Doctor X

Madkins:

No peeking!

Fair enough . . . however, I would contend that the it is not a god that tries to set his chosen appart but human writers engaged in religious and political debate.

Thus:

would hold if humans created them. If you contend--and given your statement above I do not assume you do--that a deity created them, you still have the problem that Edith may weigh 470 pounds and has a mustache she has not brused in seven years . . . the deity creates "bad laws." How can he do that.

However, if you accept that "scripture" is a human text, it removes a foundation for belief--it may have nothing to do with the deity, or deciding what parts do prove rather arbitrary. That does not remove a basis of faith, I have always contended, but it does for some.

This would move our discussion from biblical criticism to general theology . . . I would bring up questions about the morality of the aquarium manager . . . imagine if it is Cartman! This makes sort of a "deistic" deity which has little relevance for us "fish."

--J.D.

Madkins007

"Cartman"?

and are you sure you have not confused Edith's pictures with mine? (although I shaved the 'stash about 6 years ago)

anti-X

"Morality is a product of evolution itself".

Interesting line of arguement.

Personally, I see "morality" as an out growth of human group interactions and the problems they have brought.
A related example is the development of the "laws of land warfare" in the 18th Century in order to limit the carnage of wars.
Previous to this, other behavioral precepts arose to limit human conflicts within small groups.
If you live in a pagan country, you see the same precpts of morality as with any jew or chwistian community. Differences are only in the stories and superstitions.
Example:
Hindu --heaven and earth were created by ejaculation
Shinto--heaven and earth were created on the back of a turtle yeah, go figure this inconsistancy
Western --"be" in genesis

Your Title: Bible as Immoral I also find interesting.
With the New Testament of the "wholely bable", read through Matty, Marc, and Lukey and keep track of who says what in the different versions of the bablical scenes.
Example: In Matty, gZeus calls Simon-Peter a "satan", but in the other two versions, no such conversation or the phrase "son of gawd" exists. There are about 4 or 5 of these, always outnumbering "son of gawd" by 2 to 1.
Then count-up what is consistant: the Devils and Satans say: "son of gawd".
Examples: "The devil said if you be the son of gawd..."; the devils came forth saying "son of gawd", and so on.

SEE ? Those pedeophiles-on-the-pulpits preach the words of the devils and satans: Bible say, Satan says:"son of gawd".

Of course, when you say this to the evil-gelicals their answer is that the "devil had to tell the truth because it was gZeus".
But, their own gawd/'son of gawd' gZeus is quoted as describing the Devil in John Chapter 8 as being a compulsive liar, can't do anything but lie, is the "father of lies". So the evil-gelicals aren't bablically consistant because they knowingly choose the words of the devil!

Now, in one of the "before the Sanhedrin" scenes, the story goes they ask gZeus "Are you the 'son of gawd'. (Maybe they were listening to the satans) Anyway, the response is "you say it/you yourselfs say that I am" which equals "you said it, I didn't".
[gZeus always refers to himself as the "son of man"]

So what can be more "IMMORAL" as you wrote, or more sick and evil than "preaching the Words of the Devil"? Which is what the evil-gelicals do.

Doctor X

For what it is worth, Mk is engage in yet another insult to the hapless disciples--even the demons know who Junior is.

--J.D.

phantom

Thats beautiful Conchobar,I couldnt have said it better myself. You summed it up pretty well.

Thats awesome.