The Bible Says...

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[…
What context is there to understand?
…
What am I not understanding here?

Those are the requests of a fucking psychopath…[/quote]

You are not understanding the origins of human civilization in the Bronze Age…
[/quote]

And yet the origin of Scripture is alleged by many to be something other than a Bronze Age human mind produced by a Bronze Age human civilization. Even if the Bible is “human, yet divine,” it is still supposed to be divine.

Assuming that all of AC’s excerpts are indeed, in some way or another, theopneustos, isn’t it curious that the allegedly timeless God seems to have developed His moral sensibilities right alongside us?

In other words, I Am That I Am doesn’t get to avail Himself of the context defense. Historical context and timeless perfection don’t accord.

22

Or did He–perfect almighty omnibenevolent invincible He–have to bend His morality to the Bronze Age mind, decreeing or directly inspiring barbaric gibberish because, well, “they’re just not ready for the actually moral stuff yet”?

23

Not so. The Canaanites were irredeemable like the generation of the flood. That’s part of the context.

24

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Or did He–perfect almighty omnibenevolent invincible He–have to bend His morality to the Bronze Age mind, decreeing or directly inspiring barbaric gibberish because, well, “they’re just not ready for the actually moral stuff yet”?[/quote]

Ya gotta problem wid dat?

25

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
If you don’t understand the context, it can be conflicting. Trouble is, it takes a great deal of study to learn the true history and context. [/quote]

Looks like da [SARCASM] button didn’t register. Uncanny.

26

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Not so. The Canaanites were irredeemable like the generation of the flood. That’s part of the context.[/quote]

I don’t mean historical context in that way.

Consider what I mean in the context of Exodus 35:2.

Dr. S’s (absolutely correct) response to an invocation of that chapter and verse is that it isn’t really all that surprising, given Exodus’ historical context, to find prescriptions of capital punishment peppered liberally throughout.

To which I respond that this is a viable defense of Exodus 35:2 if it was written by people in accordance with their lives and times and socio-legal proclivities, but it is not a viable defense of it if it was written by people in accordance with the inspired breath of God.

27

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Or did He–perfect almighty omnibenevolent invincible He–have to bend His morality to the Bronze Age mind, decreeing or directly inspiring barbaric gibberish because, well, “they’re just not ready for the actually moral stuff yet”?[/quote]

Ya gotta problem wid dat?[/quote]

I suppose that the Almighty is as free as anybody else to be a moral relativist…

28

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
If you don’t understand the context, it can be conflicting. Trouble is, it takes a great deal of study to learn the true history and context. [/quote]

Looks like da [SARCASM] button didn’t register. Uncanny. [/quote]

You were being sarcastic?

29

The difference between Muslims and Christians is…Muslims take their book to be modern day reality…and try and carry it out.

/stoning women

/marring children

/demeaning women

/suicide for 40 virgins in heaven

/ect. ect. ect.

30

The muslim’s who are beheading and crucifying people now deserve to be condemned and the Christians in Africa who recently took part in the murders, torture and burning alive of different ethnic and religeous groups and women and children they deemed whiches deserve condemnation.

What sucks is when the right pretend the christians as somehow not representative of christianity or when the left defend islamic terrorists as somehow not being representative of Islam.

Makes me laugh when christians expalin parts of the bible by saying, you have to 8nderstand it in its historical context. They are with that statement, acknowledging the bible is th work of man, not something holy.

If the anti pork and shellfish passages are because of trichinosis and dangers of the consumption of them due to unknown problems like undercooking pork, why would god deem it appropriate to say not eat them, why would he not explain that prok is completely healthy if it is cooked properly?

Why would god deem slavery ok because it was a thing that occured in that historical time? I mean homosexuality occured in that time and that was forbidden, so why not forbid slavery?

The bible was written in a hard time where people lacked understanding of things, this is reflected in the book. Or did god morally evolve at the exact same rate as us and now needs to write a second edition. The Bobby Seale of gods.

31

From the Amelia Bedelia School of Interpretation:

[quote]Thought this was pretty funny. Feel free to contribute or comment.
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev. 1:9 The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? [/quote]

The idiotic arrogance of this questioner is staggering. Read Numbers 3:10 and Numbers 16 for a necessary corrective on who WOULD BE permitted to offer sacrifice. Then read Hebrews 10 to see how the Old Testament sacrifices were shadows that pointed toward (or prefigured) the efficacious propitiation of Jesus Christ for the sins of His people (cf. Daniel 9:24-27; Romans 3:19-31).

Psalm 145 states that Jehovah watches over all who love Him; but He destroys all the wicked. What makes the difference here? The precious blood of propitiation. Praise God that Jesus Christ is our (i.e., true believers) Passover.

[quote]You know that the Passover is coming after two days, and the Son of Man is betrayed to be crucified (Matthew 26:2).

And before the Feast of the Passover, Jesus knowing that His hour had come that He should move from this world to the Father, loving His own in the world, He loved them to the end (John 13:1).

Then purge out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, even as you are unleavened. For also Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us (1 Corinthians 5:7).

By faith he made the Passover, and the sprinkling of blood, that the one destroying the first-born might not touch them (Hebrews 11:28).

And I will pass through in the land of Egypt in this night. And I will strike every first-born in the land of Egypt, from man even to livestock. And I will execute judgments on all the gods of Egypt. I am Jehovah! And the blood shall be a sign to you, on the houses where you are. And I will see the blood, and I will pass over you. And the plague shall not be on you to destroy, when I strike in the land of Egypt. And the day shall be a memorial for you. And you shall celebrate it as a feast to Jehovah, for your generations. You shall celebrate it as a law forever (Exodus 12:12-14).

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and giving thanks, He broke and said, Take, eat; this is My body which is broken on behalf of you; this do in remembrance of Me. In the same way the cup also, after supping, saying, This cup is the New Covenant in My blood; as often as you drink, do this in remembrance of Me. For as often as you may eat this bread, and drink this cup, you solemnly proclaim the death of the Lord, until He shall come(1 Corinthians 11:23-26).[/quote]

The efficacious blood of Jesus Christ is a sign to all true believers. All true believers know and believe that Christ’s blood is truly a Passover indeed. Those who believe that this passover blood was shed for everyone without exception have not faith in Christ’s blood as propitiation (cf. Romans 3:25). Marc Carpenter comments regarding the Good News of particular, efficacious redemption witnessed in the Passover:

[quote]In our family devotions this evening we talked about the Passover, and I was reminded again at how vivid a picture of particular redemption that is. It’s the blood that makes the difference! The blood was not on the houses of the Egyptians. Just think of a “passover” in which the blood was on everyone’s house without exception, and a “god” who would kill the firstborn in some of the houses on which there was blood. In this “passover,” the blood itself wouldn’t make the difference between which houses were passed over and which houses were condemned. There would have to be one of two things going on:

Either this god thinks the blood has no importance and just condemns at random, or this god finds something good in some of the houses with blood on them as compared to other houses with blood on them, thus not basing his passing over on the blood at all but on something in the households themselves. Then the question must be asked, ‘Well, why would the blood on the house be needed at all, since it doesn’t make the difference between being passed over and being condemned?’ The answer is, ‘The blood wouldn’t be needed at all. The blood itself is without value.’

Praise God for THE BLOOD OF HIS DEAR SON! It is of infinite value! When God sees the blood applied to His people, THERE IS NO CONDEMNATION! Christ’s obedience unto death, the blood of His cross, is the ONLY thing that makes the difference between heaven and hell![/quote]

32

[quote]ScholesGoals wrote:

What sucks is when the right pretend the christians as somehow not representative of christianity or when the left defend islamic terrorists as somehow not being representative of Islam.

[/quote]

Most muslims say that only 10% of muslims are extremist…2 billion muslims equals 200 million crazy baby rapers.

How many Christians do you know who are piloting jets into skyscrapers?

33

@smh - you got a problem with how Sabbath breakers were dealt with?

34

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
@smh - you got a problem with how Sabbath breakers were dealt with?[/quote]

I wouldn’t say that I have a problem with it so much as I would say that I’m suspicious of the coincidence I mentioned in my first post to Dr. S.

35

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
If you don’t understand the context, it can be conflicting. Trouble is, it takes a great deal of study to learn the true history and context. [/quote]

Looks like da [SARCASM] button didn’t register. Uncanny. [/quote]

You were being sarcastic?[/quote]

Lol. No sir

Double entandre

36

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
@smh - you got a problem with how Sabbath breakers were dealt with?[/quote]

I wouldn’t say that I have a problem with it so much as I would say that I’m suspicious of the coincidence I mentioned in my first post to Dr. S.[/quote]

So if you don’t have a problem with it presumably you wouldn’t argue that it is necessarily immoral given the circumstances. Yes, morality is universal but that doesn’t mean it has to be uncoupled from context.

37

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
@smh - you got a problem with how Sabbath breakers were dealt with?[/quote]

I wouldn’t say that I have a problem with it so much as I would say that I’m suspicious of the coincidence I mentioned in my first post to Dr. S.[/quote]

So if you don’t have a problem with it presumably you wouldn’t argue that it is necessarily immoral given the circumstances. Yes, morality is universal but that doesn’t mean it has to be uncoupled from context.[/quote]

Oh, I would absolutely call it immoral. When I said I didn’t have a problem with it, I meant that I’m not bent out of shape about it (because I think it’s nothing more than the recorded superstitions of an ancient people).

But if there is an actual God who actually wanted people put to death for raking the leaves on the wrong day? Then I welcome my eternity with Satan, because the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

38

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]ScholesGoals wrote:

What sucks is when the right pretend the christians as somehow not representative of christianity or when the left defend islamic terrorists as somehow not being representative of Islam.

[/quote]

Most muslims say that only 10% of muslims are extremist…2 billion muslims equals 200 million crazy baby rapers.

How many Christians do you know who are piloting jets into skyscrapers?[/quote]

When Christians live in terrible conditions in the third world and Muslims live in the third world in terrible conditions their religion is shaped by it.

For example when Christians live in the west and have a comfortable income their interpretation of Christianity is a lot different than that of a poor African Christian whose lived experience and world view are complete opposites.

Same with Muslims. These are broad generalisations but for the most part correct.

Far more Muslims live in poverty and under dictatorship sponsored by foreign powers than Christians do, hence far more radical Muslims.

Both Islamic scripture and Christian scripture contain horrific shit. Both Christian figures and Muslim figures have had child brides and tortured non believers.

Islam is no more violent than Christianity, however most Muslims environments are far more conducive to fundamentalism than most Christians.

Poverty lack of freedoms and foreign backed dictatorships are causes (as well as the bullshit religion of Islam, which like Christianity is very oppressive ) and radicalism and fundamentalism are the affect.

Funnily enough a rational scientific look at the differences these religious groups and the material conditions both groups largely live under highlights causation and correlation.

To view Islam as any worse than Christianity is to ignore basic and underlying data and rely on a easy and very lazy analysis.

For example Germans are no more inherently violent or racist than anyone else, yet after the holocaust one might like you did saying how many Muslims are gassing 6 million Jews and exterminating gypsies and practising eugenics, does this prove Muslims are inherently less cruel than the Germans? Or is it a frivolous and non scientific analysis of Germany and the holocaust?

39

If breaking the Sabbath brings death and destruction on the entire community then at the very least it constitutes negligent homicide.

40

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
@smh - you got a problem with how Sabbath breakers were dealt with?[/quote]

I wouldn’t say that I have a problem with it so much as I would say that I’m suspicious of the coincidence I mentioned in my first post to Dr. S.[/quote]

So if you don’t have a problem with it presumably you wouldn’t argue that it is necessarily immoral given the circumstances. Yes, morality is universal but that doesn’t mean it has to be uncoupled from context.[/quote]

Oh, I would absolutely call it immoral. When I said I didn’t have a problem with it, I meant that I’m not bent out of shape about it (because I think it’s nothing more than the recorded superstitions of an ancient people).

But if there is an actual God who actually wanted people put to death for raking the leaves on the wrong day? Then I welcome my eternity with Satan, because the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
[/quote]

Haven’t we seen this discussion before? Do you not find it exceedingly boring?
If you, smh, of all people, cannot see the value of the literature, and the genius of the Redactors, then this is not a flaw in The Book, but it is a gap in your self-education.
There is nothing shameful about that, and I respect you anyway. It is, however, nothing to be proud about.