Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

The UNholiness of the Bible


Ssel

Recommended Posts

Maybe it’s time to show you my other side and some of the logical things that you have been leaving out of your threads.

 

I will merely assert for now that the word “Holy” means to be 100% complete in consideration of all things (why would an all knowing God do anything else). This assertion is not a requirement for the following discussion, but keeping it in mind will help see the points being made.

 

There are very many statements in the Bible that can hardly be assessed as “Holy”. I will begin with only the following one.

 

1) “Thou shall not kill”

Everyone is familiar with this commandment. Have you ever considered the holiness of it? Initially it appears to be saying simply that a person shall not kill anything period. But then it becomes clear that merely eating requires killing, not to mention the variety of commanded sacrifices. Thus one is led to the assumption that it really meant to not kill people. That seems a reasonably safe amendment to the commandment.

 

”Thou shall not kill people”

 

But what about in self defense? The Jewish population could easily see that if they do not defend themselves from attack, then they would perish in entirety. Thus they accepted that it really meant;

 

”Thou shall not kill people except in self-defense”

 

But this, then leads to 2 questions. At what point is a threat sufficient to declare that killing is required as self-defense? Also, the Jewish state realized that it was the organization that maintained a great deal of the life support to their people, thus any threat to the organization constituted a threat to the people. Thus at some point “self-defense” becomes an issue of defending the state.

 

This concern then leads to the question of assessing which acts are sufficient to warrant protecting the state by means of killing. And more importantly who determines this situation? The commandment becomes;

 

”Thou shall not kill people except when it is judged (by people to be assigned by people) that yourself or your nation is in need of defense by killing.”

 

But now, how do the people determine when killing is a better option to other possible plans? Were other things tried? Should they be and to what extent? Again people must amend the commandment such as to allow for other options to be considered before a person is deemed threatening enough to kill.

 

”Thou shall not kill people except when it is judged (by people to be assigned by people) that yourself or your nation is in probable need of defense by killing.”

 

But “need of killing” versus what other options? Who assesses the probability? If it is taken that killing is the highest priority concern, then;

 

”Thou shall not kill people except when it is judged (by people to be assigned by people) that yourself or your nation is in probable need (assessed by the people at hand) of defense by killing because all other options have been exhausted.”

 

Well, okay, but then exhausted to what degree? Must a person thoroughly search through every other possible combination of actions and try them before he comes to the conclusion that killing is the only option left? We get to;

 

”Thou shall not kill people except when it is judged (by people to be assigned by people) that yourself or your nation is in probable need (assessed by the people at hand) of defense by killing because all other options have been reasonably exhausted.”

 

But what determines “reasonably”? What one person is capable of doing in a limited amount of time is different than another. What a nation can or can not do is a very sophisticated issue to consider just as it is facing an on coming attack or a rising rebellion or even a single criminal. We are led to;

 

”Thou shall not kill people except when it is judged (by people to be assigned by people) that yourself or your nation is in probable need (assessed by the people at hand) of defense by killing because all other options have been reasonably exhausted as well as the people at hand had time and knowledge to do.”

 

But then we have still left out the concern of direct versus indirect cause. Did the man kill or was it the bullet? At what stage do we decide that a death was too indirectly caused by someone’s actions to convict them of killing?

 

We convict anyone who pays another to kill. We seldom convict someone who simply inspires another to kill using other means of trickery or pressure. So how should a holy law be written to cover this?

 

”Thou shall not kill people directly or reasonably indirectly (to be assessed by the people at hand) except when it is judged (by people to be assigned by people) that yourself or your nation is in probable direct or reasonably indirect (to be assessed by the people at hand) need (assessed by the people at hand) of defense by killing because all other options have been reasonably exhausted as well as the people at hand had time and knowledge to assess.”

 

But we’re still not done. What if one of the other options requires that another commandment be broken? Which commandment is really to be higher?

 

”Thou shall not kill people directly or reasonably indirectly (to be assessed by the people at hand) except when it is judged (by people to be assigned by people) that yourself or your nation is in probable direct or reasonably indirect (to be assessed by the people at hand) need (assessed by the people at hand) of defense by killing because all other options have been reasonably exhausted as well as the people at hand had time and knowledge to assess unless disobeying a higher priority (assessed by people assigned by people) commandment is the only remaining choice as determined by the people at hand within the time available by the situation and the knowledge they possess or unless a greater killing (to be assessed the people at hand) is the only other option available as assessed by the people at hand within the time and knowledge available.”

 

 

At this stage you see exactly what goes on in a courtroom during the final judgment stage of a murder trial. But how much of this perfect holy commandment is dependant on human error?

 

People are doing the assessment of threat

People are doing the assessment of which people will be doing the assessments

People are doing the assessments of probability

People are doing the assessments of other potential options at hand

People are doing the assessments of what constitutes “reasonably exhausted”

People are doing the assessment of reasonably indirect

People are doing the assessment of priority

People are doing the assessment of time available

People are doing the determination of the knowledge they possess

 

 

 

Where did the idea that a person should get stoned to death for breaking a law come from? – People.

 

In essence, the God of reality altered this Holy commandment of the Jewish God into;

 

“Thou shall not kill unless by accident or when you decide to.”

 

-----.

 

The more orthodox Christian groups took a simpler stance on that commandment. They decided that a priest shall not kill even in self defense. That certainly makes the decision making easier. But does it really solve the issue?

 

Anytime a large organization makes a decision which affects many people they, in effect, alter one scenario of death to a different one. Deaths were going to occur as time went on anyway, but when a significant group makes a change in society, they alter who it is that ends up dying, when, and how. The group has killed some and perhaps saved some.

 

-----.

 

This is only one “Holy Commandment” that had to get greatly amended so as to be functional and ended up being merely an issue of people deciding when to kill others anyway. How many other laws in the OT and the NT end up in the same UNHOLY state out of simple need.

 

For a law to be truly "Holy" is must be ALWAYS applicable.

 

It might be temping to say that a truly holy law can not be stated. They can be, but can you find even one in the Bible? I bet I can show the unholiness of any law you find in it.

 

-----.

 

But then again, can you write a holy law? -- It CAN be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 279
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Ssel

    64

  • NotBlinded

    32

  • SkepticOfBible

    32

  • Antlerman

    31

Fuckin'A Ssel, let us simplify this shit rather quickly.

 

In a *real world* situation, Bad Actor(s) come to remove your life, property, or attempt to destroy your house, then they are stopped by whatever force is needed, you win.

 

In our unfortunate turn of legal shitte, winning at the lottery of dirtbagdom also may bring down the legal system all over your head and pocketbook, however an archaic book of sand dieties rules doesn't mean shit.

 

"He who assess best, draws first, wins."

 

Holy Writ according to daFatman. Learn it, live it, win with it.

 

I dare the sand diety to try and outdraw me in the "el Presidente"..

 

k, IDPA, IPSC Class C, L

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a *real world* situation, Bad Actor(s) come to remove your life, property, or attempt to destroy your house, then they are stopped by whatever force is needed, you win.
I have to say, nivek, that out of all the people I have ever seen online, you seriously express the true original spirit of America from the getgo.

 

Maybe you should concider the position;

 

nivek - posterboy for the original American spirit.

 

:grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a *real world* situation, Bad Actor(s) come to remove your life, property, or attempt to destroy your house, then they are stopped by whatever force is needed, you win.
I have to say, nivek, that out of all the people I have ever seen online, you seriously express the true original spirit of America from the getgo.

 

Maybe you should concider the position;

 

nivek - posterboy for the original American spirit.

 

:grin:

 

Not me amigo. I'll be dead and gone a long time before any of the things I espouse are needed.

Amerika far too fat and happy to get off her collective asses and make a difference.

Freedom takes too damn much work for most folken to give a shit about the spirit, the drive that made this country good and once great.

 

Best I can do is infect others with a desire to live free of daMan and the System that holds our lives in its cold careless craw.

 

It starts with one man or woman standing up and making whatever difference can be done.

 

Rosa Parks did as much sitting down as MLK did standing up.. One little ole lady in a sea of foamy shit..

 

We all need to address the things we can change, even it is *just a little injustice* or problem.

 

Consider like a computer system malfunction. We don't often just replace the whole box, but troubleshoot the problem, and in return fix the necessary. Restoration could be as easy as replacing the whole thing, but I don't know that Amerika could survive as a unified body politic.

 

I wish more folks gave a damn Ssel. Politics sucks, its a zero-sum game in which the pie is cut into smaller chunks until we need to make another.

 

In todays society, I fear *taking*, murder and theft is far too rampant.. Laws exist against those actions in plethoric amounts.. But, and big B but, those who don't care on both side of legal system ignore and abuse those of we in the middle.

 

If I leave a legacy, it will be a son who is knowlegable and physically strong, able to take on the task of being the next generation of Freemen, those who won't be ruled by a majority of the herdlings..

 

kL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Best I can do is infect others with a desire to live free of daMan and the System that holds our lives in its cold careless craw...

 

I wish more folks gave a damn Ssel. Politics sucks, its a zero-sum game in which the pie is cut into smaller chunks until we need to make another.

Other than the grammer, you sound a lot I did years ago. :grin:

 

I changed my tune a bit when I discovered that there really IS a fix. Just getting it into a gear is a serious challenge, probably never to be in my hands. But it will happen anyway.

 

----

 

Now that I think about it, what you wrote there comes pretty close to the first truly "holy" law for all things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard a discussion once about how the original verse actually read "Thou shalt not kill unnecassarily", but at a later date it was considered far too open for abuse. Who states what is necassary? It was then decided that there was never a valid reason to kill and therefore a simplified "Thou shalt not kill" was written. Of course this went against a large part of the OT which talked about israel and its wars, slaughtering the unbelievers and getting support from God. Or of God himself who often killed and was often doing so unnecassarily (eg the poor guy who reached out to steady the Ark of the covenent and was struck dead by God).

The discussion then moved onto talking about the blood thristy God of the OT, and the love thy neighbour teachings of Christ in the NT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of the NT, without all of the “God is just a myth” bit, given that God is actually real, it’s a lot easier to find unholy “holy laws” in the OT than the NT, but there should be something glaringly obvious missing in this law;

 

“Love thy God with all thy heart, mind, and soul.”

 

…what is missing that prevents this law from being ALWAYS applicable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of the NT, without all of the “God is just a myth” bit, given that God is actually real, it’s a lot easier to find unholy “holy laws” in the OT than the NT, but there should be something glaringly obvious missing in this law;

 

“Love thy God with all thy heart, mind, and soul.”

 

…what is missing that prevents this law from being ALWAYS applicable?

 

Umm, the *god* part?

 

kL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, it has been awhile since I "studied up" on this particular portion of the OT, but from my understanding the most accurate translation for this is "Thou shalt not MURDER."

 

Murder...different word with a different meaning and connotations...

 

I dunno if it makes a difference in the end, but something to chew on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, it has been awhile since I "studied up" on this particular portion of the OT, but from my understanding the most accurate translation for this is "Thou shalt not MURDER."

 

Murder...different word with a different meaning and connotations...

 

I dunno if it makes a difference in the end, but something to chew on.

 

I don't think it really makes a difference. Murder is just defined as a sub-type of killing, which is defined by the context in which the killing was done.

We as humans construct the meaning of Murder as a particular type of killing, so its still based on the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

…what is missing that prevents this law from being ALWAYS applicable?

 

The fact that you can't "dictate" to people whom to love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it’s time to show you my other side and some of the logical things that you have been leaving out of your threads.

 

I will merely assert for now that the word “Holy” means to be 100% complete in consideration of all things (why would an all knowing God do anything else). This assertion is not a requirement for the following discussion, but keeping it in mind will help see the points being made.

 

There are very many statements in the Bible that can hardly be assessed as “Holy”. I will begin with only the following one.

 

1) “Thou shall not kill”

Everyone is familiar with this commandment. Have you ever considered the holiness of it? Initially it appears to be saying simply that a person shall not kill anything period. But then it becomes clear that merely eating requires killing, not to mention the variety of commanded sacrifices. Thus one is led to the assumption that it really meant to not kill people. That seems a reasonably safe amendment to the commandment.

 

”Thou shall not kill people”

 

But what about in self defense? The Jewish population could easily see that if they do not defend themselves from attack, then they would perish in entirety. Thus they accepted that it really meant;

 

”Thou shall not kill people except in self-defense”

 

Most country like India will stop over here cause they have self defense only policy.

 

It is only countries like USA and it's Allies that will use a lame excuse such as "premptive strikes" to conquer weaker nations.

 

I don't agree with the rest of the reasoning.

 

Where did the idea that a person should get stoned to death for breaking a law come from?

 

Wrong according to the OT, the stoning idea came from God through Moses. Go and read Exodus, Deautronomy, Levictus and Numbers carefully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong according to the OT, the stoning idea came from God through Moses. Go and read Exodus, Deautronomy, Levictus and Numbers carefully.

The act of stoning was from "Moses" (a person last I heard) which allowed for a killing to be performed in such a way as to obscure the killer (the indirectness issue). One could not tell which of the stoners threw the final deadly blow thus, because they could not be identified, they were "innocent". Of course, the commandment said nothing about group killing - yet another addendum that was missing from the perfect holy commandment.

 

Yes, according to the Jewish people, all Jewish laws and actions are from God through whichever person is running the show at the time. In this way, they are "innocent" from all stealing, killing, poisonings, adultery, and every other "sin" because they have been given permission from God through a special person or because they can not be identified.

 

When the nation of Israel was caught recently stealing classified government documents from the USA, their excuse was that they were forced to steal by the USA because the USA did not share what it knew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that you can't "dictate" to people whom to love.
Excellent, I had forgotten about that one and that was the first one I had found long ago. A commandment to do something which one has no real control over.

 

But also, during the time that line was spoken, the people hearing it had a reasonable idea of what those words (in their own language) stood for. But today;

 

"Love thy God with all thy heart, mind, and soul"

 

1) What.. in.. the.. HELL.. is "God"?

2) What.. in.. the.. HELL.. is a "soul"?

3) How in the HELL do I cause love to come from such?

 

How can anyone possibly do this if they neither know what the words really mean nor the method to accomplish it?

 

Once one fully understands what each word means and discovers a means to cause the love to spring forth (not an easy trick), only then can they do this highest and most important commandment.

 

Shouldn't there be a higher commandment which allows for this commandment to be doable? Is it really "Holy" if it hadn't considered this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with the rest of the reasoning.
So your saying that it is okay to indirectly cause death? It is okay to inspire or pay another to kill for you? The Jew is innocent when he poisons an infant such that the child grows up feeling very insecure, confused, and possibly violent, killing himself and/or others because there is no holy law against this indirect form of murder?

 

Are you saying that it is okay to kill by gangs as long as the killer can not be identified?

 

Are you saying that it is okay for someone to declare the guilt of another on mild evidence or mere suspecion and sentence them to death?

 

Are you saying that it is okay to kill in "self-defense" even though other options were available?

 

Are you saying that it is okay to alter the spirit or law of a country such that more people of a particular persuasion die than would have if the laws had not been changed regardless of the lives of others?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong according to the OT, the stoning idea came from God through Moses. Go and read Exodus, Deautronomy, Levictus and Numbers carefully.

 

The act of stoning was from "Moses" (a person last I heard) which allowed for a killing to be performed in such a way as to obscure the killer (the indirectness issue). One could not tell which of the stoners threw the final deadly blow thus, because they could not be identified, they were "innocent". Of course, the commandment said nothing about group killing - yet another addendum that was missing from the perfect holy commandment.

 

I'll let the bible address your misunderstanding

 

Deaut 4: 5

See, I have taught you decrees and laws as the LORD my God commanded me, so that you may follow them in the land you are entering to take possession of it

 

 

Deut 26:16

This day the LORD thy God hath commanded thee to do these statutes and judgments: thou shalt therefore keep and do them with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.

 

 

Deuteronomy 11

Love the LORD your God and keep his requirements, his decrees, his laws and his commands always.

 

Leviticus 20:27

" 'A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.' "

 

Moses is taught by God about the law. The original author is God not Moses.

 

 

Number 15:32

While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." 36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.

 

Lev 24:13

3 Then the LORD said to Moses: 14 "Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him.

 

Lev 20:1

1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Say to the Israelites: 'Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who gives [a] any of his children to Molech must be put to death. The people of the community are to stone him. 3

 

Once again it is God's idea to stone the sinner not Moses's. Moses was just passing down the message. The stoners are absolved of the sin since they are following God's holy orders.

 

Yes, according to the Jewish people, all Jewish laws and actions are from God through whichever person is running the show at the time. In this way, they are "innocent" from all stealing, killing, poisonings, adultery, and every other "sin" because they have been given permission from God through a special person or because they can not be identified.

 

 

Not according to the Jewish People, God himself commands his "chosen" people to wage war/genocide on it's neighbour

 

Deut 20:1

1 When you go to war against your enemies and see horses and chariots and an army greater than yours, do not be afraid of them, because the LORD your God, who brought you up out of Egypt, will be with you.

Deut 20:10

When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

 

 

Deuteronomy 7.1-5:

 

When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations--the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you --2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally.

 

Deut 20.16

However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them--the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites--as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.

 

http://www.theskepticalreview.com/Miller/answer.html

 

Actually a lot of christian apologetics actually say that the Jews did not sin because the Jews were waging a legitimate holy war as directed by God. And God cannot give a unholy or sinful command because he is holy. (Circular logic at play)

 

 

I don't agree with the rest of the reasoning.
So your saying that it is okay to indirectly cause death? It is okay to inspire or pay another to kill for you? The Jew is innocent when he poisons an infant such that the child grows up feeling very insecure, confused, and possibly violent, killing himself and/or others because there is no holy law against this indirect form of murder?

 

Are you saying that it is okay to kill by gangs as long as the killer can not be identified?

 

Are you saying that it is okay for someone to declare the guilt of another on mild evidence or mere suspecion and sentence them to death?

 

Are you saying that it is okay to kill in "self-defense" even though other options were available?

 

Are you saying that it is okay to alter the spirit or law of a country such that more people of a particular persuasion die than would have if the laws had not been changed regardless of the lives of others?

 

 

No, I am saying killing in self defense is the only exception to the rule, because you are preserving your own life. If you someone is attacking you in the middle of the night, it's part of survival to save your ass. You don't start exploring other option if there a knife that is gonna go through your stomach.

 

I said I don't agree with the rest of the reasoning, because it was just twisted logic.

 

By asking others to kill for you, you are actively taking part in the murder.

 

 

The Jew is innocent when he poisons an infant such that the child grows up feeling very insecure, confused, and possibly violent, killing himself and/or others because there is no holy law against this indirect form of murder?

 

What's your evidence for the above statement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moses is taught by God about the law. The original author is God not Moses.
Who wrote the Book, pritishd? ..God?

 

Not according to the Jewish People, God himself commands his "chosen" people to wage war/genocide on it's neighbour
...as I said ..(God is to blame, not me)
The Jew is innocent when he poisons an infant such that the child grows up feeling very insecure, confused, and possibly violent, killing himself and/or others because there is no holy law against this indirect form of murder?

 

What's your evidence for the above statement?

It is a question, not a statement. ...feeling guilty?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moses is taught by God about the law. The original author is God not Moses.
Who wrote the Book, pritishd? ..God?

 

If you read the bible. Yes. The God described in this book is the author of the law.

 

That is the claim the bible makes, not me. Perhaps you are asking the wrong person. As christians like to say, men were just mere tools of god, just like we use a pen. The authors are just secretary of god.

 

Perhaps you answer it first. Who is author/dictator of the these books, god or men?

 

Second of all, we don't know who wrote these books.

 

Not according to the Jewish People, God himself commands his "chosen" people to wage war/genocide on it's neighbour
...as I said

 

No you said that the Jewish People claiming there actions claim from God. Whereas I am saying the God in the Bible is confirming this claim. And we are talking about the Hebrews you know.

 

 

The Jew is innocent when he poisons an infant such that the child grows up feeling very insecure, confused, and possibly violent, killing himself and/or others because there is no holy law against this indirect form of murder?

 

What's your evidence for the above statement?

It is a question, not a statement. ...feeling guilty?

 

I am asking you why did you use a Jew as an example, and why not let's a say an agnostic or an atheist? Did you have something against the Jews in particular.

 

Is the Jew poising a infant?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you read the bible. Yes. The God described in this book is the author of the law.
Stick to the question, who wrote the book itself, who said that God said these things? Did God himself scribe the book and pass it to Moses? Or was it merely Moses who said that these were the things that God told him to write? Second hand information on who to kill, when, and how? ... from a person.
No you said that the Jewish People claiming there actions claim from God. Whereas I am saying the God in the Bible is confirming this claim. And we are talking about the Hebrews you know.
We are talking about the perfection of the laws that are still on the perfect books today. We are not talking about the ancient times, we are talking about TODAY.
I am asking you why did you use a Jew as an example, and why not let's a say an agnostic or an atheist? Did you have something against the Jews in particular.
The Jew is the one following an unholy holy law is why. Is the athiest following such holy doctrines? If he is, I'd like to see it. I can probably show the unholiness of it too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you read the bible. Yes. The God described in this book is the author of the law.
Stick to the question, who wrote the book itself, who said that God said these things? Did God himself scribe the book and pass it to Moses? Or was it merely Moses who said that these were the things that God told him to write? Second hand information on who to kill, when, and how? ... from a person.

 

 

It's quite easy to understant you know

God willed it and Moses delivered it.

 

God choose Moses to deliver his law, because his holiness apparently thinks he is the best man to do it.

 

Do you have problems with Gods choice?

 

And what's the proof that he actually a divine revelation with God? Why do you believe Moses when he said he saw a burning Bush? Perhaps all this might have been in his head, just like Jimmy Swaggart.

 

So pretty you are saying that the following came from God.

 

"Love thy God with all thy heart, mind, and soul"

 

And the stoning part Moses made it up on his own?

 

Right :Wendywhatever:

 

 

No you said that the Jewish People claiming there actions claim from God. Whereas I am saying the God in the Bible is confirming this claim. And we are talking about the Hebrews you know.
We are talking about the perfection of the laws that are still on the perfect books today. We are not talking about the ancient times, we are talking about TODAY.

 

Unfortunely these perfect books declared that such Ancient laws are everlasting and perfect.

 

Are you saying that the stoning aspect of the law are perfect?

 

I am asking you why did you use a Jew as an example, and why not let's a say an agnostic or an atheist? Did you have something against the Jews in particular.
The Jew is the one following an unholy holy law is why. Is the athiest following such holy doctrines? If he is, I'd like to see it. I can probably show the unholiness of it too.

 

Well the Holy Doctrine is also inherited by the Hebrew or the christians. It is God who the author of these doctrines not men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you answer it first. Who is author/dictator of the these books, god or men?
I have already answered this in my first post. How could an all knowing, Holy God give Moses a set of such obviously unholy commandments?
Second of all, we don't know who wrote these books.
But we can see that it wasn't a truly Holy God who wrote them. Who does that leave? - people.
.. God himself commands his "chosen" people to wage war/genocide on it's neighbour

Did God ever once promise that Israel would never be guided or controlled by anyone without sin or flaw? Perhaps you can explain how it is that for over 2500 years the authority over Israel has been passed from person to person (who God Himself said are always with sin) without human error being the voice for God? This human voice for God then has the authority to instruct any person to do any crime at all in the name of God and be totally innocent because "God told me to."

 

Granted that the Catholics do something very similar. But it is a HELL of a lot easier to trust someone who is at least, at least, sworn to a doctrine that says he will not kill for ANY reason, nor even think about it, than it is a man who is sworn to a doctrine that says he can do anything at any time as long as he claims that God, through the authority of his government, told him to. Especially when the commandments he is following must be interpreted by people so as to be usable.

 

You never answered. Do you think it is okay for a Jew to poison an infant if the authority over the nation of Israel tells him that it is the word of God to do so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This seems to be a conversation between people who

 

1. Think that the Bible is book that contains a made up story about a 'real' God who was supposed to have actually said things that were then recorded the Bible, ... and because these people think that the story is made up that would include the bits the made up real God spoke

 

and 2. Someone who thinks he has stumbled on proof that there is a real God because the words of the made up real God don't contain enough holiness.

 

Ssel - this might be a good way of pointing out to Christians who believe that the Bible is true, that you don't think it can be -

 

but for those who have already determined that the Bible is a story that is made up - the fact the words within it that are attributed to God don't measure up - doesn't come as any surprise ...

 

and demonstrating that the made up one is unholy doesn't exactly prove the existence of a real one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This seems to be a conversation between people who

 

1. Think that the Bible is book that contains a made up story about a 'real' God who was supposed to have actually said things that were then recorded the Bible, ... and because these people think that the story is made up that would include the bits the made up real God spoke

 

and 2. Someone who thinks he has stumbled on proof that there is a real God because the words of the made up real God don't contain enough holiness.

 

Ssel - this might be a good way of pointing out to Christians who believe that the Bible is true, that you don't think it can be -

 

but for those who have already determined that the Bible is a story that is made up - the fact the words within it that are attributed to God don't measure up - doesn't come as any surprise ...

 

and demonstrating that the made up one is unholy doesn't exactly prove the existence of a real one.

I was having a real hard time myself following because I didn't think pritishd believed the bible to be the words of god. :twitch: You clarified it well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and demonstrating that the made up one is unholy doesn't exactly prove the existence of a real one.
Who said anything about a real one? This thread is about the UN-holiness aspect of the Bible. - not about proving any real God. Why do you think otherwise? Neither pritishd nor I spoke of a "real God".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.