clear in the original historical and cultural context is not so clear in somebody else's historical and cultural context.

It's quite a simple concept which I thought had been conveyed by the term.

Yes, the turn of phrase ‘let the Bible interpret itself’ is in no way nebulous at all… Its also blindingly self evident that what you believe (or at least what you believe about the aspects mentioned above) is about as watertight as an old man’s bladder (got to love that ageing process that the infinite source of love and justice has blessed us with) but that doesn’t stop you from not spotting it.

So you're saying that by taking the Bible's interpretation of itself I'm picking and choosing the things that I like, rather than taking the Bible's message as a whole?

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 8:38 pm

what if I tell you a 'good message' - do you still need to belive in agod thing?

Be good to each other.

there we go, now we can get rid of religion. no?

Shanti418 · Post by **Shanti418** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:58 pm

Geez, this religion talk is like a virus right now....

I can't honestly believe that ALL of the indeed nasty stuff like bigotry and murder in the Bible can be explained out when 400 years ago, the Church endorsed slavery, people were excuted for being homosexuals (people were excuted for being WITCHES, for God's sake).
The point is, the Bible has some GOOD underlying principles for living, but if you look at the parables and stories, they are products of its time.

Post by **Best First** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:21 pm

[quote="Shanti418"

I can't honestly believe that ALL of the indeed nasty stuff like bigotry and murder in the Bible can be explained[/quote]

yeah, but i'm sure Bouncey can.

its all fine you see, because it suits him to believe it, so its all great.

more tomorrow when i'm not so incensed by the perverse crap i have read...

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 2:46 am

Bouncelot wrote:It's actually the case in the Mosaic Law that only the High Priest (and Moses) could actually approach God. And in the High Priest's case only once a year. This law prohibits the high priest from being somebody with physical imperfections because the high priest had to be a symbol of purity. It's a purely ceremonial law, and hardly something nasty.

And not discriminatition, then. Only someone "perfect" could be the high priest? Sounds like racial purity to me.

Bouncelot wrote:Being unclean in the Mosaic Law was really a ritualistic thing, and certainly not an indication of status. I'm not sure why you consider this to be God ordering nasty stuff.

Nasty stuff like discrimination? Get away, unclean woman! How dare you have a natural biological cycle! God finds that offensive!

Bouncelot wrote:Well, I could point out some conceptual stuff about the severity of sin, or I could go with the interpretation that claims the specific practise being referred to being male prostitution as part of pagan worship.

Please do, I'd be interested to hear how you justify killing a gay man who worships a different 'God' to you. Or indeed, how being gay is any more 'severe' than, say, murder.

Bouncelot wrote:But I think for the moment I'll stick with pointing out that it's the practise (whether all same-sex sex or ritualised forms of it) rather than sexual orientation that's being got at.

So it's okay to be gay as long as you're celibate?

Of course, why didn't we think of that before?

Bouncelot wrote:That's not a command to kill your children if they are false prophets. It's prophesying a time when false prophets won't be tolerated at all by society.

Are you sure? Or is it a time when the religious and their bigoted opinions won't be tolerated by society? It could be read a number of ways

Bouncelot wrote:I doubt that the description "a profligate and a drunkard" is likely to apply to children.

You should see the ****ing kids who hang around my garden.

Bouncelot wrote:The case being presented appears to be a grown-up son who is seriously wayward and who refuses time and time again to listen to his parents warnings. And bringing someone to the elders at the gate of the town is the ancient equivalent of bringing somebody to court. So the passage is applying due legal process - and giving the man a chance to defend himself - in a situation which might well have escalated to murder (along the lines of the honour killings in some Muslim communities) without it.

So if your son drinks too much, kill him? Nice.

Bouncelot wrote:Well unless you're saying that the death sentence is inherently "nasty stuff" actually I don't agree.

Except that, as I've pointed out a number of times, the Bible condones genocide, murder and incest. And yes, I think the death penalty is abhorrent as well.

Bouncelot wrote:
And lets not forget of course that this is the same god that murdered (that’s murdered) more or less every living thing on the planet having decided he didn’t like how they were acting. Despite the fact it is omnipotent and so must have known how they were going to act when it created them, because if it isn’t all powerful then its judgement can’t be trusted.
So you're saying that God knowing something is going to happen means that He can't hold people responsible for the choices they make and judge them on the basis of those choices?

It does kind of bring into question the whole point of the exercise. Also I'd question whether the antidiluvians were getting up to stuff half as bad as, say, Auschwitz or Nagasaki. Or cluster bombs, land mines, electric shocks to the genitals, factory-farming or Disney. What do you have to do to get 'God' to react these days?

Bouncelot wrote:Hm, so you're saying that because the person God used in one circumstance was flawed and imperfect (despite living in an age when everybody around him was far far worse), that's somehow a reflection on God?

Well, yes. If 'God' is all that you say he is, surely he could have found (or created) someone better. We don't know that everyone else was far worse, we only know that the Bible says that. The Bible is hardly impartial, it says that 'God' himself told Moses to slaughter whole nations of people.

Bouncelot wrote:It's a result of human sin impacting the universe.

This is awesome, and the one time that I'm sorry that I stole Besty's reply on this, because I think this is the best sentence I've ever read.

Incidentally I'm not ashamed of my nakedness. PM me for pics

Bouncelot wrote:In the case of genocide, the Bible portrays the conquest of the promised land as being God's judgement on the people living there for their sins.

And not, for example, the history of a people living in the middle east who conquered everyone else and then used 'God' to justify it?

Bouncelot wrote:And yes, the idea is unpalatable to a 21st Century Western Worldview, and no I don't completely get it, although many of the practices these religions were into were truly truly evil.

Source please? All I can find in the Bible is that they worshipped Ba'al and some of their women slept with Israelite men. Hardly "truly truly evil" by any standards.

Bouncelot wrote:In the case of incest, well I guess you're referring to Abraham being married to his half-sister Sarah. They were already married before God called Abraham, so it's a case of God taking a situation that is not good, but turning that situation into something that is good.

Retcon. The dude who shagged his sister got to be leader of the tribe. He said later, 'God' did it.

Bouncelot wrote:Cite a real inconsistency, please. And I wouldn't judge a judge on his verdicts except in exceptional circumstances, because he almost always knows an awful lot more about the specific circumstances of the crime than I do.

Well, how about the example of Onan, who had a wank and was then killed by God? On that reasoning I should have been killed by God about 4 times a day, on average, for the past 15 years.

Bouncelot wrote:If you imposed a system that was too far beyond the culture of the time you imposed it, then there is no way it would be even remotely workable. In the time and place in which the Mosaic Law applied, life was very different to what it is like today. The law had to be shaped to a point where it could work in a bronze age agricultural society and, as such, has to be vastly different from the standards we apply today in a 21st Century computerised society. It is inevitable that we would consider ourselves to have moved on from the sorts of laws that could actually have been made to work in the context the Mosaic Law was intended for.

Or indeed, we might have moved on from believing the primitive superstitions in a book that was written 2000 years ago. You said it yourself, we've moved on. Except you haven't.

Bouncelot wrote:Well, at that point in time, the overall Biblical plan was that God was gradually shaping Israelite society so that it would be ready for the eventual coming of Jesus and, along the way, produce the Old Testament which would be useful in understanding the coming of Jesus.

Retcon. Retcon. Retcon.

Probably the first and the biggest retcon of all time.

Bouncelot wrote:No. Just because it is explained in more detail doesn't mean that God failed to get the message across at the time. Yes, there are things that are hinted at, but not fully revealed until later, and passages which have a double meaning - the second part of which wasn't made clear until later. But that doesn't mean that God failed to get the message across first time. It may, however, mean that something that was clear in the original historical and cultural context is not so clear in somebody else's historical and cultural context.

Hmmm. You'd think that when 'He' manifested himself on Earth, 'He' might have done something about all that confusion. Like write the ****ing book himself, or something.

Bouncelot wrote:So you're saying that by taking the Bible's interpretation of itself I'm picking and choosing the things that I like, rather than taking the Bible's message as a whole?

Um, yes. You've already said that what's not clear in one historical and cultural context may not be clear in another, so how can your interpretation possibly be correct unless you're filtering it through your own perceptions and experiences. You'll naturally gel with the bits you like and ignore the bits that don't make sense to you - you already said there are bits you don't get, so the bits you do associate with are the bits you've cherry-picked to believe in. You don't believe the Bible encourages genocide, despite the fact that there are several passages that do.

Like I said before, I think you're in some sort of cult. It sounds like they're looking after you, which is good, but on the whole I think you'd be better spending some time in the real world.

Post by **Best First** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 1:25 pm

saves me teh effort...

although i can't quite et over this notion of an all powerful god who is constrained by historical context and the like.

its almost as if its not all powerful at all...

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 2:17 pm

Best First wrote:saves me teh effort...

Do I get a deputy's star or something?

Best First wrote:although i can't quite et over this notion of an all powerful god who is constrained by historical context and the like.

its almost as if its not all powerful at all...

Or that he's not actually real, and people just make up a load of stuff that sounds good at the time?

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 2:45 pm

there are so many flaws - endless dilemas that dont add up, and whenever they are brough up the old 'make of it what you ill answer arises' - its flawed for one very good reason the bible.

Man wrote it - not 'God' he hasnt actually interacted, ever.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 4:44 pm

For the sheer number of times The Bible says God has personally interviened in the affairs of man, you'd think I wouldn't be able to get away with this.

[composite word including 'f*ck'] you, God! You're nothing! You're less than nothing! At best, a cruel and calculating near-do-well who created the entire universe and the rules that govern it while completely failing your most sentient creations! At worst, your'e a myth, a figment, a lie, or an excuse. You're that little twinge in the back of someone's mind that tells them that there's a reason to do the unquestionably hurtful thing they're considering at the moment. You are a spiteful, incompetent, non-existant failure who is truly worshipped by the stupid, easily led, bigoted, and conventionally evil masses who seek nothing more than to be told that all their hate, malice, war, destruction, and utter contempt for their fellow man is what some great, infallible higher power not only wants, but commands of them! In your name...no...in your title, people find the excuses they need to take away the pleasures, rights, and lives of those who would use such things to impune upon their own. You have been the basis for millenia of discrimination against every group that could possibly be seperated from another. The harm that has sprung from you is more penetrating than a sword, more random than a stray bullet, more invasive than cancer, more destructive than the atomic bomb, and harder to stop than AIDS. [composite word including 'f*ck'] you, God! For all people have done in your name, [composite word including 'f*ck'] you!

Shanti418 · Post by **Shanti418** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:10 pm

And God still loves you and will forgive you, Pookie! Come to the Light!

Come down from that crow's nest, Lieutenant Dan!

Bouncelot · Post by **Bouncelot** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:16 pm

Metal Vendetta wrote:And not discriminatition, then. Only someone "perfect" could be the high priest? Sounds like racial purity to me.

Only somebody who would be seen as symbolic of perfection. It's hardly racial purity to have one job in the entire country like that.

Nasty stuff like discrimination? Get away, unclean woman! How dare you have a natural biological cycle! God finds that offensive!

Which isn't how it's intended at all. There's a fair chance that in that society it would have been as much a hygiene thing as much as anything else/

Please do, I'd be interested to hear how you justify killing a gay man who worships a different 'God' to you. Or indeed, how being gay is any more 'severe' than, say, murder.

Neither of which is something I was advocating. Firstly, however you take it, that commandment doesn't refer to "gay men", but to engaging in a particular activity. Secondly, the rule would appear to only apply to the community of Israel, somebody who is supposedly committed to serving God but, if the "pagan practice" interpretation is correct is moonlighting with another god. I can at least understand it in that context. As for the severity thing, I don't consider any one type of sin to be more severe than another.

So it's okay to be gay as long as you're celibate? Of course, why didn't we think of that before?

Well, why not?

Are you sure? Or is it a time when the religious and their bigoted opinions won't be tolerated by society? It could be read a number of ways

Given that it's referring specifically to the false prophets of the day, I think your alternative explanation is far less likely.

You should see the ****ing kids who hang around my garden.

A product of a culture that's radically different to the one in which that law was given. In that society children were much more respectful of their parents and much less likely to have the opportunity to pursue such a lifestyle.

So if your son drinks too much, kill him? Nice.

Twist what I said until it fits your preconceptions? Nice.

Except that, as I've pointed out a number of times, the Bible condones genocide, murder and incest. And yes, I think the death penalty is abhorrent as well.

Um, sorry, but I missed that. I've dealt with the genocide bit, but precisely where were you claiming that the Bible condones murder or incest?

It does kind of bring into question the whole point of the exercise. Also I'd question whether the antidiluvians were getting up to stuff half as bad as, say, Auschwitz or Nagasaki. Or cluster bombs, land mines, electric shocks to the genitals, factory-farming or Disney. What do you have to do to get 'God' to react these days?

Disney on the same level as Auschwitz?

After the flood, God said that He wouldn't do the same kind of thing again, though the way it's described gives the impression that they were as close to that level of nastiness as their technology allowed.

Well, yes. If 'God' is all that you say he is, surely he could have found (or created) someone better. We don't know that everyone else was far worse, we only know that the Bible says that. The Bible is hardly impartial, it says that 'God' himself told Moses to slaughter whole nations of people.

Well, if you're going to say that the Bible is lying about why God chose somebody for a particular task, you might as well forget the idea of any kind of discussion about what the God of the Bible is like. If you look at any example of a Biblical hero, you can always spot flaws and say "God could have chosen or created someone better suited for the task". That's probably the whole point, actually.

Bouncelot wrote:In the case of genocide, the Bible portrays the conquest of the promised land as being God's judgement on the people living there for their sins.
And not, for example, the history of a people living in the middle east who conquered everyone else and then used 'God' to justify it?

That's not what the Bible portrays.

Bouncelot wrote:And yes, the idea is unpalatable to a 21st Century Western Worldview, and no I don't completely get it, although many of the practices these religions were into were truly truly evil.
Source please? All I can find in the Bible is that they worshipped Ba'al and some of their women slept with Israelite men. Hardly "truly truly evil" by any standards.

You missed the bits about worship of Molech involving child sacrifice, then? These were not nice fluffy religions.

In the case of incest, well I guess you're referring to Abraham being married to his half-sister Sarah. They were already married before God called Abraham, so it's a case of God taking a situation that is not good, but turning that situation into something that is good.
Retcon. The dude who shagged his sister got to be leader of the tribe. He said later, 'God' did it.

Nice retcon of yours there. Pity it doesn't work. Abraham left his tribe (actually city) with his wife at which point God hadn't called him to anything. He never actually obtained a tribe.

Well, how about the example of Onan, who had a wank and was then killed by God? On that reasoning I should have been killed by God about 4 times a day, on average, for the past 15 years.

Somebody really hasn't read the passage he's talking about. Because if you had, you'd know that it says nothing of the sort.

Or indeed, we might have moved on from believing the primitive superstitions in a book that was written 2000 years ago. You said it yourself, we've moved on. Except you haven't.

I actually said that we think we've moved on. Society is very different to what it was then. What worked then wouldn't work now. That doesn't necessarily mean that our way of life or our worldview is any better.

No. Just because it is explained in more detail doesn't mean that God failed to get the message across at the time. Yes, there are things that are hinted at, but not fully revealed until later, and passages which have a double meaning - the second part of which wasn't made clear until later. But that doesn't mean that God failed to get the message across first time. It may, however, mean that something that was clear in the original historical and cultural context is not so clear in somebody else's historical and cultural context.
Hmmm. You'd think that when 'He' manifested himself on Earth, 'He' might have done something about all that confusion. Like write the ****ing book himself, or something.

You get as much confusion over the Koran - which claims to be God doing just that. Any substantial revelation given within history will inevitably have aspects which are not so obvious when related to a different culture in a different time to that in which the original revelation was given.

Um, yes. You've already said that what's not clear in one historical and cultural context may not be clear in another, so how can your interpretation possibly be correct unless you're filtering it through your own perceptions and experiences. You'll naturally gel with the bits you like and ignore the bits that don't make sense to you - you already said there are bits you don't get, so the bits you do associate with are the bits you've cherry-picked to believe in. You don't believe the Bible encourages genocide, despite the fact that there are several passages that do.

I make a fair bit of effort to understand the historical and cultural context of the Bible. But taking the Bible's commentary of itself as an interpretation of those parts does not equate to picking and choosing the bits I like. And my point about genocide is that the only passages which talk about genocide in a positive light are very specific - this is divine judgement on this particular group of people. There is no remit within the text (especially when looked at in the historical context) for genocide outside the context of peoples who no longer exist. And even then there was provision for people from those groups to be saved from it.