The UNholiness of the Bible

[Hero of Hyrule]

Without the autor, nobody can exactly know what was the intent of the wriiten down words. For all we know, it could have been a drunk scribe wanting to put something idiotic in.

[All Gods Fail]

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?

 

Propose a truly holy law? WTF does that even mean?

 

ho·ly

adj. ho·li·er, ho·li·est

1. Belonging to, derived from, or associated with a divine power; sacred.

2. Regarded with or worthy of worship or veneration; revered: a holy book.

3. Living according to a strict or highly moral religious or spiritual system; saintly: a holy person.

4. Specified or set apart for a religious purpose: a holy place.

5. Solemnly undertaken; sacrosanct: a holy pledge.

6. Regarded as deserving special respect or reverence: The pursuit of peace is our holiest quest.

7. Informal. Used as an intensive: raised holy hell over the mischief their children did.

 

Long story short, 'holy' is a meaningless term. Unless you believe a law could be representative of a divine being or power, or that there is a need to live by a spiritual system, 'holy' laws reflect what's best for the particular religion or spiritual philosophy, not what's best for the humans it governs. Duh!

 

So Ssel, why are you trying to get people shadow-boxing with themselves? Seriously, are you an atheist spoofer trying to prove a point - like how much more superior your arguments as a phony believer are than 'genuine' non-belivers? Seems like there was an obsessed, self-important asshole trying to do that here recently...

 

And please, don't come back with another 'read my posts, idiot' bit again. I've been reading your posts, and they're deliberately obtuse, self-aggrandizing twists of faulty reasoning and (intentionally?) weak logic.

 

If you were only intellectually honest, (instead of as smart and clever as you think you are) you might have something relevant to say.

 

[Ssel]

Can you propose a truly Holy Law?

Define "holy"...

If you have read along, you would see that it has been defined already, but All Gods Fail has presented a dictionary definition list. We can use one of those. The results will be the same.

"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...

And why do you suppose such a religion oriented society 100 years ago began using the term (again). What makes you think that the book those people were using so much, filled with allegory, isn't using it for the same reasoning and, in fact, got it from that same prior reference?

 

1) Consistency - in this as an allegory, its use was consistent

2) Completeness - allegories are intentional short variations from the typical usage of words. That's part of what makes them allegorical.

3) Relevance - Which understanding would be more revelvant - a commandment about how to not boil a baby goat, or a commandment about how to not raise a child?

 

 

Without the autor, nobody can exactly know what was the intent of the wriiten down words. For all we know, it could have been a drunk scribe wanting to put something idiotic in.

1) Consistency

2) Completeness

3) Relevance

[Ssel]

Can you propose a truly Holy Law?

Propose a truly holy law? WTF does that even mean?

ho·ly

adj. ho·li·er, ho·li·est

1. Belonging to, derived from, or associated with a divine power; sacred.

2. Regarded with or worthy of worship or veneration; revered: a holy book.

3. Living according to a strict or highly moral religious or spiritual system; saintly: a holy person.

4. Specified or set apart for a religious purpose: a holy place.

5. Solemnly undertaken; sacrosanct: a holy pledge.

6. Regarded as deserving special respect or reverence: The pursuit of peace is our holiest quest.

If we use any of 1-4 then your concern for religious belief becomes the issue. But 5 and/or 6 are not religious but instead refer to something being truly worthy of great regard.

 

The Bible refers to the "holy laws" as being eternal and perfect for all time from a never changing God. Thus in reference to Biblical concerns the word "holy" is not merely speaking of something worthy of great and solemn regard but of eternal use.

 

The way I had stated it was that a Holy Law = A law which is ALWAYS applicable and in consideration of all things (else it couldn't be always applicable). I added the logical stipulations which enumerate something being always applicable.

 

1) Consistency

2) Completeness

3) Relevance

 

So Ssel, why are you trying to get people shadow-boxing with themselves? Seriously, are you ..

Once again, if you don't like the message, attack the messenger, suspect motives, distract or anything that works. Please stay on topic.

[Ssel]

Why did you bring up Pritish here? ..

Well, when 2 people are discussing something and someone comes in to say "what you guys are doing..", I have to conclude that the "you guys" referred to the only guys talking at the time.

 

I gave my opinion, based on my conclusions, based on my studies of the bible and that I find there is NO holiness in it at all in the bible. Nothing but a myth.

Yes, we heard that the first time. So noted.

 

"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.

You call it holy, ..

No, I didn't.

Children are children in the bible and babies are babies, kids are baby goats.

Prove your conclusion of perfect consistency and absence of allegory, in the Bible regarding this word and usage.

Bad things have happened since the beginning of time long before the bible, it may not have started inhumanity but it sure as hell has kept it going...

Maybe it kept life going and life kept the inhumanity going.

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.

Plenty of unbelievers out there being wonderful all by themselves, no belief in a spirit required. OTH, there are plenty who do believe in the holy spirit and they are some of the most wretched and arrogant people to walk the face of the earth.

The issue wasn't about believing in a holy spirit, but acquiring it. Who said that you have to believe in something to acquire it? Do you have to believe in a disease to acquire it? Do you have to believe in pregnancy to acquire it?

Can you propose a truly Holy Law?

I don't believe there is such a thing as a "holy law", only good ones.

I had no doubt that your answer was "no". Thus it is certain that you can not.

[Ssel]

This is laughable. In the KJV (used the NIV before) the word "children" is used in 1803 verses and either refers to offspring and/or gods children. The word "goat" is used 43 times and in each case refers to a young goat. It was a stupid kosher command given to the jewish people, nothing more. Another time when the word "kid" is used is when the story of Joshua. His brothers used the blood of a kid on his coat to fool his father, most of the other references in the OT are concerning the sacrificial laws.

This is what you call a proof? How have you proven that not a single usage of neither "children" nor "kid" was allegorical?

 

But if you wish to believe that the Bible is so perfectly consistent, then maybe it IS holy after all. The SCC uses your same form of logic.

 

Um, the difference being is that pregnancy and diseases are real and verifiable. ;-)

Or perhaps you merely have a vague notion of what somethings mean and no real notion of the other things.

 

Define "holy spirit" in definitive terms, else claiming that it exists or doesn't is absurdity.

[Ssel]

It is only absurd to you SSEL, it doesn't exist therefore it cannot be defined.

Wow, tell me how you can know what it is that doesn't exist if you don't know what it is?

 

Oh. n/m. I know already... If you don't want it to exist, then it can't be defined and therefore can't exist.

[crazy-tiger]

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...

And why do you suppose such a religion oriented society 100 years ago began using the term (again). What makes you think that the book those people were using so much, filled with allegory, isn't using it for the same reasoning and, in fact, got it from that same prior reference?

 

1) Consistency - in this as an allegory, its use was consistent

2) Completeness - allegories are intentional short variations from the typical usage of words. That's part of what makes them allegorical.

3) Relevance - Which understanding would be more revelvant - a commandment about how to not boil a baby goat, or a commandment about how to not raise a child?

Now try again... The word "Kid" has only been used to refer to human children since the early 20th century. When the Bible was written it ONLY meant a young goat. IT WAS NEVER USED TO REFER TO HUMAN CHILDREN WHEN THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN!

Prove your conclusion of perfect consistency and absence of allegory, in the Bible regarding this word and usage.

The fact that it's 20th century slang is more than proof enough...

This is what you call a proof? How have you proven that not a single usage of neither "children" nor "kid" was allegorical?

Hello??

20TH CENTURY SLANG!!

 

It was not, EVER, used as anything other than a reference to a young goat at any time before the 20th century.

[Ssel]

The word "Kid" has only been used to refer to human children since the early 20th century. When the Bible was written it ONLY meant a young goat. IT WAS NEVER USED TO REFER TO HUMAN CHILDREN WHEN THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN!..

It was not, EVER, used as anything other than a reference to a young goat at any time before the 20th century.

Yes, I know that you have concluded this. But if you have no evidence to support the assertion, then drop it. I gave you mine. I see nothing but repetitious "I believe...therefore..." and "I don't believe...therefore.."

 

Serenity doesn't believe in the concept of Holy, therefore she can't believe in the concept of unholy either, therefore this thread has nothing to do with Serenity. She asserted her disbelief in holiness. Its been noted.

 

CT, you believe that a particular off topic phrase is a recent invention only. Fine, noted.

 

CT, do you have anything relevant to add to the topic of "unholiness of the Bible" that hasn't already been stated?

[Cerise]

Ssel...are you seriously claiming that the ancient writers of the bible were using 20th century slang?

 

Did they have bitchin' headgear?

 

Did they ring their cells to call Moses?

 

Did they say OMGLOL when Moses broke the tablets?

 

Maybe Jesus told Pilot to "talk to the hand"?

 

Okay-dokey. Whatever.

[Ssel]

Ssel...are you seriously claiming that the ancient writers of the bible were using 20th century slang?

I am suggesting 2 things;

 

1) The modern usage happens to be the same as the allegory used in the Bible. Allegories and metaphors are a method of communicating abstract concepts which tend to carry the same understanding throughout many generations and are likely to be repeated even without any direct associations. But most likely in the case of the particular one being discussed, the renewed use was picked up from the Bible itself and became common. This assertion can be based simply on the relevance issue of both that time and now.

 

"Lighting a candle" would be another common renewed usage. The phrase "Blood is thicker than water" would be another. A great many common 20th century "slangs" are the same as the metaphorical or allegorical Biblical usages.

 

2) The use of that particular word isn't really relevant to the "UNHoliness of the Bible" topic. People stated what they believed on the issue and had no evidence to quickly prove it either way in a short amount of time.

[Cerise]

Allegories and metaphors don't really translate well out of their context. But if you wanted to prove that the biblical authors were using "kid" as a metaphor for "child" you would have to provide more proof then the fact that it later (and I mean, much later) became slang in modern English.

 

Interpreting literature isn't about making up whatever the hell you want. I have to keep explaining that to my first-years, and from the looks of their mid-term assignments, it hasn't quite caught on yet.

[Ssel]

Interpreting literature isn't about making up whatever the hell you want. I have to keep explaining that to my first-years, and from the looks of their mid-term assignments, it hasn't quite caught on yet.

Then perhaps you should teach yours as I taught mine.

 

For a translation to be accepted, it must conform to the following 3 qualities;

 

1) Consistency - the usage must be the same in all cases. Allegories are an exception in that they are generally only told for a specific point being made at the time, thus other uses of the same words would not have anything to do with the allegorical short story. Metaphors require more consistency.

 

2) Completeness - the entire gathering to be translated must conform to the proposed translation methodology. If a change in translation method is required for one scripture, then that scripture must be separated along with whatever else it might have had to say. This is to maintain consistency throughout a gathering. If one finds a mis-metaphor within a gathered set of scriptures, then the book of them has a flaw or the methodology is in error and something else must be tried until the same method can fit all uses.

 

3) Relevance - the translation must be such as to justify its writing. If a translation ends up with a cartoon like story as its understanding, but the book is something being used by worldwide organizations, then the translation is obviously insufficient and a different method must be found.

 

These happen to also be the 3 basic qualities of any thought. Your mind automatically performs these on every day thoughts and sentences it hears from others.

[Cerise]

I don't quite understand what you mean by #3. How can you justify writing?

[SkepticOfBible]

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.

 

So being skeptical of fantastic events means that I have declared war on a idealogy. Right, and you believe every single claim that is made throughout the centuaries.

 

The bible presents itself as a book of fact and history. The bible wants it to be read as a historical document until it specifically says that the following part is a metaphor(eg the parables of Jesus).

 

If you do want to read it metaphorical, then you are deciding it on your own, and hence putting it under a subjective analysis.

 

Since the inception of the bible and untill the last centuary, the majority of it's followers treated as a historical fact of life. That sort of thinking still exist amongst many christians (specifically YEC) who maintain that the Flood, Genesis account and story of Eden was a historic event, and not a metaphorical one.

 

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:

 

Then perhaps this casual reader would like to point out that there is nothing in the bible which closely even resembles the claim of the "informed" reader about the event in question

 

Perhaps here we'll let the bible speak out the facts.

 

Exodus 11(KJV)

 

1And the LORD said unto Moses, Yet will I bring one plague more upon Pharaoh, and upon Egypt; afterwards he will let you go hence: when he shall let you go, he shall surely thrust you out hence altogether.

 

2Speak now in the ears of the people, and let every man borrow of his neighbour, and every woman of her neighbour, jewels of silver and jewels of gold.

 

3And the LORD gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians. Moreover the man Moses was very great in the land of Egypt, in the sight of Pharaoh's servants, and in the sight of the people.

 

4And Moses said, Thus saith the LORD, About midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt:

 

5And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.

 

6And there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as there was none like it, nor shall be like it any more.

 

7But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast: that ye may know how that the LORD doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel.

.......

10And Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh: and the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go out of his land.

 

It was all part of God's masterplan to harden the heart of the pharoah. There was nothing for the Isrealites to fear since God had already told them through Moses that they will be spared

 

"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."

 

Exodus 12

 

1And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt saying,

 

..........

12For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD.

 

13And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.

 

Once again there is nothing in the bible which says that Moses told the Isrealites to display a sign of Innocence. The sign was supposed "help" God to see that which house belonged to the Isrealites, so that the Isrealites don't become victim of friendly fire when this God releases his Weapon of Mass Destruction against the children and animals of egypt.

 

The point of killing innocent children and the animals, was to show that he was powerful than Ramesses and the God's of Egypt, and it was all part of masterplan to demonstrate the greatness of the Bible god.

 

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.

 

Gee I don't know, but when I watch a movie I don't look for mundane details such as the religious inclination of a fictious character, unless that is the focus of the movie. Hollywood nowadays hardly bring religion at all in it's movie, and even if they bring religion in, it's usually involves the christian faith rather than a Jewish one.

 

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

 

True the majority of the time the supreme evil bad guy would a white male, but who is hero who usually beats him. A white male guy. Freak man, hollywood is White dominated than a ethnic one. You can goto IMDB.com and check it out for yourself.

 

Would you mind telling which obscure movie did see the last time where the evil supreme bad is white christian priest?Oh lemme guess, cheap pornography and b-grade movie.

 

In all the last 200 movies I saw, the White Male Priest has been shown in a positive and mature light.

 

The ratio would be about 1:99 or worse.

 

Well ironically the Heros are also white with about the same ratio. So your claim about Hollywood being biased is invalidated.

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.

 

What did you just accuse me of doing?

 

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?

 

So aren't you making hasty generalisation and proposing conspirancy scenarios when there are none. I would expect this kind of thinking from a retarded white supremist, not from a person who claims to do research before coming to an conclusion.

 

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

 

mmmmmmmmmmmm

 

QUOTE(pritishd @ Dec 17 2005, 05:09 PM)

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.

 

So what you saying is that there was no point giving out simple commandment such as "There shall be no slavery" because the followers would not obey. Then I guess the lawmakers of the world shouldn't take out new legislation since no one listen to them anyways.

 

But's that not the way this the God of the Bible operates. For this God getting a high out of aroma from a burnt sacrifice offering is far more important than a misery a slave recieves from living in slavery. Wow what priorities

 

And christians expect me to worship such a creature.

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.

That's right this God is too lazy to give a simple command to prohibit slavery but will dedicate like 100 verses on hundreds on obscure items such as the ones that I mentioned in my last post.

 

Right wing fundies are the first one to stand up against laws which want to legistate abortion, prostition and gay marriage. One of the forefost claims is that "By giving legislation for (blank), the Govt is promoting (blank)". To some extent they are right, because creating regulatary legislation for certain actions means that you accept the actions as valid, and are taking it out of the criminal context.

 

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"

 

However the bible makes the contrary claim, which is why slavery was still a formal institution upto the last centuary. For many christians and Jews, slavery was a god given instituition like marriage. Even till date the Mormon sect of christianity considered Polygamy as "God ordained", because he never prohibited the ancient againt polygamy, and on the contrary gave rules to regulate it.

 

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?

 

Your analogy fails here. The doctor is telling me to take a negative action(reduction of food) in order to overcome the problem. However the bible does nothing of the sort. On contary slavery laws are very much akin to the Doctor saying to me "you know what, I can't cure your diabetes, but however I can give you regulated diet of sweets and fattening food, so that you can deal with the problem in a less painfull way"

 

 

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.

 

If the bible stories is primarily direct at the people of that time, then pretty much a lot of the bible is not relevant today.

 

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?

 

I don't find any extra meaning in genocide and infantcide, nor do I wish to find one. On the contrary I feel replused at it, just like the way I feel repulsed at watching gruesome violent movies.

 

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

 

I have already addressed this in the beginning of the post

 

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.

Well I took a similar process that went along the lines of your statement no 1, however I have told you my conclusion

 

As far no 2 goes, there were many times in the bible I could think of better way to deal with a situation, if I was a all powerfull God. And I have found virtually no evidence for many of the events that took place in the bible, which why I reject the bible as a message from an all powerful compassionate god, just like the way I reject the Quran or Bhagwad Gita.

 

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.

 

I would go ahead and say that nothing of the bible has come from God, and that it is completely 100% man made. I would give the bible the same consideration, as I would to Tony Robbin's self help book or the Quran.

[All Gods Fail]

Once again, if you don't like the message, attack the messenger, suspect motives, distract or anything that works. Please stay on topic.

 

 

Have at it dude - you clearly are incapable of listening to anything other than the sound of your own voice.

[SkepticOfBible]

The "don't boil a kid in his mother milk" issue can be resolved both literally and allegorically

 

Most like the commandment was written for a popular recipe whereby the kid/meat was probably cooked in milk. The author must have written because he must have felt that cooking a kid in his own mother milk must be very inhumane thing to do.

 

The allegorical interpretation is completely valid since we do it with literature and entertainment all the time, but not is a totally subjective thing and others may not agree with the intepretation. This is demonstrate by the response of the other members.

 

It will be a very extraordinary claim to say that the author of this verse speciafically wrote it so that a person in the 21 centuary would be able to derive allegorical meaning from the English Translation of the original.

 

In all case scenario the intent of the verse would be literal, since SSel had already stated in his post that the book was primarily designed for the people living in that time.

 

That was my two cents

 

(Disclaimer:The author deosn't claim that the above text is infallible and it is highly speculative based on reasoning and knowledge. The above is subject is critism and further improvement )

[Ssel]

I don't quite understand what you mean by #3. How can you justify writing?

Let’s say that you are reviewing a thesis on educational methodologies. Within, a new-age author is presented who has written 40 new fairy tales for children. A moral is explained for 39 of the 40 fairy tales. But it is concluded that one of the 40 had no moral and was written simply for entertainment. The thesis gave no detailed explanation of that one story or why it was concluded that it had no moral.

 

When defending the thesis, it was asked, “Why do you believe this author had no moral to story number 27?” The defendant explained that none was apparent. One of the assessors reveals a possible moral that would seem to reasonably fit the story. The defendant sharply refuses the explanation and expresses certainty that there was no moral for that one. The defendant explains, “Anyone can simply make up something. That doesn’t mean that it was what the author intended.”

 

Who is more probably right – the thesis defendant or the panel assessor? Either might be correct or both could be wrong. But the situation was that an author had written 39 moral based fairy tales. It is possible that story number 27 had no intended moral, but since one was found which fit the story line, it is more probable that the defendant simply didn’t see the moral and got caught in a embarrassing defensive position.

 

When a writing or a play has obtained great esteem, especially by high government officials, intellectuals, and statesmen, it is very likely that the story had significance beyond mere entertainment. When reviewing the writing, it is reasonable to seek out the “justification” for the esteem. You are not justifying the writing, but the situation from which the writing has come or caused.

 

The situation of story number 27 justified the search for a moral. The situation of the Bible more than justified a search for metaphorical intent. Or do you simply accept that the governance of the modern day nation of Israel, with the 4th largest military in the world, the 3rd most sophisticated defensive system, and the very most sophisticated spy network, are all simple minded superstitious fools? These modern educated officials who are fully involved in every type of known science, at the same time just take the cartoon version of the OT as factual?

 

Isn’t it more reasonable that such highly educated people caught in real life struggles throughout the world see something beyond the obvious superficial fairy tale version of the documents? Thinking that the people who run other nations are simple minded fools is the American arrogance.

[crazy-tiger]

The word "Kid" has only been used to refer to human children since the early 20th century. When the Bible was written it ONLY meant a young goat. IT WAS NEVER USED TO REFER TO HUMAN CHILDREN WHEN THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN!..

It was not, EVER, used as anything other than a reference to a young goat at any time before the 20th century.

Yes, I know that you have concluded this. But if you have no evidence to support the assertion, then drop it. I gave you mine. I see nothing but repetitious "I believe...therefore..." and "I don't believe...therefore.."

I will admit that the dictionary I was using stated that it was only 20th century slang... as I've been informed, that is in error. (figures, but don't start hugging yourself in glee just yet)

 

c.1200, "the young of a goat," from O.N. kið "young goat," from P.Gmc. *kiðjom (cf. Ger. kitz). Extended meaning of "child" first recorded as slang 1599, established in informal usage by 1840s. Kiddo first recorded 1896. Applied to skillful young thieves and pugilists since at least 1812. Kid stuff "something easy" is from 1923. Kid glove "a glove made of kidskin leather" is from 1687; sense of "characterized by wearing kid gloves," therefore "dainty, delicate" is from 1856. (with thanks to Cerise)

Now get it through your thick head that YOU ARE WRONG!

 

The word "kid" in the Bible refers to a young goat... in no way can it refer to a human child, unless the Bible was written AFTER 1599CE!

CT, you believe that a particular off topic phrase is a recent invention only. Fine, noted.

Yes, note it... meanwhile, I'll note that you claim to have given evidence to support your claims while giving nothing but assertions.

CT, do you have anything relevant to add to the topic of "unholiness of the Bible" that hasn't already been stated?

For now, just this...

 

You keep talking about...

For a translation to be accepted, it must conform to the following 3 qualities;

 

1) Consistency - the usage must be the same in all cases. Allegories are an exception in that they are generally only told for a specific point being made at the time, thus other uses of the same words would not have anything to do with the allegorical short story. Metaphors require more consistency.

 

2) Completeness - the entire gathering to be translated must conform to the proposed translation methodology. If a change in translation method is required for one scripture, then that scripture must be separated along with whatever else it might have had to say. This is to maintain consistency throughout a gathering. If one finds a mis-metaphor within a gathered set of scriptures, then the book of them has a flaw or the methodology is in error and something else must be tried until the same method can fit all uses.

 

3) Relevance - the translation must be such as to justify its writing. If a translation ends up with a cartoon like story as its understanding, but the book is something being used by worldwide organizations, then the translation is obviously insufficient and a different method must be found.

Your usage of the word "kid" is NOT consistent... guess you must be using it wrong.

It lacks completeness... you have had to change usage to make it fit. Guess it must be wrong.

Is it relevent? Doubtful, since you don't find allegory in Law. Guess it must be wrong.

 

It violates the 3 qualities that YOU keep bringing up...

 

 

 

Guess what, kiddo? You are not applying the same standards to yourself that you insist on applying to others. Attacking me for 'nothing but repetitious "I believe...therefore..." and "I don't believe...therefore.."' while bringing forth nothing but repetitious "I believe...therefore..." and "I don't believe...therefore.." is hypocrisy at it's finest.

[Cerise]

The situation of the Bible more than justified a search for metaphorical intent. Or do you simply accept that the governance of the modern day nation of Israel, with the 4th largest military in the world, the 3rd most sophisticated defensive system, and the very most sophisticated spy network, are all simple minded superstitious fools? These modern educated officials who are fully involved in every type of known science, at the same time just take the cartoon version of the OT as factual?

 

Isn’t it more reasonable that such highly educated people caught in real life struggles throughout the world see something beyond the obvious superficial fairy tale version of the documents? Thinking that the people who run other nations are simple minded fools is the American arrogance.

 

Obviously they did not see it as superstition. Do you think physicians who believed that in order to be healthy you must balance to four humours in your body were fools? Or that those who believed that the heart was responsible for thought and not the brain were fools? Just because a tribe believes in something that is, today, found to be superstition, does not mean they are fools.

 

Fools are those that need to convert everyone to their own way of thinking in order to feel secure and happy. Fools are those that cannot stand to find a difference.

 

The OT isn't a cartoon. Even with all its superstition. Mythology serves its purpose within communities quite nicely. It doesn't not have to be converted to your hodge-podge of allegory in order to be deemed "acceptable". I have never thought that those writing the bible were simple minded fools because of what they believed to be law. Obviously you cannot say the same, since you must pervert everything into a fuzzy state of metaphor before you can accept it.

[Ssel]

So being skeptical of fantastic events means that I have declared war on a idealogy. Right, and you believe every single claim that is made throughout the centuaries.

Huh??

The bible presents itself as a book of fact and history. The bible wants it to be read as a historical document until it specifically says that the following part is a metaphor(eg the parables of Jesus).

Emm.. No. Historical fact is not varied by a metaphorical recording method. The parables merely testify that such things are used during that era. But who before Jesus actually said "Btw, this is a parable." He explained that speaking in such a way had a purpose. He explained that it was intentional that some not understand. Consider that you might be that "some".

If you do want to read it metaphorical, then you are deciding it on your own, and hence putting it under a subjective analysis.

And if you pursue intellectual debate about the historical events that are more than obviously ridicules on the surface, then you are deciding to do so on your own, and hence putting it under no intelligent analysis at all.

 

Since the inception of the bible and untill the last centuary, the majority of it's followers treated as a historical fact of life. That sort of thinking still exist amongst many christians (specifically YEC) who maintain that the Flood, Genesis account and story of Eden was a historic event, and not a metaphorical one.

And after talking to many of these people it hasn't occurred to you that maybe these weren't the brightest lights on the Christmas tree? The largest number in every group are the "fundamentalists". The same if true of science. This is simply a fact of reality and necessity. If you can't hear from the top of the mountain of believers, then your hearing distortion. When you do get to hear from the top of such a mountain, you hear a speech intended for the masses and tailored to fit a common denominator. Your assuming that because no leader came out in public and stated something, that the leader revealed all he knew and there was no more.

 

------

 

So, I explain it as Moses helping to free the Israelites with God. And you explain it as God freeing the Israelites with Moses and “weapons of mass destruction”.

 

so that the Isrealites don't become victim of friendly fire when this God releases his Weapon of Mass Destruction against the children and animals of egypt.

 

Why didn’t I see the words “weapons of mass destruction” in all you quoted from the Bible? It said nothing about “weapons of mass destruction”. Where did you get “weapons of mass destruction”? Show me where it says “weapons of mass destruction” in the Bible. Obviously you have never read the Bible or you would know that it never mentions anything about “weapons of mass destruction”.

 

Obviously, to you, when you said “weapons of mass destruction”, you were changing the words to emphasis a point but not really changing the concept. Why is it that only you are allowed this privilege?

 

13And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.[/i]

You think that this has absolutely nothing to do with what I had explained? As I said, the informed reader, not you, sees why it is that God passes over the houses displaying the blood of a lamb. The informed reader, not you, understands what the “blood of the lamb” means such that it really would have that effect. To you such a thing is just some non-sense magical thing. That is why you have to actually understand and not merely read.

 

It was all part of God's masterplan to harden the heart of the pharoah. There was nothing for the Isrealites to fear since God had already told them through Moses that they will be spared

You imagine that the entire gathering of Israelites were just merrily skipping along while everyone around them was falling over dead that night because Moses said that God said that they had nothing to fear?

 

You are accepting the casual reader Hocus Pocus part. To find metaphor, you have to envision what might have been really going on which had nothing to do with any supernatural anything. Remove the magic but leave the abstract events.

 

I grant you that it never said that the people asked Moses, but rather that he told them without them ever asking. But it is unreasonable to believe that the population of Israelites were not concerned for their lives. It is unreasonable to believe that the Israelites were not asking Moses what to do about the upcoming calamity. It is also unreasonable to believe that the first born of everyone in the land was merely falling over dead in the middle of the night. So what was really happening that could be told in such a manner but make sense?

 

The entire formula for freeing the Israelites is far more complicated than that little bit I told you. You can not take a single bit of the metaphoric translation and insert only that bit in with all of the superficial, magical wording and make much sense. It is like merely changing a few Chinese words into English and expecting a sentence to become clear.

 

If you’re going to argue about the metaphorical understandings, then you have a lot of catching up to do before you even begin.

 

 

Obviously they did not see it as superstition. Do you think physicians who believed that in order to be healthy you must balance to four humours in your body were fools? Or that those who believed that the heart was responsible for thought and not the brain were fools? Just because a tribe believes in something that is, today, found to be superstition, does not mean they are fools.

You are talking about people of today with modern education in science and technology and running entire nations involved in wars. These are not primitive, childlike ancient people who presumably know so little of everything. And they are NOT superstitious except on the fundamentalist, Santa Claus level.

 

 

7But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast: that ye may know how that the LORD doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel.

And you think that God was giving commands to the dogs at a time like this? Isn’t it still common to refer to certain types of people as “dogs”? Doesn’t it make more sense that this verse is referring to people than merely insignificant dogs?

 

The point of killing innocent children and the animals, was to show that he was powerful than Ramesses and the God's of Egypt, and it was all part of masterplan to demonstrate the greatness of the Bible god.

Why is it okay for you to freely inject your supposition of why God was doing something but others “have no proof”?

As far no 2 goes, there were many times in the bible I could think of better way to deal with a situation, if I was a all powerfull God.

Sense being an all powerful God is beyond your imagination. Try thinking about what you would do if you were one of millions of people who worshipped gods and Pharaohs but you needed to free some of them from the tyranny.

 

I would go ahead and say that nothing of the bible has come from God, and that it is completely 100% man made.

.. nothing of the bible has come from which God?

 

Gee I don't know, but when I watch a movie I don't look for mundane details such as the religious inclination of a fictious character, unless that is the focus of the movie. Hollywood nowadays hardly bring religion at all in it's movie, and even if they bring religion in, it's usually involves the christian faith rather than a Jewish one.

Yes, you don’t. And yes, the films, display how negative and bad Christianity is but nothing about how all of these OT events and their laws, still used today, are even worse.

 

Why would that be? Why would the Jewish unholy laws and obvious bloody history and obvious blood current events all be left out while they produce 100s of major movies showing how evil and useless Christianity is? Especially since Christianity at least proclaims that such things are bad. If it was all fiction, then certainly it would be more entertaining to display the horrific magical events of the OT. Maybe how the evil Rabbi tried to slaughter the children of some village so as to be proclaimed a high prophet. But you never, ever see such scenarios – Only Christian priests are bad, never a Rabbi. –Hmmm.

 

This involved unholy manipulation of people TODAY

 

The Bible stories are relevant to events today because they are about manipulation of peoples feelings and beliefs. They are being used TODAY. Understand them, or fall victim to them. Trying to proclaim them as mere myth only makes them stronger.

[NotBlinded]

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...

How could that change the meaning? What would change if I said, don't boil a colt in its mother's milk? Nothing would change. It is a metaphor like saying "dont throw the baby out with the bath water." Even if they didn't refer to children as kids, the meaning is the same. It is an offspring...that is what matters.

[Cerise]

All due respect notblinded, if you MUST change anything you find odd or unexplainable in the bible to metaphor and allegory, then it is YOU who are prejudiced against these ancient writers. If you cannot believe that intelligent people could have taken these verse literally you insult them. You imply that your interpretation is the only correct one for those who think, and anyone who doesn't agree? Well, they aren't as smart, are they? They are superstitious children, aren't they?

 

It is an insult. Even to all of us who once believed, it is an insult.

 

Primitive childlike ancient people who knew little of everything? That may be how you and Ssel see the ancient tribes of the world, but I would never insult them in such a way.

 

The Bible stories are relevant to events today because they are about manipulation of peoples feelings and beliefs. They are being used TODAY. Understand them, or fall victim to them. Trying to proclaim them as mere myth only makes them stronger.

 

The only one I see using the moniker of "mere" to describe mythology is you. Everyone else seems to have a great deal of respect for the role mythology plays in the lives of people.

[crazy-tiger]

How could that change the meaning? What would change if I said, don't boil a colt in its mother's milk? Nothing would change. It is a metaphor like saying "dont throw the baby out with the bath water." Even if they didn't refer to children as kids, the meaning is the same. It is an offspring...that is what matters.

You don't find allegory or metaphor in the commandments... If this was indeed a metaphor, if it was allegorical, then it's the only example of it. (not likely at all, considering the context... it's all literal at that point)

 

They were Laws from God... not teachings, and one thing you fail to find in those Laws is any kind of metaphor...

[Ssel]

The only one I see using the moniker of "mere" to describe mythology is you. Everyone else seems to have a great deal of respect for the role mythology plays in the lives of people.

But you see them as having influence ONLY because people believe in the superficial Santa Claus version. You are not accrediting the very intelligent rulers, kings, and emperors as have far more intelligence than you. Enough to be able to easily see metaphor, when you can't.

 

You are assuming that such great shapers of the world of Man are no brighter than you.

 

The arrogance is yours.