Freethought & Rationalism Archive

funinspace · 08-27-2004, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inquisitive01

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.

.
.
.
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").

Well if you believe that parts of the Bible have been molded/corrupted, then why fight so hard to defend certain parts of it? And how do you decide what parts are still "holy"? Does each person just get to pick and choose at this point what they think is valid?

Angrillori hit my point on drunkeness quite well, and it's not really important considering the rest of the thread, so I'll just let that stand aside.

Sven · 08-27-2004, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inquisitive01

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).

Creative reinterpreation of words is working again! I wonder why I'm not surprised...?

Angrillori · 08-27-2004, 10:21 AM

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman." At least depending on how you define "is," right Inq.?

inquisitive01 · 08-27-2004, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angrillori

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.

Here's a thought. Why not make your OWN list with your own brain? Do you seriously expect me to do this FOR you? The resulting "cop out" (you answer the 22 Verses in one post Magdylin, if you think you can, that is! :funny: ) answer "I don't understand the Bible" enough to do this can also be used, IF you wish it.

princess_333 · 08-27-2004, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by funinspace

Well if you believe that parts of the Bible have been molded/corrupted, then why fight so hard to defend certain parts of it? And how do you decide what parts are still "holy"? Does each person just get to pick and choose at this point what they think is valid?

That's a very good point!..I'd like to see Inq.'s response to this
I think it all comes down to the fact that the bible was written by a bunch of men Many Many years after Jesus died, and they couldnt remember exactly what Jesus said, so they decided to fill in the various blanks with what they thought was correct at the time (this would explain the versus about slavery and women)...personally I wouldnt go by a book that was written by a bunch of men playing "telephone" over the years.

inquisitive01 · 08-27-2004, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

Creative reinterpreation of words is working again! I wonder why I'm not surprised...?

I'm surprised you're on this forum rather than working, chemist (or do they pay you to post on this forum as part of your job or something?). :funny:

Also, as we all should know, words in the Bible sometimes stand for other things (just look at Revelations, for example). Therefore, would you have preferred a more uncreative interpretation (such as BlakeM's "surface" reading) based on just literal meanings of the words (many of which, in and of themselves, have different definitions)? It's like I said before, you can't just read the Bible in a superficial manner.

Mageth · 08-27-2004, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inquisitive01

Here's a thought. Why not make your OWN list with your own brain?

I'll take you up on that.

Here's my list of the bits of the Bible that are ACTUALLY inspired:

-----------------------

You can figure out my "uninspired" list from that, I reckon.

And I reckon Angrillori's list is quite similar to mine.

BlakeEM · 08-27-2004, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inquisitive01

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").

Well then couldn't the entire bible simply be laid out by man to control people? Why would you believe something that has been manipulated by man (as you said) and how can you know what parts are god’s words and what aren’t? If you believe the bible is the word of god then why would god let his word be manipulated? How do you know god doesn’t allow us to have slaves and beat them? It’s in the bible, how do you know it’s put there by man? HOW DARE YOU QUESTION GODS WORD! :rolling:

Seriously if I read a book of morals and it said slaves were ok (and you could beat them and not get punished), personally I wouldn’t trust a damn thing in that book because it's outdated. I feel that's all the bible is, a book of outdated morals to scare children and women and enemies into submission. Hell it even has a talking donkey (and serpent?), last time I checked only children’s stories have talking animals.

inquisitive01 · 08-27-2004, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlakeEM

Well then couldn't the entire bible simply be laid out by man to control people? Why would you believe something that has been manipulated by man (as you said) and how can you know what parts are god’s words and what aren’t? If you believe the bible is the word of god then why would god let his word be manipulated? How do you know god doesn’t allow us to have slaves and beat them? It’s in the bible, how do you know it’s put there by man? HOW DARE YOU QUESTION GODS WORD! :rolling:

Seriously if I read a book of morals and it said slaves were ok (and you could beat them and not get punished), personally I wouldn’t trust a damn thing in that book because it's outdated. I feel that's all the bible is, a book of outdated morals to scare children and women and enemies into submission. Hell it even has a talking donkey (and serpent?), last time I checked only children’s stories have talking animals.

Then you are "free" to sin as is convenient, or as you so desire (sounds like a motive to me).

Angrillori · 08-27-2004, 10:43 AM

Inq:

Here's the thing. With my brain, I did decide that the whole thing was uninspired. (Edit to add: Doggone it Mageth, beat me to the quick!

)

You're the one claiming that some pieces are, and some aren't.

Since you're making that claim, I figured you had some way to back it up.

Barring a list handed to you from God, what criteria do you use, in your brain to filter uninspired from inspired? What is it in the bible that leads you to believe the bits on slavery are not inspired, and would your opinion have been different if you had been born 500 years ago?

And, in re: how long it took to make the list: Don't kid yourself, it took a long time, a matter of years to figure out that the whole doggone thing ain't inspired by god.

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

08-27-2004, 10:21 AM	#33
Angrillori Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: A world less bright without WinAce. Posts: 7,482	"I did not have sexual relations with that woman." At least depending on how you define "is," right Inq.?

08-27-2004, 10:43 AM	#40
Angrillori Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: A world less bright without WinAce. Posts: 7,482	Inq: Here's the thing. With my brain, I did decide that the whole thing was uninspired. (Edit to add: Doggone it Mageth, beat me to the quick! ) You're the one claiming that some pieces are, and some aren't. Since you're making that claim, I figured you had some way to back it up. Barring a list handed to you from God, what criteria do you use, in your brain to filter uninspired from inspired? What is it in the bible that leads you to believe the bits on slavery are not inspired, and would your opinion have been different if you had been born 500 years ago? And, in re: how long it took to make the list: Don't kid yourself, it took a long time, a matter of years to figure out that the whole doggone thing ain't inspired by god.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.