The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#281  Postby Agrippina » Dec 13, 2013 2:37 pm

willhud9 wrote:
Agrippina wrote:The Bible is still childish, like a book of fairytales is childish.


I beg to differ. Hans Christian Anderson, and Brothers Grimm have entertained me for many years, but always in abridged forms as a child. It wasn't til my teenage years that I was introduced to the bloody and oftentimes frightening conclusions to many a character in the fairytale.


Didn't you read the whole stories as a child?
Illegitimi non carborundum
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 36689
Age: 109
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#282  Postby willhud9 » Dec 13, 2013 6:58 pm

Agrippina wrote:
willhud9 wrote:
Agrippina wrote:The Bible is still childish, like a book of fairytales is childish.


I beg to differ. Hans Christian Anderson, and Brothers Grimm have entertained me for many years, but always in abridged forms as a child. It wasn't til my teenage years that I was introduced to the bloody and oftentimes frightening conclusions to many a character in the fairytale.


Didn't you read the whole stories as a child?


Nope. Many child versions abridged the originals to make them more "kid-friendly." Can't have Cinderella's stepsisters having their foot sliced to fit into the glass slipper.
Fear is a choice you embrace
Your only truth
Tribal poetry
Witchcraft filling your void
Lust for fantasy
Male necrocracy
Every child worthy of a better tale
User avatar
willhud9
 
Name: William
Posts: 19332
Age: 29
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#283  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 13, 2013 7:00 pm

willhud9 wrote:
Agrippina wrote:
willhud9 wrote:
Agrippina wrote:The Bible is still childish, like a book of fairytales is childish.


I beg to differ. Hans Christian Anderson, and Brothers Grimm have entertained me for many years, but always in abridged forms as a child. It wasn't til my teenage years that I was introduced to the bloody and oftentimes frightening conclusions to many a character in the fairytale.


Didn't you read the whole stories as a child?


Nope. Many child versions abridged the originals to make them more "kid-friendly." Can't have Cinderella's stepsisters having their foot sliced to fit into the glass slipper.

Over here you can.
Just like you can have the big bad wolf eat the grandma/piglets/goat-children. Et al.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30880
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#284  Postby willhud9 » Dec 13, 2013 7:01 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
willhud9 wrote:
Agrippina wrote:
willhud9 wrote:

I beg to differ. Hans Christian Anderson, and Brothers Grimm have entertained me for many years, but always in abridged forms as a child. It wasn't til my teenage years that I was introduced to the bloody and oftentimes frightening conclusions to many a character in the fairytale.


Didn't you read the whole stories as a child?


Nope. Many child versions abridged the originals to make them more "kid-friendly." Can't have Cinderella's stepsisters having their foot sliced to fit into the glass slipper.

Over here you can.
Just like you can have the big bad wolf eat the grandma/piglets/goat-children. Et al.


It's not politically correct to show kids such things. It can give them nightmares. Just like teaching kids about sex at a young age gives them STD's. I think that's the rationale anyways.
Fear is a choice you embrace
Your only truth
Tribal poetry
Witchcraft filling your void
Lust for fantasy
Male necrocracy
Every child worthy of a better tale
User avatar
willhud9
 
Name: William
Posts: 19332
Age: 29
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#285  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 13, 2013 7:09 pm

willhud9 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
willhud9 wrote:
Agrippina wrote:

Didn't you read the whole stories as a child?


Nope. Many child versions abridged the originals to make them more "kid-friendly." Can't have Cinderella's stepsisters having their foot sliced to fit into the glass slipper.

Over here you can.
Just like you can have the big bad wolf eat the grandma/piglets/goat-children. Et al.


It's not politically correct to show kids such things.

I take it you mean in the U.S.?

willhud9 wrote:It can give them nightmares. Just like teaching kids about sex at a young age gives them STD's. I think that's the rationale anyways.

Overprotective if you ask me. As long as you don't go into to gory details and the grandma comes out alive....
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30880
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#286  Postby MrFungus420 » Dec 13, 2013 7:59 pm

willhud9 wrote:
MrFungus420 wrote:
willhud9 wrote:
Agrippina wrote:What about the rest of the commandments? They conveniently forget them. :roll:


Don't see what you mean?

Jesus summed up all the Commandments into 1) Love God with everything you have and 2) Love your neighbour as yourself.


Pure nonsense.

How does that cover things such as not being superstitious, not muttering incantations and not performing magic (funny that God seems to think that magic really exists)?


Loving God. Magic is against God.

How is it pure nonsense? Unsubstantiated claim is unsubstantiated.


It's pure nonsense because "Love God with everything you have"and "Love your neighbor as yourself" does not come close to summing up all of the commandments.

Some of the things not covered by that are those that I mentioned, begin superstitious, not muttering incantations and not performing magic are all part of the commandments.

Magic does not exist, how can it be "against" anything?

Why does God give an injunction against doing something that doesn't exist?

willhud9 wrote:
Nor does it seem to be in line with the commandments about killing the tribes of the Canaanites and utterly wiping out the Amalekites.


First of all, those commands were to a select group of people. I take it you are unfamiliar with any Jewish writing aside from the Bible as you would know that if you were. If you are going to comment on the Jewish belief system than you are going to have to familiarize yourself with the various theological schools of Judaism at the time which delegated the various commands of God to being selective to certain people such as priests, certain generations, etc.

A second temple Jew would not be commanded to kill a Canaanite within Jerusalem.


So, yet more commandments that have been changed.

willhud9 wrote:
willhud9 wrote:Paul and the early church leaders believed the same thing. The law is summed up right there.


No, it isn't. Not by a long shot.


Unsubstantiated.


Except by the existence of 613 commandments, many of which are not covered by "loving God and loving others as yourself".

willhud9 wrote:For someone who likes taking the Bible's passages ultra-literally,


Is any of it literal?

If "yes", then give me a metric for determining what is literal and what is not.

Until that can be done, I have to be given a very good reason to accept that an interpretation of what something means is valid as opposed to what is actually written.

willhud9 wrote:that verse seems to give you problems. :coffee:


There is a contradiction between what Paul supposedly said and what Jesus supposedly said.

I see no reason to accept the current interpretation of Paul's interpretation of what Jesus said over what Jesus is purported to have actually said.
Atheism alone is no more a religion than health is a disease. One may as well argue over which brand of car pedestrians drive.
- AronRa
MrFungus420
 
Posts: 3914

Print view this post

Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#287  Postby Agrippina » Dec 14, 2013 4:50 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
willhud9 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
willhud9 wrote:

Nope. Many child versions abridged the originals to make them more "kid-friendly." Can't have Cinderella's stepsisters having their foot sliced to fit into the glass slipper.

Over here you can.
Just like you can have the big bad wolf eat the grandma/piglets/goat-children. Et al.


It's not politically correct to show kids such things.

I take it you mean in the U.S.?

willhud9 wrote:It can give them nightmares. Just like teaching kids about sex at a young age gives them STD's. I think that's the rationale anyways.

Overprotective if you ask me. As long as you don't go into to gory details and the grandma comes out alive....


I had a book of Aesops Fables and one of all the fairytales. Complete with every gory detail, including the wolf being cut open to release the grandmother he'd eaten. Just like with the Bible I said that the story was nonsense, he didn't swallow her whole like a snake, she'd be in pieces. Silly nonsense.

It's taken me until now, reading Game of Thrones, to accept that sometimes fiction stretches reality, and that it's just fiction. Just like the Bible.
Illegitimi non carborundum
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 36689
Age: 109
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#288  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 14, 2013 10:07 am

Agrippina wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
willhud9 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Over here you can.
Just like you can have the big bad wolf eat the grandma/piglets/goat-children. Et al.


It's not politically correct to show kids such things.

I take it you mean in the U.S.?

willhud9 wrote:It can give them nightmares. Just like teaching kids about sex at a young age gives them STD's. I think that's the rationale anyways.

Overprotective if you ask me. As long as you don't go into to gory details and the grandma comes out alive....


I had a book of Aesops Fables and one of all the fairytales. Complete with every gory detail, including the wolf being cut open to release the grandmother he'd eaten.

Same here.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30880
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#289  Postby CharlieM » Dec 14, 2013 9:16 pm

Agrippina wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
tolman wrote:
CharlieM wrote:And do you think that immoral stories are necessarily childish?

No. I think that a book which has immoral actions passing as moral doesn't qualify to be a moral guide in the way many believers would claim it did.
If people are able to look at the tales and work out the good from bad for themselves and remember the tales as illustrations of good and bad morality, then it is no more a guide to morality than a newspaper full of stories of good and bad behaviour is.


What about the Ten Commandments? Do you think that they were a reasonable set of laws for the ancient Jews to abide by?


No, firstly they were merely a summary of the entire law statute which includes over 600 "thou shalt nots." Secondly, they were copied from the laws that were in circulation during the period and those in place in all the city states around Judaea and Babylon, So there's nothing unusual about them.


Jews see the ten commandments not as a summary but as the basis for the 600+ other laws. If similar laws were in circulation among other peoples in the area they must have been considered to be fairly reasonable.

Agrippina wrote:Jews see the ten commandments not as a summary but as the basis for the 600+ other laws. If similar laws were in circulation among other peoples in the area they must have been considered to be fairly reasonable.

Thirdly, they do not include the most important laws of all: do not enslave other people; treat women with respect; do not murder your children.


I would say that the laws were quite enlightened for their time, and, "do not murder your children" would come under, "do not kill". We are talking about Old Testament times, thousands of years ago. Slavery has been condoned by most cultures up to very recent times. We justly value individual rights today but in times gone by the concerns of the group or the tribe were considered more important than the individual.

Agrippina wrote:Instead the most important thing in the law is the narcissism of the god: I am the Lord your god, you shall not have any other gods before me. This is more important that slavery, abuse of women and children. And you want to know if it's reasonable? No, it's childish foot-stamping: I want you to love me more than any of your other children (gods) or I'll have a temper tantrum and wipe you and your "kind" off the face of the earth.


When you understand the "I AM" you will realise your mistaken interpretation of what the text is telling us.

Agrippina wrote:
tolman wrote:
As above, if people had something forced upon them while children with a demand they saw it as Perfect Truth, then once they come to see the flaws in it as they grow up, they are likely to see it (and the people who promoted it) as more being childish than they might have appeared with a different presentation. That's one of the downsides of attempted indoctrination.


The Bible doesn't force anything on anyone, people do. The fact that so called, Christians have carried out all sorts of atrocities and indoctrination is not because of what is written in the Bible, it is/was due to their warped minds. I'm not defending Christians, I'm defending the Bible.

The Bible is an inanimate object. People might use it for many things, including toilet paper for all I care. It's that the people who carry out atrocities do it with the Bible in one hand. The Holocaust for one thing was carried out by people who called the people they were killing, by the millions "Christ killers" and they wore the words "God with us" on the belts of their uniforms. Where did they find the god they were invoking, where did they get the story of the "Christ" that they claimed their victims killed? In the Bible!

Don't say that they weren't "real Christians" just the fact that they used the term "Christ killers" makes them believers in the stories in the Bible, therefore they were Christians. Anyone who uses the name "Jesus" or "Christ" to identify themselves is a Christian.


Its naive to think that the Nazis were followers of Christ. They obviously never loved their enemies or were not interested in turning the other cheek. Their anti-Semitic agenda involved stirring up the people against the Jews, labelling the Jews as "Christ killers" was just one way of promoting this bad feeling.
CharlieM
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Charlie Morrison
Posts: 1044

Country: UK
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#290  Postby redwhine » Dec 15, 2013 1:22 am

CharlieM wrote:Its naive to think that the Nazis were followers of Christ.

Presumably they weren't "true Scotsmen", too?

The church of Rome certainly thought they were christians. The only leading nazi to be excommunicated was Joseph Goebbels. Not for not being a nazi, but for marrying a protestant.

See also...

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

"It's naive to think that the Nazis were not followers of Christ."

FIFY

ETA

"True" christians don't pay into pension schemes, nor book holidays in advance, nor go to school/university (...to pass exams to get better jobs in the future)...

Matthew 6:34 wrote:Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself.
Last edited by redwhine on Dec 15, 2013 7:47 am, edited 2 times in total.
Like BEER? ...Click here!

What do I believe?

Atheism is myth understood.
User avatar
redwhine
 
Posts: 7815
Age: 67
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#291  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 15, 2013 1:43 am

Next time, please check your post before hitting submit, you've made the same statement twice and atributed it incorrectly to Agrippina in the second instance.

CharlieM wrote:
Agrippina wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
tolman wrote:
No. I think that a book which has immoral actions passing as moral doesn't qualify to be a moral guide in the way many believers would claim it did.
If people are able to look at the tales and work out the good from bad for themselves and remember the tales as illustrations of good and bad morality, then it is no more a guide to morality than a newspaper full of stories of good and bad behaviour is.


What about the Ten Commandments? Do you think that they were a reasonable set of laws for the ancient Jews to abide by?


No, firstly they were merely a summary of the entire law statute which includes over 600 "thou shalt nots." Secondly, they were copied from the laws that were in circulation during the period and those in place in all the city states around Judaea and Babylon, So there's nothing unusual about them.


Jews see the ten commandments not as a summary but as the basis for the 600+ other laws. If similar laws were in circulation among other peoples in the area they must have been considered to be fairly reasonable.

Your switching of summary with basis in this context is a change without difference.
Your argument is also a fallacious appeal to popularity.
Laws being popular doesn't mean they are reasonable.

CharlieM wrote:
Agrippina wrote:
Thirdly, they do not include the most important laws of all: do not enslave other people; treat women with respect; do not murder your children.


I would say that the laws were quite enlightened for their time,

:doh:
Again, 'other people do it to' is not a logical argument. Also you'd first have to establish that it was in fact ahead of it's time.

CharlieM wrote:and, "do not murder your children" would come under, "do not kill". We are talking about Old Testament times, thousands of years ago.

You do know that same Old Testament command parents to stone to death disobedient children?
Or is that somehow not murdering your child?

CharlieM wrote:Slavery has been condoned by most cultures up to very recent times.

Still with the tu quoque fallacy I see. :nono:

CharlieM wrote:We justly value individual rights today but in times gone by the concerns of the group or the tribe were considered more important than the individual.

Slavery is not in the best interest of the group. Educated and motivated labourers are.

CharlieM wrote:
Agrippina wrote:Instead the most important thing in the law is the narcissism of the god: I am the Lord your god, you shall not have any other gods before me. This is more important that slavery, abuse of women and children. And you want to know if it's reasonable? No, it's childish foot-stamping: I want you to love me more than any of your other children (gods) or I'll have a temper tantrum and wipe you and your "kind" off the face of the earth.


When you understand the "I AM" you will realise your mistaken interpretation of what the text is telling us.

Vacuous wibble is vacuos.
The emperor is naked CharlieM. There are no special clothes.

CharlieM wrote:
Its naive to think that the Nazis were followers of Christ.

It really isn't.
1. Germany like the rest of Europe was a majority Christian nation.
2. Both Hitler and the Nazi's in general used Christian messages and themes in their propaganda.
Or have you never seen this:
Image
In case you can't read German, it says: God (is) with us.

CharlieM wrote:They obviously never loved their enemies or were not interested in turning the other cheek.

No True Scotsman fallacy.
Your interpetation of Christianity isn't automatically True ChristianityTM.

CharlieM wrote:Their anti-Semitic agenda involved stirring up the people against the Jews, labelling the Jews as "Christ killers" was just one way of promoting this bad feeling.

Which was in complete accord with the position the Catholic church had held for centuries and only abolished 20 years after the war:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_deicide
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30880
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#292  Postby Agrippina » Dec 15, 2013 5:41 am

CharlieM wrote:
Agrippina wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
tolman wrote:
No. I think that a book which has immoral actions passing as moral doesn't qualify to be a moral guide in the way many believers would claim it did.
If people are able to look at the tales and work out the good from bad for themselves and remember the tales as illustrations of good and bad morality, then it is no more a guide to morality than a newspaper full of stories of good and bad behaviour is.


What about the Ten Commandments? Do you think that they were a reasonable set of laws for the ancient Jews to abide by?


No, firstly they were merely a summary of the entire law statute which includes over 600 "thou shalt nots." Secondly, they were copied from the laws that were in circulation during the period and those in place in all the city states around Judaea and Babylon, So there's nothing unusual about them.


Jews see the ten commandments not as a summary but as the basis for the 600+ other laws. If similar laws were in circulation among other peoples in the area they must have been considered to be fairly reasonable.

There were not "similar" laws in circulation, there were pre-existing laws enacted by the rulers of actual city states all over the Near East, that were the basis of early civilisation. The Hebrews simply used them to create their own laws, and then, over time, more specific ones were added, leading to the list of 613 contained in the Torah, as encoded by Maimonides.
His fourteen-volume Mishneh Torah still carries significant canonical authority as a codification of Talmudic law. In the Yeshiva world he is called sometimes "haNesher haGadol" (the great eagle) in recognition of his outstanding status as a bona fide exponent of the Oral Torah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonides

Agrippina wrote:Jews see the ten commandments not as a summary but as the basis for the 600+ other laws. If similar laws were in circulation among other peoples in the area they must have been considered to be fairly reasonable.

Thirdly, they do not include the most important laws of all: do not enslave other people; treat women with respect; do not murder your children.


I would say that the laws were quite enlightened for their time, and, "do not murder your children" would come under, "do not kill". We are talking about Old Testament times, thousands of years ago. Slavery has been condoned by most cultures up to very recent times. We justly value individual rights today but in times gone by the concerns of the group or the tribe were considered more important than the individual.

No, we are talking about the actual collection of various documents and assembled as one "Torah."
The majority of Biblical scholars believe that the written books were a product of the Babylonian exilic period (c. 600 BCE) and that it was completed by the Persian period (c. 400 BCE).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah
By the middle of the first century BCE, most other civilisations might have been practicing slavery, but they weren't stoning their children for disobedience, as defined in the law of the Hebrews.
Lev 26:27 If in spite of this you still do not listen to me but continue to be hostile toward me, then in my anger I will be hostile toward you, and I myself will punish you for your sins seven times over. You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters.
Numbers 14:33-34 And your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years, and bear your whoredoms, until your carcasses be wasted in the wilderness. After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise.
Deuteronomy 21 18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard. 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.
Deuteronomy 28:53:And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD they God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straightness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee
Deuteronomy 28:57:And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly in the siege and straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall distress thee in thy gates.
Judges 11: 30 And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,
31 Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.
32 So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the Lord delivered them into his hands.
33 And he smote them from Aroer, even till thou come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and unto the plain of the vineyards, with a very great slaughter. Thus the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.
34 And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.
35 And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, and I cannot go back.
36 And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the Lord, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as the Lord hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, even of the children of Ammon.
37 And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows.
38 And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains.
39 And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel,
40 That the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.
2 Kings 6:28-29 This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son to morrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him.
2 Kings 6:28-29 And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son to morrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him and she hath hid her son....
2 Kings 6:28 And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son to morrow.
2 Kings 6:29 So we boiled my son, and did eat him and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him and she hath hid her son.
Proverbs 22:15 Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far from him.
Proverbs 23:13: Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish him with the rod, he will not die.14 Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.
Proverbs 29:15 The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.
Isaiah 9 19-20 By the wrath of the LORD Almighty the land will be scorched and the people will be fuel for the fire; no one will spare his brother. On the right they will devour, but still be hungry; on the left they will eat, but not be satisfied.
Isaiah 13:15 Whoever is captured will be thrust through; all who are caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives ravished.
Jeremiah 19:9 I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they will eat one another's flesh in the siege and in the distress with which their enemies and those who seek their life will distress them. '
Ezekiel 5:10 Therefore fathers shall eat their sons in your midst, and sons shall eat their fathers. And I will execute judgments on you, and any of you who survive I will scatter to all the winds.

This does not agree with your claim that "thou shalt not kill" covers the idea of not killing your children, in fact these verses all support cruelty to children.

Agrippina wrote:Instead the most important thing in the law is the narcissism of the god: I am the Lord your god, you shall not have any other gods before me. This is more important that slavery, abuse of women and children. And you want to know if it's reasonable? No, it's childish foot-stamping: I want you to love me more than any of your other children (gods) or I'll have a temper tantrum and wipe you and your "kind" off the face of the earth.


When you understand the "I AM" you will realise your mistaken interpretation of what the text is telling us.

The text is telling me nothing, except that this god wants to be worshipped exclusively, and that death awaits those you do not do this:

2 I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.


These are definitely about the narcissism of this god:
To know there is a God: Exodus 20:2 I am the LORD thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me
Not to even think that there are other gods besides Him:   Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;
To know that He is One: Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one.
To love Him: Deuteronomy 6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
To fear Him : Deuteronomy 10;20 Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name.
To sanctify His Name: Levitcus 22: 32... I will be hallowed among the children of Israel: I am the LORD which hallow you,
Not to profane His Name: Levitcus 22: 32 Neither shall ye profane my holy name...
Not to destroy objects associated with His Name: Deuteronomy 12:4 Ye shall not do so unto the Lord your God
To listen to the prophet speaking in His Name: Deuteronomy 18:15 The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;


Agrippina wrote:
tolman wrote:
As above, if people had something forced upon them while children with a demand they saw it as Perfect Truth, then once they come to see the flaws in it as they grow up, they are likely to see it (and the people who promoted it) as more being childish than they might have appeared with a different presentation. That's one of the downsides of attempted indoctrination.


The Bible doesn't force anything on anyone, people do. The fact that so called, Christians have carried out all sorts of atrocities and indoctrination is not because of what is written in the Bible, it is/was due to their warped minds. I'm not defending Christians, I'm defending the Bible.

The Bible is an inanimate object. People might use it for many things, including toilet paper for all I care. It's that the people who carry out atrocities do it with the Bible in one hand. The Holocaust for one thing was carried out by people who called the people they were killing, by the millions "Christ killers" and they wore the words "God with us" on the belts of their uniforms. Where did they find the god they were invoking, where did they get the story of the "Christ" that they claimed their victims killed? In the Bible!

Don't say that they weren't "real Christians" just the fact that they used the term "Christ killers" makes them believers in the stories in the Bible, therefore they were Christians. Anyone who uses the name "Jesus" or "Christ" to identify themselves is a Christian.


Its naive to think that the Nazis were followers of Christ. They obviously never loved their enemies or were not interested in turning the other cheek. Their anti-Semitic agenda involved stirring up the people against the Jews, labelling the Jews as "Christ killers" was just one way of promoting this bad feeling.


The Nazis were Christians, because they worshipped Christ. There is no other definition, to say otherwise is to employ the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.[1] When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing").

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

This from Adolf Hitler:
My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited. -Adolf Hitler, in his speech on 12 April 1922


Every Nazi soldier wore a badge that said "God with us" on his belt. They were Christians, or at least they were not atheists.
How many times is that? Five times in one speech he confirmed that he was "a Christian."
Illegitimi non carborundum
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 36689
Age: 109
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#293  Postby CharlieM » Dec 15, 2013 1:24 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:

You do know that these ancient texts were written by human beings and not Jehovah or Krishna personally?

Yes I do. Again, where are you drawing these conclusions from?


I get inspiration and guidance from peole who are far wiser than I am. You seem to think that the same entity cannot be called by different names in different cultures. Why would you think this?

Where have I expressed this?
I know Krishna et all aren't names for your god because not only are their creation stories vastly different from the Abrahamic creation story, the commandments and particular idiosyncratuc dogma's of those religions are different from yours.
So you don't get to either disengenuously or ignorantly claim they are the same.
Now kindly stop making shit up about what my claims or motivaitons are. Ask if you're not sure, but stop with this nonsense.


How do you know who my "god" is? If you look at the various creation stories to find fault and look for differences then that is what you will see. But by doing this you will miss the essence of them, their essential nature will be hidden from you.

Here are a few passages from various sources:

Exodus 3:
14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.


Isaiah 48:
16...I have not spoken in secret from the beginning;
from the time that it was, there AM I:
and now the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me.
17 Thus saith the Lord, thy Redeemer,
the Holy One of Israel;
I AM the Lord thy God which teacheth thee to profit,
which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.


John 8:
56"Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” 57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!” 58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I AM!”


Bhagavad Gita 10:
20 - I AM the Self, O Gudakesha, seated in the hearts of all beings! I am the beginning, the middle and also the end of all beings.


Revelations 22:
12 - And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. 13 - I AM Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. 14 - Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.


The Upanishads,pt2:
4th Brahmana:
1. In the beginning this was Self alone, in the shape of a person (purusha). He looking round saw nothing but his Self. He first said, 'This is I;' therefore he became I by name. Therefore even now, if a man is asked, he first says, 'This is I,' and then pronounces the other name which he may have.


The Egyptian Book of the Dead
Plate X:
{23}..."I know the god who dwelleth therein."
(24) Who then is this? It is Osiris, or (as others say), Ra is his name, even Ra (25) the self-created.
"I AM the bennu bird (26) which is in Annu, and I AM the keeper of the volume of the book of things[2] which are and of things which shall be."


Tat Tvam Asi, you are that. In John 10.34, we read, "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"
CharlieM
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Charlie Morrison
Posts: 1044

Country: UK
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#294  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 15, 2013 1:31 pm

CharlieM wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Yes I do. Again, where are you drawing these conclusions from?


I get inspiration and guidance from peole who are far wiser than I am. You seem to think that the same entity cannot be called by different names in different cultures. Why would you think this?

Where have I expressed this?
I know Krishna et all aren't names for your god because not only are their creation stories vastly different from the Abrahamic creation story, the commandments and particular idiosyncratuc dogma's of those religions are different from yours.
So you don't get to either disengenuously or ignorantly claim they are the same.
Now kindly stop making shit up about what my claims or motivaitons are. Ask if you're not sure, but stop with this nonsense.


How do you know who my "god" is?

By your repeated quoting and defense of the bible.

CharlieM wrote:If you look at the various creation stories to find fault and look for differences then that is what you will see.

Because they are filled flaws, falsehoods and differences.
That's not a matter of interpetation, it's matter of fact.

CharlieM wrote:But by doing this you will miss the essence of them, their essential nature will be hidden from you.

Still preachy bullocks.
There are no special clothes, the emperor is stark naked.


CharlieM wrote:Here are a few passages from various sources:

Exodus 3:
14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.


Isaiah 48:
16...I have not spoken in secret from the beginning;
from the time that it was, there AM I:
and now the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me.
17 Thus saith the Lord, thy Redeemer,
the Holy One of Israel;
I AM the Lord thy God which teacheth thee to profit,
which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.


John 8:
56"Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” 57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!” 58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I AM!”


Bhagavad Gita 10:
20 - I AM the Self, O Gudakesha, seated in the hearts of all beings! I am the beginning, the middle and also the end of all beings.


Revelations 22:
12 - And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. 13 - I AM Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. 14 - Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.


The Upanishads,pt2:
4th Brahmana:
1. In the beginning this was Self alone, in the shape of a person (purusha). He looking round saw nothing but his Self. He first said, 'This is I;' therefore he became I by name. Therefore even now, if a man is asked, he first says, 'This is I,' and then pronounces the other name which he may have.


The Egyptian Book of the Dead
Plate X:
{23}..."I know the god who dwelleth therein."
(24) Who then is this? It is Osiris, or (as others say), Ra is his name, even Ra (25) the self-created.
"I AM the bennu bird (26) which is in Annu, and I AM the keeper of the volume of the book of things[2] which are and of things which shall be."


Tat Tvam Asi, you are that. In John 10.34, we read, "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"

Just because there are some similarities, doesn't prove they're all the same god.
Again they have wildly different creation stories and more importantly vastly different laws and commandments.

Your vacuous equivocation won't fool anyone CharlieM.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30880
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#295  Postby CharlieM » Dec 15, 2013 9:14 pm

tolman wrote:
CharlieM wrote:I get inspiration and guidance from peole who are far wiser than I am. You seem to think that the same entity cannot be called by different names in different cultures. Why would you think this?

Why do you think that a sentient entity which actually existed and communicated with humans would let different groups of humans think they were following different deities, given all the shit which is a likely consequence of that?

Or, for example in the case of Christians vs. Muslims, why would the entity (if it existed) allow great conflict and suffering to result from confusion over whether Mohammed was or wasn't a proper prophet, or whether Jesus was or wasn't a god/human hybrid?

And if 'God' isn't an interacting sentient entity, what would that make the bible?

CharlieM wrote:So have you never taken any moral lessons from the writings of others? Have you reached this point in your life through your efforts alone without any guidance from without? Most parents try to instil in their kids the value of knowing right from wrong.

That isn't really the point.

Real moral education is about why things are considered to be right or wrong from one or more perspectives or, more subtly, about how to analyse the potential right and wrong in a particular action.

'God doesn't like that' isn't an explanation, it's just an expression of an opinion, and as such is essentially a very childish version of morality - 'Don't do that because Mummy says so'.


You are not the first to ask why a higher being would let certain things happen.

Matthew 27:46
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?


Maybe its time for us humans to take responsibility for our own actions.

Do you see any difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament? I take it you believe in evolution, that the world moves on. That humans developed self-consciousness gradually over time and that there would have been a time when our ancestors had a more instinctive animal like consciousness. Just as an individual matures into a free-thinking, self-conscious adult, so the whole of humanity develops in the same way.

If a young teenager goes out on his bike and is killed in a road accident do we automatically blame his parents? When he was a baby he was totally dependent on his parents for his existence but as time passes they gave him more and more freedom. Parents should fulfill their duties until such time as their children become responsible adults in their own right. There was a time when the child had no option but to obey its parents. As far as the child is concerned its parents are all-powerful. Then comes a moving away from parental authority quite often entailing rebellion. If the parents of the teenager had exerted total authority and banned him from going out to play with his friends then he may not have died, but this would not be seen as normal behaviour. and they would have been regarded as being over-protective. Not many parents would impose the same restrictions on a teenager on a bike as they would a toddler on a trike. As the child develops it is allowed more freedom.

So it is, within the Old Testament we find, "you must do this", "don't do that", and with the New Testament there is a movement from commands to words of advice. When in John.34, Jesus is quoted as saying, "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." You cannot command one person to love another, and Jesus would have known this. He was giving advice and urging them to develop love above all else. Love must be a free act coming from within, if it isn't unconditional then it is not love.

That "spark of the Divine" in each of us allows us to act out of our own being. We do not refrain from some action because, 'God doesn't like that', but because we, ourselves decide that it is the wrong thing to do. This is the truth, 'and the truth shall make you free'. To act out of our own selves is to act in freedom.
CharlieM
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Charlie Morrison
Posts: 1044

Country: UK
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#296  Postby CharlieM » Dec 15, 2013 10:13 pm

MrFungus420 wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:

You do know that these ancient texts were written by human beings and not Jehovah or Krishna personally?

Yes I do. Again, where are you drawing these conclusions from?


I get inspiration and guidance from peole who are far wiser than I am. You seem to think that the same entity cannot be called by different names in different cultures. Why would you think this?


Nowhere was that said or implied.

Are you having problems with reading comprehension or with being honest?


Well Thomas wrote, "God is called Jaweh of Jehovah, never one of the Hindu names."

He seems to think that because Jehovah is not given a Hindu name in the Bible this is of some significance. Can either of you tell me what then is the significance of this? Why would anyone think that Jehovah should be given a Hindu name by the Hebrews?
CharlieM
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Charlie Morrison
Posts: 1044

Country: UK
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#297  Postby Fenrir » Dec 15, 2013 10:38 pm

CharlieM wrote:

You are not the first to ask why a higher being would let certain things happen.

Matthew 27:46
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?


Maybe its time for us humans to take responsibility for our own actions.

Do you see any difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament? I take it you believe in evolution, that the world moves on. That humans developed self-consciousness gradually over time and that there would have been a time when our ancestors had a more instinctive animal like consciousness. Just as an individual matures into a free-thinking, self-conscious adult, so the whole of humanity develops in the same way.

If a young teenager goes out on his bike and is killed in a road accident do we automatically blame his parents? When he was a baby he was totally dependent on his parents for his existence but as time passes they gave him more and more freedom. Parents should fulfill their duties until such time as their children become responsible adults in their own right. There was a time when the child had no option but to obey its parents. As far as the child is concerned its parents are all-powerful. Then comes a moving away from parental authority quite often entailing rebellion. If the parents of the teenager had exerted total authority and banned him from going out to play with his friends then he may not have died, but this would not be seen as normal behaviour. and they would have been regarded as being over-protective. Not many parents would impose the same restrictions on a teenager on a bike as they would a toddler on a trike. As the child develops it is allowed more freedom.

So it is, within the Old Testament we find, "you must do this", "don't do that", and with the New Testament there is a movement from commands to words of advice. When in John.34, Jesus is quoted as saying, "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." You cannot command one person to love another, and Jesus would have known this. He was giving advice and urging them to develop love above all else. Love must be a free act coming from within, if it isn't unconditional then it is not love.

That "spark of the Divine" in each of us allows us to act out of our own being. We do not refrain from some action because, 'God doesn't like that', but because we, ourselves decide that it is the wrong thing to do. This is the truth, 'and the truth shall make you free'. To act out of our own selves is to act in freedom.


Preachy bullshit.

Green Eggs and Ham is written for children.

The Bible is written by people with the knowledge and thought processes of children.

There is a difference.
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 3556
Male

Country: Australia
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (gs)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#298  Postby CharlieM » Dec 16, 2013 3:06 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:You Know that the Tetragrammaton is the unutterable name of God.

I know that's what some people claim. Other people claim there are multiple gods, not just one and they have utterable names.


Yes, even the Bible speaks of multiple "Gods". As I have already quoted from Genesis: "Let us make man in our image". Note the use of the plural.

Yet the 10 commandments that you were arguing for just a couple of posts ago state: I am the lord your god. You shall have no other gods before me.
All singular.


Yes, the I AM in us is a unity. In other words, don't be a slave to your passions and desires, as these are false Gods. Let your God be the I AM.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:So which is it? It can't be both. Either there are multiple gods within Christianity or just the one.


How many Gods do you want? From a previous quote I gave, John10.34: Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?


Thomas Eshuis wrote:My point is that you presented a religious assertion as if it constituted some kind of fact.
The fact is actually that people can pronounce the name of god just fine. It ain't magic.


Of course they can. But nobody can pronounce the word, 'I' with regard to any being outside of themselves. It is unutterable to any but the being who utters it.
CharlieM
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Charlie Morrison
Posts: 1044

Country: UK
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#299  Postby CharlieM » Dec 16, 2013 3:26 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:Note he does not say "I hath sent me", but, "I AM hath sent me". Why is the "I AM" stressed?

Why don't you tell me?


The "I AM" is the being that exists within each of us. We read in Luke 17.21: "for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." This "kingdom of God" is the I AM, and this is why it is written at the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, "Know Thyself".

We believe that we have self-consciousness, but this is a very limited, undeveloped self-consciousness. We have a very long way to go before we can truly say that we know ourselves.
CharlieM
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Charlie Morrison
Posts: 1044

Country: UK
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#300  Postby Darwinsbulldog » Dec 16, 2013 3:57 am

CharlieM wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:Note he does not say "I hath sent me", but, "I AM hath sent me". Why is the "I AM" stressed?

Why don't you tell me?


The "I AM" is the being that exists within each of us. We read in Luke 17.21: "for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." This "kingdom of God" is the I AM, and this is why it is written at the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, "Know Thyself".

We believe that we have self-consciousness, but this is a very limited, undeveloped self-consciousness. We have a very long way to go before we can truly say that we know ourselves.

Are any of your posts going to contain something, or can we look forward to undiluted bollocks?
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 65

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest