Freethought & Rationalism Archive

funinspace · 08-27-2004, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angrillori

Oh boy. I kinda wish you hadn't brought this up. Check out any of the 'slavery in the bible' threads from recently. Inq. apparently believes that this verse means that the slaves may not be punished if they beat their master near to death because the master is the slave's property. He refuses to even consider that, well, that DOESN'T EVEN MAKE SENSE! Much less consider the amount of torture he's inflicting on not only the English, but the Hebrew language as well as he twists grammar, and pronoun/antecendent relationships past the breaking point.

I know, I know. It's unbelievable, but here's the proof in the pudding:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...15#post1763915

Simon and Garfunkel:

Quote:

And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more.
People talking without speaking,
People hearing without listening,

Well if words have no meaning, then not much can be said. And how can anyone tell what the Bible actually means then? Sounds much more like dogma driving the cart to get to the desired results...such is life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angrillori

Quote:

Originally Posted by funinspace

Another one of my favorites:

1 Timothy 3:12 "A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children...".

There are only 2 admonishments for limiting the wives to 1. And the other one is the same thing for overseer's. A direct corollary is that this doesn't apply to the general congregation. Hey now we can be like good old fashion Mormons, but it's damnable to be a homosexual. Yeah, that fits so well within our modern morality. Within the Hebrew world of Jesus' day, polygamy was still openly practiced. And this was the best Xianity could come up with for a moral code...

But, but, but, can't you see where god IMPLIES that that means everyone should only have one wife, because, because, well, Adam only had one Eve! Yeah! That's the ticket! Sheesh.

Or, is the xian defense for this that, like slavery, god thought multiple wives were ok back then, because everyone else was doing it

Well, again if someone can't differentiate tacit acceptance from prohibition/condemnation, then is there a point?

Angrillori · 08-27-2004, 09:12 AM

Bingo!

If there are no rules, then there is no game.

If there is no grammar or syntax, it's not a language and useless for communication.

If you can read in any 'implied thoughts' you want to make the explicit verbage fit your desires, then what's the point of the explicit verbage.

The ball is red.

Can't you see the implied "not" between "is" and "red?" Clearly this sentence means the ball is not red.

Edit to add:
Just to make sure there's clarity: I completely agree with you funinspace. I only wanted to try and make sure that we anticipate Inq.'s response that: "he believes that verse lets slaves beat their masters without punishment" before he digs in his heels and covers his ears and eyes.

I'm determined to dig in on the point that god explicitly grants approval to hold, buy, and sell slaves, meaning that, to god, when the bible was written, slavery was ok. Then I'm determined to ask Inq. whtether this has changed since then, and god's morality is based on the whim of the people, or whether slavery is still ok today.

He's adamantly refused to answer that question. I think it's cute.

inquisitive01 · 08-27-2004, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by funinspace

I would agree completely with this statement, but probably not in what you are trying to get at. Yes, humans had a great impact on what is in the Bible...like they molded it to their purposes?

You ask where is it said to be ok, but then obviously know the verses where it puts limits on such practices. Your Xian God has plenty of space to write strongly against such practices, yet chose not to. Instead he chose to put only limits on such practices. That is a defacto acceptance (aka OK) of slavery. Slavery and drunkenness is hardly similar. True drunkenness is strongly written against in both the Hebrew Canon (HC) and the NT. So slavery and polygamy is tolerable by God, but homosexuality is worthy of death. And this makes sense to you, and is a reasonable moral code from within the HC?

Yep, it's such a grand moral code, it even stipulates the limits of how close you can beat your slave to death:

Ex 21:20 And if a man strikes his servant or his female servant with a rod so that he or she dies as a result of the blow, he will surely be punished. 21:21 However, if the injured servant survives one or two days, the owner will not be punished, for he has suffered the loss.

Another one of my favorites:

1 Timothy 3:12 "A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children...".

There are only 2 admonishments for limiting the wives to 1. And the other one is the same thing for overseer's. A direct corollary is that this doesn't apply to the general congregation. Hey now we can be like good old fashion Mormons, but it's damnable to be a homosexual. Yeah, that fits so well within our modern morality. Within the Hebrew world of Jesus' day, polygamy was still openly practiced. And this was the best Xianity could come up with for a moral code... :rolling:

IF some humans actually "molded" some parts of the Bible to their own purposes, then shame on them. Maybe you can suggest this to Angrillori also, since it seems Angrillori still believes the Bible was not written by humans.

You can look for the MANY Verses regarding marriage (and the rules of marriage) by going to a site such as BibleGateway.com and searching the keywords husband, wife, marriage. Results should include Verses from Malachi (Chapter 2), I Corinthians (Chapter 7), and I Peter (Chapter 3), among quite a few others. You can also search rules for divorce while there, IF you wish.

"Slavery and drunkenness is hardly similar."

One was accepted as "the norm" by people back then, while the other is accepted as "the norm" by people today. This is the similarity.

Quote:

Ex 21:20 And if a man strikes his servant or his female servant with a rod so that he or she dies as a result of the blow, he will surely be punished. 21:21 However, if the injured servant survives one or two days, the owner will not be punished, for he has suffered the loss.

Perhaps this is simply a law laid down (by man, btw) in response to the wrongful views of servants... harsh realities of the time? I do see the possibility of Exodus 21:20-21 being "molded" (as you put it) BY MAN to fit man's views as you put it, though. If this is so, does this mean the ENTIRE Bible was "molded" in such a manner? Of course not. In Exodus 20, it is written "thou shalt not kill" (does not say "thou shalt not kill except when it comes to servants").

inquisitive01 · 08-27-2004, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angrillori

I only wanted to try and make sure that we anticipate Inq.'s response that: "he believes that verse lets slaves beat their masters without punishment" before he digs in his heels and covers his ears and eyes.

(later)... I'm determined to dig in, etc.

Is this the doctrine of YOUR religious beliefs or nonbeliefs (either believing or not believing can still done in a faithful, religious manner)?

I hope the "digging in" somehow satisfies you inner needs.

Angrillori · 08-27-2004, 09:49 AM

Re: Drunkeness vs. Slavery.

Inq. I think you're missing fun's point. The point is, drunkeness is condemned in the new and old testaments. Specifically. And, I think you'll agree, that the general "Christian" party line is that, in god's eyes, drunkeness is still wrong.

Now, if you're arguing that:
If the bible were written today
Then there would be no prohibitions against drunkenness.

I think you may have a leg to stand on. In that case though, you're more atheistic than Christian, in that we're pretty sure the bible isn't "the word of god" either, but a bunch of stories made up by people for various reasons.

On the other hand, in this last part it seems like you're claiming that some parts of the bible are inspired, and some parts of the bible are just bits the authors slipped in to justify their ways of life.

If this is the case, then do you happen to have a list of which is which? I think we could solve a lot of problems if god's handing out lists of which bits in the bible are ACTUALLY inspired, and which are just, you know, stuff some dude slipped in. It's a little late for Matt Shephard, but it could probably ease some grief in the future.

Magdlyn · 08-27-2004, 09:53 AM

First:

Quote:

Originally Posted by inquisitive

Do you perhaps still have all of those Verses you posted on that "other forum" (I guess that's what you meant). If so, why not post them so everyone doesn't just have to take your word for what they say.

When Blake kindly obliges:

Quote:

Originally Posted by inquisitive

Well, I thought you might put 3-4 Verses, but didn't realize you'd attempt an overwhelming 22 Verses (if I counted them right). Why not just pick a few at a time, rather than trying to base your arguments on quantity rather than quality?

Cop. Out. How many times have I seen a Xtian say, "Oh, there is just too much for me to comment on. The Bible is too long, too hard..." etc.

The phrase, hoist by one's own petard comes to mind.

The other thing I want to comment upon is this. There seems to be a confusion between Ecclesiastes (Hebrew--Qohelet, aka Teacher), from Tanakh; and Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus, Son of Sirach, from the Apocrypha, but included in the Catholic canon.

Sven · 08-27-2004, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inquisitive

Well, I thought you might put 3-4 Verses, but didn't realize you'd attempt an overwhelming 22 Verses (if I counted them right). Why not just pick a few at a time, rather than trying to base your arguments on quantity rather than quality?

Another comment: Well, inquisitive, this is called "taking the context in account".

DramaQ · 08-27-2004, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inquisitive01

Women's rights? Are you serious? Equality for women only happened recently within the last Century (remember women's lib?). Therefore, are you saying perhaps your grandfather or great-grandfather were also "bad" seeing how women's rights were not exactly "on the table" when they lived either?

Slavery is another example of the same thing . . . . something that wasn't thought of as "bad" until fairly recent in history.

Do you perhaps still have all of those Verses you posted on that "other forum" (I guess that's what you meant). If so, why not post them so everyone doesn't just have to take your word for what they say. :huh:

Debating this is all well and good. But it seems to me you completely side-stepped BlakeEM's point.

Wasn't the original post about the fact that his post on the religious site was removed without ever seeing the light of day? And the fact that they seem to be quite selective about what parts of the bible they're willing to discuss?

Angrillori · 08-27-2004, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inquisitive01

Is this the doctrine of YOUR religious beliefs or nonbeliefs (either believing or not believing can still done in a faithful, religious manner)?

I hope the "digging in" somehow satisfies you inner needs.

Oh, boy, now off I send you to the countless "Is atheism a religion threads?"

Anyways. Digging is satisfactory as long as you keep dancing.

The music will play as long as there's dancing on the floor.

The, supposedly, inspired word of god (All scripture is god breathed, it says that somewhere...), explicitly states that buying and selling other human beings is ok. So far, your defense of this rests on the fact that, at the time the scripture was penned, slavery was ok by the people, so it was ok in the bible.

You've left us with a few choices:

#1) At least some parts of the bible aren't god-breathed.
#2) All the bible is god-breathed, but god's ideas of morality change based on what people on earth think.
#3) All the bible is god-breathed, and what was ok then, is ok now--god's morality doesn't change based on what people on earth think.

If you're going #1, ok. But then, which is which? Can I take any bit I disagree with and say, well, I disagree, so this must be "added text?" Or is there a list of "Inspired" vs. "Not Inspired?"

inquisitive01 · 08-27-2004, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlakeEM

Ecclesiastes passages were removed from the bible, but I'm told still remains in the catholic version? What I read about it

As in the bible was edited, so why do people edit or sensor the word of god?

Ok you make me choose just one? There so so many jucy ones. Lets start with this one...

These are words spoken by Jesus. It appears that Jesus will kill children with death. I can't see any other meaning for that other than to kill a child?

20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.
21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.
22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.

Repenting, asking forgiveness of past sins and making a sincere effort to sin no more (repenting required again if one sins again), is required in order to avoid death (the Second Death). Notice that space was given (in Verse 21) for her to repent, yet she did not repent.

Her "children" (results/fruits of her deceitfulness) would likely be referring to the results of her works as a false "prophetess"... the results of which are given in Verse 20 (teaching and seducing the Lord's servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols, which are the fruits, or "children" of her labor).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-27-2004, 09:12 AM	#22
Angrillori Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: A world less bright without WinAce. Posts: 7,482	Bingo! If there are no rules, then there is no game. If there is no grammar or syntax, it's not a language and useless for communication. If you can read in any 'implied thoughts' you want to make the explicit verbage fit your desires, then what's the point of the explicit verbage. The ball is red. Can't you see the implied "not" between "is" and "red?" Clearly this sentence means the ball is not red. Edit to add: Just to make sure there's clarity: I completely agree with you funinspace. I only wanted to try and make sure that we anticipate Inq.'s response that: "he believes that verse lets slaves beat their masters without punishment" before he digs in his heels and covers his ears and eyes. I'm determined to dig in on the point that god explicitly grants approval to hold, buy, and sell slaves, meaning that, to god, when the bible was written, slavery was ok. Then I'm determined to ask Inq. whtether this has changed since then, and god's morality is based on the whim of the people, or whether slavery is still ok today. He's adamantly refused to answer that question. I think it's cute.

08-27-2004, 09:49 AM	#25
Angrillori Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: A world less bright without WinAce. Posts: 7,482	Re: Drunkeness vs. Slavery. Inq. I think you're missing fun's point. The point is, drunkeness is condemned in the new and old testaments. Specifically. And, I think you'll agree, that the general "Christian" party line is that, in god's eyes, drunkeness is still wrong. Now, if you're arguing that: If the bible were written today Then there would be no prohibitions against drunkenness. I think you may have a leg to stand on. In that case though, you're more atheistic than Christian, in that we're pretty sure the bible isn't "the word of god" either, but a bunch of stories made up by people for various reasons. On the other hand, in this last part it seems like you're claiming that some parts of the bible are inspired, and some parts of the bible are just bits the authors slipped in to justify their ways of life. If this is the case, then do you happen to have a list of which is which? I think we could solve a lot of problems if god's handing out lists of which bits in the bible are ACTUALLY inspired, and which are just, you know, stuff some dude slipped in. It's a little late for Matt Shephard, but it could probably ease some grief in the future.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.