The UNholiness of the Bible

[Ssel]

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?

Because the commandment "Thou shall not kill" MUST be altered by man to become usable, then using it would allow for the answer to the above to be "Yes, because God commanded it through my government."

[NotBlinded]

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?

Because the commandment "Thou shall not kill" MUST be altered by man to become usable, then using it would allow for the answer to the above to be "Yes, because God commanded it through my government."

Are you talking about mankind mistaking the sign post for the thing itself?

[SkepticOfBible]

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?

 

Why should I presume a all knowing, Holy God even contact Moses? or even bother to destroy Egypt, Soddom or Gorham?

 

Why should I believe that a All Knowing , Holy God even gave these commands to his people

 

Here is a quote from the website which sums up my feeling. I higly recommend to you to read it

 

The Old Testament paints a picture of a God who is extremely bellicose, giving repeated instructions to "his people" to exterminate other nations, (because he is giving them their "promised land"), and giving them practical assistance on the battlefield.

 

It is easy to believe that such writings could be the attempted self-justification of a territorially minded people, who excuse their aggression and genocide against other nations as "divine instructions". [sic] It is almost impossible to believe that such writings are an accurate description of a God who has infinite love for people of all races.

But we can see that it wasn't a truly Holy God who wrote them. Who does that leave? - people

 

And thus we can conclude that the whole Moses story and the nearly of the bible more than Mythology.

 

.. 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."

 

 

Do you think I consider the writing in the bible as facts?

 

I don't believe that God chooses his king to reside over his people, nor do I believe a god would choose incompetent humans to be their messenger.

 

I have come to the conclusion that if a God exist, then that is definately not the God described in the bible, nor do I think that Jesus is god.

 

 

But we cannot forget that the concept of a God giving his people to command a holy war, comes from the bible itself.

 

Even George Bush thinks that God told him to wage a war in Iraq. There is no end to people delusion of grandeur.

 

The problem is more than 2.1 Billion people(Muslim,Christian, Jews) on this earth pray to this God, but he actually displays characteristics which is close to a demon.

 

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.

 

Why the heck should one follow man made doctrines which disguise themselves as "God-sent"?

 

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?

 

If you mean real poision and not an allegorical, then no.

 

Remember the Golden Rule "Do unto others, what you want others to do you". It exist in nearly every belief system(even in atheism). There are some belief system such Satanism or White Supremist who don't follow that

 

Even if a holy god himself tells me to kill an infant, I will not do so. The only way he is gonna make me do it, will be by giving me a dilema (such as a life of a loved one vs life of a infant). But then that won't be a God, that will demon.

 

It's not right for anybody Jew, Muslim or Christian to poisen babies.

[Skankboy]

Ok, I think we need to go back to the beginning on this one, because, in my view, there is a gaping hole that needs to be filled.

 

I've noticed on several occassions, SSEL, that you have rather unique definitions of words.

 

Could you explain in a bit more detail, exactly what YOU mean by "holy". I fairly certain it varies from my own and what I've read in the past. Until I'm sure on that point, I don't believe I can honest contribute to this discussion...

[SkepticOfBible]

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?

Because the commandment "Thou shall not kill" MUST be altered by man to become usable, then using it would allow for the answer to the above to be "Yes, because God commanded it through my government."

 

In first place the god in the OT is incompetent because he doesn't give exception to the commandment. Once again I stand by position, that a all knowing God did not give a single commandment in the Bible. It was made up. Some parts of it is Good, other parts are pure nonsense.

 

If you want to chuck common sense and reasoning out of the window, then you are pretty much twisting the Commandment beyond a point, and thereby abusing it.

[Ssel]

We were talking only about how that one commandment would have to get amended to an extreme in order for it to have realistic use.

 

pritishd agreed with some of the required amendments as being logical (I think), but others as being illogical or not really needed. We were only talking about the needs to amend what was supposed to be a holy (perfect) commandment which was to be never disobeyed.

 

This topic has nothing to do with any kind of proof concerning any real God BUT it also says nothing about any non-existence of any God. It is ONLY about "unholiness" aspects of what were supposed to be holy things.

 

And thus we can conclude that the whole Moses story and the nearly of the bible more than Mythology.

This statement reveals a great deal of what is happening concerning all of the arguments on this site and others.

 

This statement says that either;

 

WHITE - Bible is holy word of God

BLACK - Bible is total mythology

 

This particular issue is not the topic of this thread, but realize how often this "Black-White" thinking is hiding the real truth of anything. The real truth is between the Black and the White as it almost always is.

 

People passionately judge other people as all-right or all-wrong, as friend or foe. Yet in reality this is almost never the case and such judging only leads to endless confusion and more passions which lead to anger, hatred, destruction and further deceptions. This is, in fact, a great deal of what the OT is talking about.

 

I have supported what I can see as truths in the Bible and I can also support what I see as untruths. The more important real truths are within the metaphorical understandings of the ancient mystical language.

 

If no one bothers to translate the language, then they can't see what truths are there or not. The passion to simply rush to judgment and proclaim a conclusion out of emotionalism causes this Black-White affect.

 

All right or all wrong - How often is that ever a part of reality?

Yet it seems that everyone's passions want to insist on its validity.

 

The Bible has extremely important truths within, but this alone does not make it holy. And this is the point.

 

---

 

Holy = totally considerate of all things (whole). The word is often used as "sacred" and also as "Godly". This is because an all knowing God would hardly intentionally do something half-ass, thus if it is from a truly all knowing God, then it must also be holy. But anything that is so perfectly considerate of all things such as to be a forever type of rule would then make it sacred (cherished) as well. Thus the words are often interchanged.

 

---

 

Consistency

Completeness

Relevance

 

These are the 3 requirements for thought assessment and most certainly for Holiness.

[Amanda]

Holy = totally considerate of all things (whole). The word is often used as "sacred" and also as "Godly".

 

Ssel, the OT came after the last ice age, a time when mankind was just starting to have stability in living instead of nomadic. This brought new implications into 'society', now forming communities and cities. Having a new mutant wheat able to be planted and sowed, allowing this stability, also gave more available time to ponder directions for civilization. Given Maslow's hieracrchy of needs, man now became in a position to consider himself towards actualization.

 

Don't you think man just attributed reasoning, personality, behaviors, lending them selves towards being 'sacred'... defined as man evolved... as the will of God and charcteristics of him? Perhaps the use of God is just the continuation of a belief now giving a spark to civilization considered as a whole?

[Asimov]

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;

 

It doesn't matter...they had no reasonable idea of what God was. If you asked the the people of thousands of years ago what God was, they would give the same stupid answers people give now.

 

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

 

It's not a question of how, it's a question of 'why'. Why should we follow that commandment, why does that commandment exist?

[SkepticOfBible]

This statement reveals a great deal of what is happening concerning all of the arguments on this site and others.

 

This statement says that either;

 

WHITE - Bible is holy word of God

BLACK - Bible is total mythology

 

This particular issue is not the topic of this thread, but realize how often this "Black-White" thinking is hiding the real truth of anything. The real truth is between the Black and the White as it almost always is.

 

 

Maybe I was not clear about my position, I'll clarify it for you

 

1)The Lessons of Life or the So Called Supreme Truth

 

The bible does contain some fantastic truth about life, but so do works of literature, religious books and movies. I believe we can each learn something valueble from the past and the present, in order to have better future.

 

But at the same time, it doesn't contain all the answers to our life problem or of this world. On the contrary I would say this book has been responsible for a lot of suffering in the world(such as slavery, racism and imperalism). Some of passage really literally make me throw up(like the ones about killing of babies and raping of women)

 

The bible is intolerant about other beliefs, and it is also a sexist book. Women are pretty much second class citizen in the bible.

 

I cannot a worship a being who would give commands to his people that is as bad as the Nazis themselves.

 

2)Historicity of the bible

As someone on this forum said the bible is "Historical Fiction". A lot of the story are based on real places, but it doesn't mean that everything in the bible is true. You wouldn't believe that every event in the Bhagwad Gita or the Quran as true. For it to be found true you would require evidence, which is lacking in case of all the world religion, especially the fantastic part

 

There is very good maxim that Atheist follow "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Which I feel even the most fundamentalist christian will follow too when they judge the truth of other religion.

People passionately judge other people as all-right or all-wrong, as friend or foe. Yet in reality this is almost never the case and such judging only leads to endless confusion and more passions which lead to anger, hatred, destruction and further deceptions. This is, in fact, a great deal of what the OT is talking about.

Mmm, I look at it the other way. I think the OT is more concerned with the history of a race of people who are "chosen" people in a obscure place. This sort of attitude is consistant with most nation in the past and present. It is the bible which thinks in Black and White way. "We Hebrew Good and chosen, the Caanite and the all the rest sucks, so lets kill them, cause there is an entity called God which ordained us to do so".

 

I have supported what I can see as truths in the Bible and I can also support what I see as untruths. The more important real truths are within the metaphorical understandings of the ancient mystical language.

 

If no one bothers to translate the language, then they can't see what truths are there or not. The passion to simply rush to judgment and proclaim a conclusion out of emotionalism causes this Black-White affect.

 

I don't see how learning the original language of the book would change the truth or the untruth of the text in question. Frankly it is a very unrealistic one. I mean would you learn Sanskrit just to understand the Hindu Scripture.

 

Other people who better lingusitic skills than me have already made the a pretty effort to translate it and for me that's fine.

 

All right or all wrong - How often is that ever a part of reality?

Yet it seems that everyone's passions want to insist on its validity.

And perhaps it is upto to the individual to decide whether it is true or not

The Bible has extremely important truths within, but this alone does not make it holy. And this is the point.

 

Point taken. And not everything in the bible is the truth.

 

Holy = totally considerate of all things (whole). The word is often used as "sacred" and also as "Godly". This is because an all knowing God would hardly intentionally do something half-ass, thus if it is from a truly all knowing God, then it must also be holy. But anything that is so perfectly considerate of all things such as to be a forever type of rule would then make it sacred (cherished) as well. Thus the words are often interchanged.

 

---

 

Consistency

Completeness

Relevance

 

These are the 3 requirements for thought assessment and most certainly for Holiness.

 

Good criteria, and the bible fails miserably on three accounts

[Ssel]

..This particular issue is not the topic of this thread, but realize how often this "Black-White" thinking is hiding the real truth of anything. The real truth is between the Black and the White as it almost always is.

Maybe I was not clear about my position, I'll clarify it for you

 

1)The Lessons of Life or the So Called Supreme Truth

 

The bible does contain some fantastic truth about life, but so do works of literature, religious books and movies. I believe we can each learn something valueble from the past and the present, in order to have better future.

 

But at the same time, it doesn't contain all the answers to our life problem or of this world.

Up to this point we agree. As to blaming the Bible for the inhumanity of Mankind, you obviously have no idea of the extreme abuses occuring long before the Bible stories were ever written. The Bible had nothing to do with creating slaverly. It had far more to do with finally getting rid of it. I seriously doubt that your arrogance on the issue of social abuses could be justified by your abilities to do any better than those who managed to get this far. Because of your ignorance of the enemy, you assume the only thing that you know of must be the enemy.

 

I don't see how learning the original language of the book would change the truth or the untruth of the text in question. Frankly it is a very unrealistic one. I mean would you learn Sanskrit just to understand the Hindu Scripture.

You have GOT to be kidding. There's no value in properly understanding a document before you decide it's trash?? - As I said, Shoot first, Judge first, Black or White, Friend or Foe. Figure out what it was later when you have the time and energy.

 

Consistency

Completeness

Relevance

 

These are the 3 requirements for thought assessment and most certainly for Holiness.

Good criteria, and the bible fails miserably on three accounts

Not as miserably as you say. But then you don't see any need in understanding it before making the assessment.

 

You have no honorable right to judge something that you refuse to understand. You said before that you believed in "Do unto others..". Would you want someone to judge you without taking the time to try to understand your true situation and intentions?

 

We only disagree on the DEGREE of all of this rash judging.

 

Can we get back to the topic now?

[Ssel]

It's not a question of how, it's a question of 'why'. Why should we follow that commandment, why does that commandment exist?

As far as the unholiness issue is concerned, it is only a matter of the command being obeyable.

 

The "why bother?" aspect depends directly on understanding a great deal of the context and that is a far deeper subject. But to discern, logically, the holiness aspect requires far less interpretation and study. Without being concerned of exact interpretations, the unholiness can already be identified. And without even knowing exactly what God might be or not be.

 

Simply accepting that the real God is supposed to be all knowing, allows for logical assessments on the book. But not on the God, how can you really judge something that is supposed to be far smarter than you and in a situation that you can't comprehend?

[Alice]

We were talking only about how that one commandment would have to get amended to an extreme in order for it to have realistic use.

 

pritishd agreed with some of the required amendments as being logical (I think), but others as being illogical or not really needed. We were only talking about the needs to amend what was supposed to be a holy (perfect) commandment which was to be never disobeyed.

 

This topic has nothing to do with any kind of proof concerning any real God BUT it also says nothing about any non-existence of any God. It is ONLY about "unholiness" aspects of what were supposed to be holy things.

 

And thus we can conclude that the whole Moses story and the nearly of the bible more than Mythology.

This statement reveals a great deal of what is happening concerning all of the arguments on this site and others.

 

This statement says that either;

 

WHITE - Bible is holy word of God

BLACK - Bible is total mythology

 

This particular issue is not the topic of this thread, but realize how often this "Black-White" thinking is hiding the real truth of anything. The real truth is between the Black and the White as it almost always is.

 

People passionately judge other people as all-right or all-wrong, as friend or foe. Yet in reality this is almost never the case and such judging only leads to endless confusion and more passions which lead to anger, hatred, destruction and further deceptions. This is, in fact, a great deal of what the OT is talking about.

 

I have supported what I can see as truths in the Bible and I can also support what I see as untruths. The more important real truths are within the metaphorical understandings of the ancient mystical language.

 

If no one bothers to translate the language, then they can't see what truths are there or not. The passion to simply rush to judgment and proclaim a conclusion out of emotionalism causes this Black-White affect.

 

All right or all wrong - How often is that ever a part of reality?

Yet it seems that everyone's passions want to insist on its validity.

 

 

 

 

 

I love irony!!!!!!

 

Ssel. People will probably engage in conversation with you a little more if you stop being so bloody rude and conceited. I happen to think that you occasionally say things that are quite interesting but you have many of the social skills of a crazed wasp and you are not coming across well. Your attitude towards other people will affect your ability to communicate your views effectively.

[Ssel]

Simply accepting that the real God is supposed to be all knowing, ..

 

I don't accept it ...

Ever heard of a hypothetical? I agree that the statements about God being perfect "Love" are also not true. John seems to have gotten a bit carried away, but it was evident throughout his writings that he was having trouble fully understanding Jesus' intent.

 

Ssel. People will probably engage in conversation with you a little more if you stop being so bloody rude and conceited. I happen to think that you occasionally say things that are quite interesting but you have many of the social skills of a crazed wasp and you are not coming across well. Your attitude towards other people will affect your ability to communicate your views effectively.

Yes, I am very much aware that if I compliment, patronize, and agree with the crowd, I would certainly be more welcomed. I could even gather a following who would accept things that I say simply because I said them. Such good friends.

 

Why oh why, Mr Hesitant Wizard, wouldn't I follow such an easy formula to fame, pride, and good friends?

 

"It is the duty of a citizen in a free country not to fit into society, but to make society.

-John Holt" -- Hmm where did I see that last?

[Alice]

 

Ssel. People will probably engage in conversation with you a little more if you stop being so bloody rude and conceited. I happen to think that you occasionally say things that are quite interesting but you have many of the social skills of a crazed wasp and you are not coming across well. Your attitude towards other people will affect your ability to communicate your views effectively.

Yes, I am very much aware that if I compliment, patronize, and agree with the crowd, I would certainly be more welcomed. I could even gather a following who would accept things that I say simply because I said them. Such good friends.

 

Why oh why, Mr Hesitant Wizard, wouldn't I follow such an easy formula to fame, pride, and good friends?

 

"It is the duty of a citizen in a free country not to fit into society, but to make society.

-John Holt" -- Hmm where did I see that last?

 

Your apparent lack of understanding in relation to human relations is astounding. Good communication skills do not require false flattery and insincere 'going with the crowd'. Can you not see that your very assumption that the people you are conversing with are so shallow that you would be more welcome if you behaved in such a way, is in itself rude?

 

People who don't carry the courage of their convictions and make 'crowd pleasing comments' for insincere reasons get as much truck here as those who are rude and arrogant. Your arrogance in assuming that this is a site full of people who would 'follow you' if you 'patronised and complimented them' is mind boggling.

 

I have no clear idea why you have given me the title of wizard.

I have no clear idea why you have implied that the verse you quote is somehow connected to me - although I do agree with it.

 

But both of the above suggest you pay little real attention to anyone who engages in conversation with you.

 

I guess the reason you don't have to follow an easy formula to pride is that you have already reached the destination.

 

All the while you assume there is an easy formula with which you could gather a little group of followers around you if you felt so inclined you will not make any good friends. But I guess this is not part of your mission anyway.

 

There is a difference between straight talking and honesty - and down right rudeness and arrogance. The first is welcome here and it has nothing to do with false sentimentality.

 

I do not say this to win friends and influence people - I say it because I am a genuinely friendly though a little shy and reserved at first person and offer it as friendly advice - if you carry on speaking to people rudely and arrogantly there will soon be nothing but a big echo in here.

[Ssel]

I do not say this to win friends and influence people - I say it because I am a genuinely friendly though a little shy and reserved at first person and offer it as friendly advice

And this is why you misunderstand your reading of a thread, interrupt the thread to make personal critiques, and continue to lecture your wisdom to those who didn't ask? I have to wonder if you also yield your great wisdoms to those who actually ask for it?

 

But then, you might not get the chance to be heard, huh. So maybe injecting such distractive and negative remarks is the only way you can let the world know of your superior sublime nature.

 

Or maybe killing the thread was your intent. Why else would someone so intently attack the speaker rather than the topic at hand. Bonding with friends, no doubt. Yes, quite the humble and friendly act.

 

Not like someone who offers such personal advice through the available PM.

 

But then, why is it that the arrogant are always the first to acuse others of being arrogant? Why is it that the hateful are always the first to acuse another of being the hateful. Why is that the ignorant are always first to acuse others of being stupid and foolish. Why is it that the quick to judge are always first to complain that another has judged too quickly.

 

Those are rhetorical.

[Alice]

I do not say this to win friends and influence people - I say it because I am a genuinely friendly though a little shy and reserved at first person and offer it as friendly advice

And this is why you misunderstand your reading of a thread, interrupt the thread to make personal critiques, and continue to lecture your wisdom to those who didn't ask? I have to wonder if you also yield your great wisdoms to those who actually ask for it?

 

But then, you might not get the chance to be heard, huh. So maybe injecting such distractive and negative remarks is the only way you can let the world know of your superior sublime nature.

 

Or maybe killing the thread was your intent. Why else would someone so intently attack the speaker rather than the topic at hand. Bonding with friends, no doubt. Yes, quite the humble and friendly act. Not like someone who offers such personal advice through the available PM.

 

I take your point there - I maybe should have pm'd you. That would have been a much nicer thing to do. I genuinely stand corrected on that one. If my intent was anything - it was to 'kill' the rudeness and the arrogance - which totally detracts from a lot of what you have to say.

 

Maybe I should have pm'd this too - but then that wouldn't be gracious would it, to admit it wasn't the kindest of approaches in private - having cautioned you in public.

 

I apologise for butting into your thread - my frustration that you let your bad attitude affect your voice - got the better of me.

[Ssel]

I take your point there - I maybe should have pm'd you. That would have been a much nicer thing to do. I genuinely stand corrected on that one. If my intent was anything - it was to 'kill' the rudeness and the arrogance - which totally detracts from a lot of what you have to say...

I both admire and respect a man who can genuinely apologize in public. Not to imply that my respect is of any value.

 

Realize that what is said in public has little choice but to be defended in public. That is one of those wisdoms that often go unnoticed. I noted that you caught that one too. Others haven't. I have recieved many apologies and I admire those people more than any, not because they agree with me, many still don't, but because they are showing that they are willing to see past their emotions.

 

How else can any truth from anyone ever be seen? When a person can agree with someone they hate and disagree with someone they love, then they can know objective truth.

 

Judge the speaker, and be blinded by your own reflection.

 

Hesitant, you words were not foolish, only the placement of them.

 

[Alice]

I take your point there - I maybe should have pm'd you. That would have been a much nicer thing to do. I genuinely stand corrected on that one. If my intent was anything - it was to 'kill' the rudeness and the arrogance - which totally detracts from a lot of what you have to say...

I both admire and respect a man who can genuinely apologize in public. Not to imply that my respect is of any value.

 

Realize that what is said in public has little choice but to be defended in public. That is one of those wisdoms that often go unnoticed. I noted that you caught that one too. Others haven't. I have recieved many apologies and I admire those people more than any, not because they agree with me, many still don't, but because they are showing that they are willing to see past their emotions.

 

How else can any truth from anyone ever be seen? When a person can agree with someone they hate and disagree with someone they love, then they can know objective truth.

 

Judge the speaker, and be blinded by your own reflection.

 

Hesitant, you words were not foolish, only the placement of them.

 

 

 

You are right that your respect is of little value to me.

 

I have rarely found it difficult to agree with those I 'hate', I have often found it difficult to disagree with those I love - but in all but a few situations haven't let this prevent me from doing so. I do not however think this led me to objective truth.

 

Please quit referring to me as a Man/Mr/Wizard ~ its a girlthing.

[Ssel]

Please quit referring to me as a Man/Mr/Wizard ~ its a girlthing.

I apologize for the gender error. I keep forgetting to look up the profile.

 

..and I meant only that it allows for the truth to be seen, not that forces it to be seen.

 

If someone always agrees with those they love and always disagrees with those they hate, they will be secure in their grouping,

 

but where does that leave the real truth?

 

- unseen, unvoiced, and unknown.

[Ssel]

You fit in with the rest of those who believe in gods, you've got nothing new, just a varied definition...nothing more.

Assuming again, off topic again.

 

What I "have" that is "new" has little or nothing to do with Gods. But it does have to do with thinking and not passion distracted conflict.

 

Look at all of the passion remarks here so far. pritishd and I were working out the details of an aspect of unholiness, the purpose of this thread.

 

What has everyone else been talking about? Where is the truth left when no one attends to it because they want SO badly to attack or defend rather than simply read and think.

[Hero of Hyrule]

Look at all of the passion remarks here so far.

 

If the line between two say telephones is broken, it needs to be repaired before the conversation can go on.

 

Also it's a Force on forums that makes threads go off-topic.

 

but where does that leave the real truth?

 

- unseen, unvoiced, and unknown.

 

Indeed. And I think it's impossible to get to know more than just a part of that real truth.

[SkepticOfBible]

..This particular issue is not the topic of this thread, but realize how often this "Black-White" thinking is hiding the real truth of anything. The real truth is between the Black and the White as it almost always is.

Maybe I was not clear about my position, I'll clarify it for you

 

1)The Lessons of Life or the So Called Supreme Truth

 

The bible does contain some fantastic truth about life, but so do works of literature, religious books and movies. I believe we can each learn something valueble from the past and the present, in order to have better future.

 

But at the same time, it doesn't contain all the answers to our life problem or of this world.

Up to this point we agree. As to blaming the Bible for the inhumanity of Mankind, you obviously have no idea of the extreme abuses occuring long before the Bible stories were ever written. The Bible had nothing to do with creating slaverly. It had far more to do with finally getting rid of it. I seriously doubt that your arrogance on the issue of social abuses could be justified by your abilities to do any better than those who managed to get this far. Because of your ignorance of the enemy, you assume the only thing that you know of must be the enemy.

 

Just who exactly is my enemy, cause I haven't declared war on anybody.

 

Does disagreement amounts to War?

 

When you say "The Bible had nothing to do with creating slaverly", it just shows that either you haven't read the bible or you are not affected about what it says about slavery.

 

I didn't say that the bible created slavery, but it certainly promoted it by giving laws to regulate it.

 

Here is very funny take on Bible God's view on slavery

 

Fall of Religion

 

Most modern nations have abandoned the concept of forced human slave labour. Humans can no longer be "owned" under the laws of most modern nations. However, this is not the christian way! The christian god has no problem with slavery, in fact he encourages it and even provides guidelines for master/slave relationships:

 

Leviticus 25:44 instructs us to buy our slaves from the "heathens" of nations around us. Hmmm, I'm from Canada, so our only neighboring nation is the United States. Does this mean I'm allowed to buy an American to be my slave? If so, I'll take Drew Barrymore, she's American!

1 Peter 2:18 tells slaves to be completely subservient to their masters, even if their masters are mean and cruel ("froward"). Ephesians 6:5 reiterates this, but goes a step further, telling slaves to be as obedient to their masters as they would be to Christ himself.

 

Colossians 3:22 and Titus 2:9-10 again reiterate the above point. Get the feeling that god really wanted slaves to be obedient? Well, either god or whatever ruling power wrote the bible.

In times of war, if your army captures an enemy city, you should immediately kill all the men (yet another flagrant disregard for the "thou shalt not kill" commandment). The women and children you are to take on as slaves. Deuteronomy 20:13-14.

 

Even god knows that there's nothing worse than a disobedient slave. Sometimes you just have to beat some sense into them. It's okay, god allows this, just be sure to beat them within an inch of their life, don't actually kill them. Exodus 21:20-21 tells us that if you kill a slave, you "shall surely be punished", but if your slave survives the beating, you will not receive any punishment. After all, a man's slave "... is his money". People as property, what a concept.

 

Remember, slaves aren't necessarily yours for life. Exodus 21:2-6 tells us that a slave must serve you for six years. In the seventh year, you have to set him free. However, if he wants to remain with you (the example the bible gives is if he got married while in your service, and doesn't want to leave his wife and kids), then you must "bore his ear through with an awl" and he is yours for life. Hey, god, awls are hard to come by these days, can I just use a power drill?

 

Apologists will often go to great lengths to downplay and justify the mass killing and enslavement of various nations. Apologists will usually claim that since these people were heathen and declared wicked by God, they deserved proper punishment for their sins. They may even assert that slavery was really a benefit to these heathens because it gave them the opportunity to be exposed to the one true God. In other words, God's loving grace provided for these people to become slaves instead of being killed along with the other "war criminals".

 

Ironically, this was the same justification used by Southern Christian clergy during the American civil war to argue for the institution of slavery. According to these devout God-fearing believers, who were just as filled with the Holy Spirit as any Christian today, the barbaric godless African slaves through God's grace, as overseen by his chosen people(the Southern Christians), had their heathen ways exchanged for the blessings and security of Christianity.

 

One can rest assured that whatever rationalization is needed to sanitize the Bible God's endorsement of slavery and the outright command of slavery for certain populations, it will be produced by the faithful.

 

This God had no problem taking time to inspire a high level of precise detail and information in the following areas:

 

*God devotes 36 verses of specific detail on how to decorate and furnish an important ceremonial tent in Exo 26.

*God devotes 42 verses of specific detail on how he wants priests to dress in Exo 28.

*God devotes 46 verses of specific detail on how priests are to be consecrated in Exo 29.

*God devotes 85 verses of specific detail on how offerings are to be made in Lev 1-Lev 4.

*God devotes 38 verses of specific detail on how to deal with mildew(yes, mildew) in Lev 13:47-59 and Lev 14:33-57.

*God devotes 39 verses of specific detail on how the Temple was furnished in 1 Kings 7:13-51.

 

But there isn't one verse which says that slavery was wrong.

 

 

I don't see how learning the original language of the book would change the truth or the untruth of the text in question. Frankly it is a very unrealistic one. I mean would you learn Sanskrit just to understand the Hindu Scripture.

You have GOT to be kidding. There's no value in properly understanding a document before you decide it's trash?? - As I said, Shoot first, Judge first, Black or White, Friend or Foe. Figure out what it was later when you have the time and energy.

 

Oh really, so you mean to say that you read every single literature in the world in it's orginal language to understand it's true meaning. Right which is why I sure you never watch foriegn language movies, because it will impair your understanding of the movie.

 

If learning the original langauge is needed to properly understand the "truth" of the bible, then this "God" did a very poor job of communicating his message to humans.

 

English Bible translations are supposed to be done by experts and are presented in the mainstream Bible that anyone can read. If the translations are not accurate, then you can toss out the English Bible and all the baggage that goes with it.

 

Neither the bible say that I have to study in it in it's original language. Perhaps you are confusing the language doctrine with Islam, where the followers are required to learn the "divine" Arabic language

 

If the language factor was so important for it, then this God who claims to be my creater should have ingrained it in my DNA so that I would know just like the way I know how to walk or eat.

 

Consistency

Completeness

Relevance

 

These are the 3 requirements for thought assessment and most certainly for Holiness.

Good criteria, and the bible fails miserably on three accounts

Not as miserably as you say. But then you don't see any need in understanding it before making the assessment.

 

Then perhaps we can start a new thread on this. Here are my assertions

 

1)The bible is not consistant with it's theology nor is the bible god consistant with the nature that it claims to be. Neither it is clear whether the so called "everlasting" and "perfect" laws still prevail today.

The fact that the bible is not consistant with any doctrine is demonstrated by the fact that there are so many sects of christianity. Each denomination thinks that it has the answers and fight over each other as to which doctrines are right. Surely if this god is true would love the confusion amongst the followors.

 

 

 

http://www.twopaths.com/biblefaq.htm

 

 

2)The bible doesn't give exception to it's rules, which is why Christians and you have go on and make qualifiers to further improve them.

 

3)Many of the laws of the OT are hardly relevant in today's world. I can see that some of them can be but not all.

 

You have no honorable right to judge something that you refuse to understand. You said before that you believed in "Do unto others..". Would you want someone to judge you without taking the time to try to understand your true situation and intentions?

 

And by what virtue do have the right to declare the your judgement of the bible? I have taken enough time to try to understand. Unfortunlately I don't agree with your conclusions

 

Perhaps one day you can explain to me the true intentions of justified rape, senseless killing of woman and infants, the sacrifices of innocent animals to atone a humans sin, the instituition of slavery that it promotes and the justification of eternal torture.

[Ssel]

Just who exactly is my enemy, cause I haven't declared war on anybody.

Your true enemy is the complex agressiveness of Reality, especially the parts that you can not see or have not seen of the past. Your enemy is not people, but the complex motivations that drive them and other things. Many of these motivations are enumerated in the Bible in the metaphorical understanding. Without seeing that version, then your missing a great deal of the importance of what is being said.

Example;

 

In helping to free the Israelite slaves, a formula is given for freeing slaves from any dictator. Without going through the entire formula one part, in metaphorical format is as follows;

 

The "shadow of death" was covering the land of Egypt and the Israelites feared that they too would die. They asked Moses of how to be saved from this. Moses told them to paint a mark above their doorway with the blood of a lamb.

 

To the casual reader this is merely a ritual that is supposed to have some magical hocus pocus to it. But to the informed reader, this has said:

 

"Moses told the Israelites to display a sign of being an innocent victim so as to avoid the anger and vengenge that was spreading throughout the people of Egypt."

 

This part of the formula and other parts are well used today by those who manipulate society. How often do you see this group or that, and especially the Jew, proclaiming their status of being an innocent victim of the evil enemy. Try to find even one major motion picture in the last 20 years where the Jew is anything but a sweet innocent and wise man, or atleast a young man becoming wise and lovable.

 

Contrast that with the number of major films where the supreme evil bad guy is a white male and/or a Christian priest.

 

The ratio would be about 1:99 or worse.

 

There are many, many more examples of this formula being used. Today the white male is the point of all blame so that the formula has an enemy. It can't work without an visable enemy. Hitler used the Jews in the same way. Today, the white male is the "Nazi's Jew", but who are today's real Nazis? Today, they know not to ever be associated with such a name.

 

Your real enemy is the complexity of these and other things being used to manipulate and control - not people, but ideas.

 

 

When you say "The Bible had nothing to do with creating slaverly", it just shows that either you haven't read the bible or you are not affected about what it says about slavery.

This is where I say that you have not considered the situation of those spoken of in the Bible nor of any real God. Do you think that you can merely say, "There shall be no slavery" and it is instantly accepted and obeyed? The Bible was pointing out how to handle many slave situations to the degree that could be accomplished considering the people and how they lived.

 

The Moses stories were mostly about methods of manipulating people and society such as to free "the chosen ones". The formulas are very real. The only problem is that they also create mass destruction where it wasn't really needed. Better ways have been found.

 

We agree that the Bible does not provide very well for any holy laws that would ensure that many abuses could not still happen. But it did not create them, it gave formulae and intructions on how to deal with them. Giving instructions on how to deal with something is NOT promoting it. But even in those instructions, they obviously are still from Man in that they show no sign of being truly "ALWAYS applicable for all time"

 

Would you say that when a Doctor tells you to go on a diet because of some other illness, that he is promoting the illness?

But there isn't one verse which says that slavery was wrong.

Realize that just because you're told that you are "free" and no one is a "slave" does not mean that you are not really a slave but merely can't see your "master" and in fact, have almost no "freedom" at all. The Bible stories are dealing with the people of that time. Today the people are educated differently, thus the forms of slavery and abuse are different, but the abstract formulae are the same.

 

Oh really, so you mean to say that you read every single literature in the world in it's orginal language to understand it's true meaning.

The question is, "Do I go on a website and tell everyone how totally fictional and worthless the book is if I havent done what you said?" - And the answer is "No, I don't judge what I havent studied. And I look for any extra meanings that are easily missed before I broadcast to the world that it is worthless." Can you say the same?

 

The language I have been referring to is the metaphoical language, not the spoken language.

If the language factor was so important for it, then this God who claims to be my creater should have ingrained it in my DNA so that I would know just like the way I know how to walk or eat.

In a sense, I agree. The Bible, to be truly Holy, must have a means, similar to a dictionary, that would prevent misunderstandings and abuses.

Then perhaps we can start a new thread on this. Here are my assertions

 

1)The bible is not consistant with it's theology nor is the bible god consistant with the nature that it claims to be. Neither it is clear whether the so called "everlasting" and "perfect" laws still prevail today.

The fact that the bible is not consistant with any doctrine is demonstrated by the fact that there are so many sects of christianity. Each denomination thinks that it has the answers and fight over each other as to which doctrines are right. Surely if this god is true would love the confusion amongst the followors. ...

 

2)The bible doesn't give exception to it's rules, which is why Christians and you have go on and make qualifiers to further improve them.

 

3)Many of the laws of the OT are hardly relevant in today's world. I can see that some of them can be but not all.

All of this is exactly what this thread is talking about (or was intended to). These are the aspects of "unholiness" that are apparent.

 

And by what virtue do have the right to declare the your judgement of the bible? I have taken enough time to try to understand. Unfortunlately I don't agree with your conclusions

A perfectly valid question. The answer is that I accomplished 2 critical things..

 

1) I found sufficeint truth in the book so as to see why it had such effect and more by using those 3 qualifiers. I took the understanding to the point where it was clear exactly why things were being said and no irrational superstition was a part of my understanding.

 

2) More important than (1), I kept looking past what I found so as to see if perhaps what was there, was the best available. If I couldn't think of a better solution, then I would not be qualified to publically denounce it. It is childish to destroy without having something better in mind. And being certain of its truth.

 

Perhaps one day you can explain to me the true intentions of justified rape, senseless killing of woman and infants, the sacrifices of innocent animals to atone a humans sin, the instituition of slavery that it promotes and the justification of eternal torture.

Then we agree that the Bible has hardly provided a Holy set of laws.

[Ssel]

Then we agree that the Bible has hardly provided a Holy set of laws.

.. It is like you're taking the bad parts of the bible (that the Jews say is given by god all the way) and saying it was man made, untrue and unholy and condmening them for believing it. The parts you like and find good and/or secretly meaning something else, you call holy and from god.

I think you're injecting emotion where there wasn't any again. Not wanting to speak for pritishd, I can say that I have not said anything about any part of it being holy. Looking at what pritishd has said, I see no conclusive evidence that he has said such either. I suspect that you keep accusing of this emotionalism because you can't imagine anything else.

 

We were discussing, with a bit of confusion, of just how unholy certain things seem to be. My argument is based simply on the logic involved. There are parts where one could say, "But this part, I don't like and thus must be unholy." But what we are actually saying is that the "holy laws" obviously didn't cover whether those things were really holy or not. Those parts which obviously appear to be unfavorable are not exactly specified by the "holy laws". This is what makes them un-holy.

 

It is not a matter of what either of us like or dislike. It is a matter of not being clearly covered by a "holy law". The conclusion is that the laws are not holy simply because they have too many things which man can and has had to independently decide on.

 

I believe that man on their own are capable of creating both good and bad laws, and both wise and ignorant sayings. The same man that wrote "don't boil a kid in it's mother's milk" is the same man who wrote "Love your neighbor" (In Leviticus)

You appear to be saying that this is an example of a wise and an unwise saying...?

 

"Love your neighbor as yourself" is logically provable to be extremely wise and almost on the level of being truly holy. It is still missing exactness concerning degree and definition.

 

"don't boil a kid in it's mother's milk" is referring to not spoiling a child by allowing the mothering to over protect him from the realities of life. This spoiling easily turns into anger from not getting what he wants when he wants it. It creates an over passion, uncontrolled and blinding.

 

The bible also has sayings that basically teach evil cannot do good and vice versa, they are known as fruits, be it good or bad. The fruits of the bible are responsible for not just bad, but horrific fruits.

This is something that isn't as simple to prove as it seems. For the Bible to be responsible for something, you have to look at what would have been there without the Bible. This ends up being a very long stretch of imagination ladened with false hopes, rationales, and dreams. You can easily ignore what appears to be the good of something so that you can justify attacking the bad.

 

In the NT, many of these laws are being condemned, not all of them. Jesus emphasizes the spirit of things versus making firm laws. This conforms with the idea of holding no “graven image” as sacred. He apparently could see that acquiring a holy spirit within was the only way for a man to truly know when to do what. But the process to do this and even what it means was not protected from misunderstandings and has become skewed.

 

Proposing that something other than what has transpired using the Bible would have been better is a very, very dubious task. It is difficult enough to merely propose anything today that would be provably better.

 

We have been discussing what is logically provable, not merely supposing about something that might have been better. It is easy to throw proposals of preference into society without really checking the logic and probable consequences of your proposal. But when it comes to proposing something better for today -

 

Can you propose a truly Holy Law?

[crazy-tiger]

Can you propose a truly Holy Law?

Define "holy"...

"don't boil a kid in it's mother's milk" is referring to not spoiling a child by allowing the mothering to over protect him from the realities of life. This spoiling easily turns into anger from not getting what he wants when he wants it. It creates an over passion, uncontrolled and blinding.

Bull... Shit...

 

The word "kid" has only refered to human children in the last 100 years... that commandment used the word "kid" over 2,000 years ago.

No way on earth could that commandment mean what you say it means...