Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bokoura · 01-07-2009, 06:34 PM

I love how angry some people get at me and that they somehow know my beliefs because I copy a section of the Bible and ask to discuss it. 'Southern fundamentalist hillbilly?' Hardly. I moved to Texas less than 3 years ago. I was born in California. Choose your words carefully before you blurt them out, and learn about a person before assuming. Honestly, it makes you look like a fool.

*coughcough*...semiopen...*cough*...

storytime · 01-07-2009, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

The biblical God CHOOSES not to control people lives he allows them to make choices but He will punish evil.

Wrong again mate God doesnt enslave his people....for he came to set us free.

This is getting a little off topic.

In the passage God tells the people to kill their rebellious sons. If someone has what they consider a rebellious son and doesn't kill them does that make them evil also? Also there seems to be a possibility that one might think one's son is rebellious (perhaps he has a mental illness) and has them killed by mistake. What are the implications to this?

Also, it seems the passage isn't neccessarily referring to the worship of false gods, certainly not entirely.

Finally, you may be referring to Jesus taking this responsibility away from us for some reason. Is your position that anyone in the world who doesn't accept Jesus is rebellious and therefore will be destroyed?

Thanks for clearing this up.

I'm speculating of course, but it seems that rebellious sons were the youth who were know-it-all's, stubborn and disrespectful teenagers. Like teens behave today. However, in those ancient times loyalty to the peopled nation had it's advantages in civil order[to live, prolong their life], honor and pride of name and identity. Laws were given to support the higher standard of nation building because circumcision alone could not provide judging but laws could enforce punishment of the rebellious sons of Israel. Stoning would put the evil away from the nation and the behavior of the rebellious sons would not have opportunity to influence others, the "sin" not becoming tolerated.

Murder, other offenses that caused harm to people was punishable by stoning. Treason was a transgression punishable by death in stoning. From a few articles I've read, stoning might have been throwing hughe rocks or pushing or throwing someone off a building or high cliff to land on stone beneath. In the NT story Jesus was led to a cliff with intention of killing him but he escaped. Throwing him off a cliff may have been called stoning to death.

Jesus changed no laws for the Jews so the laws for punishment remained the standard practice. Jesus also didn't change the sacrificial system as he used animal and fowl in ritual. Jesus in his Judaism had no authority outside his Jewish tradition, as laws established for Israel[sons of Jacob] were never given to any other people. The definition of sin was transgression of laws. And where there is no law of Israel there is no sin[transgression] to be applied. Sugarhitman will surely disagree of course as he attempts to bring every person on earth under the false precept of sin.

SeekingKnowledge · 01-07-2009, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeekingKnowledge

Obviously not the end of the story, I still don't understand. Maybe it's my classification on what a Christian considers "holiness" and "Sin".. For example:
I know someone who is a wholesome person, but is a non-practicing Wiccan (raised by wiccans but doesn't rake the religion as seriously as he does the reality he lives in).. My christian studies would tell me (as well as most pastors and presumably you) that he is sinning in not believing that "Jesus was an incarnated portion of God, the Creator of all, and the only way to the father (God and Heaven) is through the Son (Jesus, and his teachings). I feel the same way as he does (though I am not a Wiccan) and I do not think it is a sin. I feel that if there is a God, I am always as close to him as I will ever be, just as the river is always as close to it's source as it will ever be. A river cannot deny it's existance, and neither can I. I don't need Jesus to connect to God at all, but his teachings don't hurt (unless they get mistranslated and confused and taken too literally or lightly, in which instance you see the effects all around you)

I don't reject Jesus. I reject that he was imbibed with a special magic, that he performed realmiracles inspired by a Divine Deity in "Heaven" that passes down judgments and hands out "free will" as he sees fit, and I reject that JJesus was more the "son of God" than you or I are.

So what do you make of it? How am I a sinner? If I die and the St Peter is standing there, how can he keep me from entering? And why in the world would I want to go to there?

Who is Jesus but the Word of God, and if you reject The Word are you not rejecting he who spoke? If you don't reject Jesus, but reject the Word then you reject both. There is no such thing as accepting Jesus, and rejecting him at the same time.

I believe that Jesus was a man who was enlightened and tried to teach compassion and understanding.. And he got misquoted alot.. I dont remember when he said he was the infallible word of God, but I digress quickly as I see you are a little confused..

But I am going to ask you one time, politely, to address my questions in the post you quoted.. I am interested in seeing you address a question head on.. Is that possible, reverand? Don't be afraid of my intellect, I ain't that bright. If God IS the author of the bible, and god IS NOT the author of confusion, then my very simple questions should be easy to answer.

semiopen · 01-08-2009, 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bokoura

I love how angry some people get at me and that they somehow know my beliefs because I copy a section of the Bible and ask to discuss it. 'Southern fundamentalist hillbilly?' Hardly. I moved to Texas less than 3 years ago. I was born in California. Choose your words carefully before you blurt them out, and learn about a person before assuming. Honestly, it makes you look like a fool.

*coughcough*...semiopen...*cough*...

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I was replying to a post by sugarhitman where he was going on about rebels and was making a little joke. He certainly seemed to have had a few extra hits of sugar yesterday. I hadn't noticed you were from the south, and assumed you were not a fundamentalist.

You were also not involved in my other posts, your original post was reasonable, some of the posts afterwards by other people were the focus of my comment.

It's not called for to make moral judgements on people from a world so far in the past, and this seemed worth commenting about. I think sceptics have a responsibility to discuss these issues on a higher level than that often shown by believers.

I made a general apology about offending anyone. It's easy in these forums not to read carefully and I've been guilty of that myself.

WVIncagold · 01-08-2009, 06:16 AM

Course no Xians has come out against stoning their kids. Don't you just love the morality of fundies?

semiopen · 01-08-2009, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bokoura

Obviously you overreacted to our comments on it, my friend. Perhaps it is just me, but when I see an ancient book that reads 'stone rebellious sons', quite clearly, I believe that is what it means. How could you possibly interpret that in another way, not knowing the specific context?

I guess I should have responded to this.

Everything in the bible has been commented on, it is reasonable to look at the commentaries to see if they help with understanding. I agree with you that this passage is disturbing; it may be reasonable to conclude a human origin (I certainly agree with this) for the bible. Whatever it's origin however, the text deserves some respect.

Also from Sweetpea7...

Quote:

What is necessary to read the Hebrew bible and keep from interpreting it poorly? If the bible is god's word to man why does it need so much thorough explaining outside of the text itself?

The Jewish position is that the text is a sort of shorthand which is more fully developed in the Oral Law, which was eventually written down as the Talmud. Every word and letter in the Bible (Hebrew bible) has great significance. Therefore it is valuable to see what the masters thought was going on.

On a more simpler level, this may be compared to watching a football game with the sound on instead of off. I agree that the bible is not God's word, but it's not a comic book either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen
Why not attack the real problem intelligently instead?

What do you see as being the real problem?

Literal and dogmatic interpretations have led to human suffering over the ages. The bible is one of mankind's greatest achievements but also it's most dangerous.

WVIncagold - Took me an hour or so to translate Xians... my father used to call Christmas Carols, Yoshki music, now my term for creationists is Yoshkiologists. (Yoshki is the dimunitive Hebrew/Yiddish name for Joshua - Jesus)

WVIncagold · 01-08-2009, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bokoura

Obviously you overreacted to our comments on it, my friend. Perhaps it is just me, but when I see an ancient book that reads 'stone rebellious sons', quite clearly, I believe that is what it means. How could you possibly interpret that in another way, not knowing the specific context?

I guess I should have responded to this.

Everything in the bible has been commented on, it is reasonable to look at the commentaries to see if they help with understanding. I agree with you that this passage is disturbing; it may be reasonable to conclude a human origin (I certainly agree with this) for the bible. Whatever it's origin however, the text deserves some respect.

Also from Sweetpea7...

The Jewish position is that the text is a sort of shorthand which is more fully developed in the Oral Law, which was eventually written down as the Talmud. Every word and letter in the Bible (Hebrew bible) has great significance. Therefore it is valuable to see what the masters thought was going on.

On a more simpler level, this may be compared to watching a football game with the sound on instead of off. I agree that the bible is not God's word, but it's not a comic book either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen
Why not attack the real problem intelligently instead?

What do you see as being the real problem?

Literal and dogmatic interpretations have led to human suffering over the ages. The bible is one of mankind's greatest achievements but also it's most dangerous.

WVIncagold - Took me an hour or so to translate Xians... my father used to call Christmas Carols, Yoshki music, now my term for creationists is Yoshkiologists. (Yoshki is the dimunitive Hebrew/Yiddish name for Joshua - Jesus)

>

< :rolling:

sugarhitman · 01-08-2009, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bokoura

I love how angry some people get at me and that they somehow know my beliefs because I copy a section of the Bible and ask to discuss it. 'Southern fundamentalist hillbilly?' Hardly. I moved to Texas less than 3 years ago. I was born in California. Choose your words carefully before you blurt them out, and learn about a person before assuming. Honestly, it makes you look like a fool.

*coughcough*...semiopen...*cough*...

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I was replying to a post by sugarhitman where he was going on about rebels and was making a little joke. He certainly seemed to have had a few extra hits of sugar yesterday. I hadn't noticed you were from the south, and assumed you were not a fundamentalist.

You were also not involved in my other posts, your original post was reasonable, some of the posts afterwards by other people were the focus of my comment.

It's not called for to make moral judgements on people from a world so far in the past, and this seemed worth commenting about. I think sceptics have a responsibility to discuss these issues on a higher level than that often shown by believers.

I made a general apology about offending anyone. It's easy in these forums not to read carefully and I've been guilty of that myself.

"Southern Hillbilly"? is that something like a racial slur?

And I don't think that applies to African Americans (which I am)

Or maybe Southern Hillbilly isn't what you really want to say.

sugarhitman · 01-08-2009, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

This is getting a little off topic.

In the passage God tells the people to kill their rebellious sons. If someone has what they consider a rebellious son and doesn't kill them does that make them evil also? Also there seems to be a possibility that one might think one's son is rebellious (perhaps he has a mental illness) and has them killed by mistake. What are the implications to this?

Also, it seems the passage isn't neccessarily referring to the worship of false gods, certainly not entirely.

Finally, you may be referring to Jesus taking this responsibility away from us for some reason. Is your position that anyone in the world who doesn't accept Jesus is rebellious and therefore will be destroyed?

Thanks for clearing this up.

I'm speculating of course, but it seems that rebellious sons were the youth who were know-it-all's, stubborn and disrespectful teenagers. Like teens behave today. However, in those ancient times loyalty to the peopled nation had it's advantages in civil order[to live, prolong their life], honor and pride of name and identity. Laws were given to support the higher standard of nation building because circumcision alone could not provide judging but laws could enforce punishment of the rebellious sons of Israel. Stoning would put the evil away from the nation and the behavior of the rebellious sons would not have opportunity to influence others, the "sin" not becoming tolerated.

Murder, other offenses that caused harm to people was punishable by stoning. Treason was a transgression punishable by death in stoning. From a few articles I've read, stoning might have been throwing hughe rocks or pushing or throwing someone off a building or high cliff to land on stone beneath. In the NT story Jesus was led to a cliff with intention of killing him but he escaped. Throwing him off a cliff may have been called stoning to death.

Jesus changed no laws for the Jews so the laws for punishment remained the standard practice. Jesus also didn't change the sacrificial system as he used animal and fowl in ritual. Jesus in his Judaism had no authority outside his Jewish tradition, as laws established for Israel[sons of Jacob] were never given to any other people. The definition of sin was transgression of laws. And where there is no law of Israel there is no sin[transgression] to be applied. Sugarhitman will surely disagree of course as he attempts to bring every person on earth under the false precept of sin.

Yeah, but the world now knows the law....so whats your excuse.

semiopen · 01-08-2009, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I was replying to a post by sugarhitman where he was going on about rebels and was making a little joke. He certainly seemed to have had a few extra hits of sugar yesterday. I hadn't noticed you were from the south, and assumed you were not a fundamentalist.

You were also not involved in my other posts, your original post was reasonable, some of the posts afterwards by other people were the focus of my comment.

It's not called for to make moral judgements on people from a world so far in the past, and this seemed worth commenting about. I think sceptics have a responsibility to discuss these issues on a higher level than that often shown by believers.

I made a general apology about offending anyone. It's easy in these forums not to read carefully and I've been guilty of that myself.

"Southern Hillbilly"? is that something like a racial slur?

And I don't think that applies to African Americans (which I am)

Or maybe Southern Hillbilly isn't what you really want to say.

Sorry, reading your post about the rebels made me think of the civil war (Johnny Rebs). So I was amused by the picture of southern fundamentalists who sympathized with the confederacy being offended by your invective against rebels.

I was originally going to use the phrase fundamentalist hillbillies but decided to add southern to make the meaning clearer.

I guess if I was a better writer I could have been a biblical redactor. I know that my writing could definitely be improved and sometimes fantasize that someday commentators will be able to clear up the things I have such difficulty expressing.

We have a basic disagreement in the interpretation of the Hebrew bible etc but I didn't mean anything too evil by what I wrote. I regret some of my other comments, and realize you are honestly trying to express your own beliefs.

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

01-07-2009, 06:34 PM	#51
Bokoura Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: McKinney, Texas, USA Posts: 197	I love how angry some people get at me and that they somehow know my beliefs because I copy a section of the Bible and ask to discuss it. 'Southern fundamentalist hillbilly?' Hardly. I moved to Texas less than 3 years ago. I was born in California. Choose your words carefully before you blurt them out, and learn about a person before assuming. Honestly, it makes you look like a fool. coughcough...semiopen...cough...

01-08-2009, 06:16 AM	#55
WVIncagold Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: West Virginina Posts: 4,349	Course no Xians has come out against stoning their kids. Don't you just love the morality of fundies?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.