| Killing Event |
Reference |
Bible's Number |
Estimate |
| 1 |
The Flood of Noah |
Gen 7:23 |
|
20,000,000 |
| 2 |
Abraham's war to rescue Lot |
Gen 14:17-19 |
|
1,000 |
| 3 |
Sodom and Gomorrah |
Gen 19:24 |
|
2,000 |
| 4 |
Lot's wife |
Gen 19:26 |
1 |
1 |
| 5 |
While they were sore, Dinah's brethren slew all the males |
Gen 34:1-31, Judith 9:2-3 |
2 |
1,000 |
| 6 |
Er for being wicked in the sight of the Lord |
Gen 38:7 |
1 |
1 |
| 7 |
Onan for spilling his seed |
Gen 38:10 |
1 |
1 |
| 8 |
A seven year worldwide famine |
Gen 41:25-54 |
|
70,000 |
| 9 |
There will be blood: The first plague of Egypt |
Ex 7:15-27 , Wis 11:7-8 |
|
10,000 |
| 10 |
The seventh plague: hail |
Ex 9:25 |
|
300,000 |
| 11 |
Firstborn Egyptian children |
Ex 12:29-30 |
|
500,000 |
| 12 |
The Lord took off their chariot wheels |
Ex 14:8-26 |
600 |
5,000 |
| 13 |
Amalekites |
Ex 17:13 |
|
1,000 |
| 14 |
Who is on the Lord's side?: Forcing friends and family to kill each other |
Ex 32:27-28 |
3,000 |
3,000 |
| 15 |
Aaron's golden calf |
Ex 32:35 |
|
1,000 |
| 16 |
God burns Aaron's sons to death for offering "strange fire" |
Lev 10:1-3 |
2 |
2 |
| 17 |
A blasphemer is stoned to death |
Lev 24:10-23 |
1 |
1 |
| 18 |
When the people complained, God burned them to death |
Num 11:1 |
|
100 |
| 19 |
While the flesh was still between their teeth, the Lord smote them will a very great plague |
Num 11:33 |
|
10,000 |
| 20 |
Ten scouts are killed for their honest report |
Num 14:35-45 |
10 |
110 |
| 21 |
A man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day is stoned to death |
Num 15:32-35 |
1 |
1 |
| 22 |
Korah, his companions, and their families are buried alive |
Num 16:27 |
3 |
9 |
| 23 |
God burns 250 people to death for burning incense |
Num 16:35 |
250 |
250 |
| 24 |
God kills 14,700 for complaining about God's killings |
Num 16:49 |
14,700 |
14,700 |
| 25 |
The massacre of the Aradies |
Num 21:1-2 |
|
3,000 |
| 26 |
God sent serpents to bite people for complaining about the lack of food and water |
Num 21:6 |
|
100 |
| 27 |
Phineas's double murder: A killing to end God's killing |
Num 25:1-11 |
24,002 |
24,002 |
| 28 |
The Midianite massacre: Have ye saved all the women alive? |
Num 31:1-35 |
6 |
200,000 |
| 29 |
God slowly killed the Israelite army |
Dt 2:14-16 |
|
500,000 |
| 30 |
God the giant killer |
Dt 2:21-22 |
|
5,000 |
| 31 |
God hardens King Sihon's heart so all his people can be killed |
Dt 2:33-34 |
1 |
5,000 |
| 32 |
Og and all the men women, and children in 60 cities |
Dt 3:6 |
1 |
60,000 |
| 33 |
The Jericho massacre |
Jos 6:21 |
|
1,000 |
| 34 |
Achan and his family |
Jos 7:10-26 |
1 |
5 |
| 35 |
The Ai massacre |
Jos 8:1-25 |
12,000 |
12,000 |
| 36 |
God stops the sun so Joshua can get his killing done in the daylight |
Jos 10:10-11 |
|
5,000 |
| 37 |
Five kings killed and hung on trees |
Jos 10:26 |
5 |
10,000 |
| 38 |
Joshua utterly destroyed all that breathed as the Lord commanded |
Jos 10:28-42 |
7 |
7,000 |
| 39 |
The genocide of twenty cities: There was not any left to breathe |
Jos 11:8-12 |
2 |
20,000 |
| 40 |
The Anakim: some more giant killing |
Jos 11:20-21 |
|
5,000 |
| 41 |
The Lord delivered the Canaanites and Perizzites |
Jg 1:4 |
10,000 |
10,000 |
| 42 |
The Jerusalem massacre |
Jg 1:8 |
|
1,000 |
| 43 |
Five massacres, a wedding, and God-proof iron chariots |
Jg 1:9-25 |
|
5,000 |
| 44 |
The Lord delivered Chushanrishathaim |
Jg 3:7-10 |
1 |
1,000 |
| 45 |
Ehud delivers a message from God |
Jg 3:15-22 |
1 |
1 |
| 46 |
God delivers 10,000 lusty Moabites |
Jg 3:28-29 |
10,000 |
10,000 |
| 47 |
Shamgar killed 600 Philistines with an ox goad |
Jg 3:31 |
600 |
600 |
| 48 |
Barak and God massacre the Canaanites |
Jg 4:15-16 |
|
1,000 |
| 49 |
Jael pounds a tent stake through a sleeping man's skull |
Jg 4:18-22 |
1 |
1 |
| 50 |
Gideon's story: The Lord set every man's sword against his fellow |
Jg 7:22 |
120,000 |
120,000 |
| 51 |
A city is massacred and 1000 burn to death because of God's evil spirit |
Jg 9:23-27 |
1,001 |
2,000 |
| 52 |
The Ammonite massacre |
Jg 11:32-33 |
|
20,000 |
| 53 |
Jephthah's daughter |
Jg 11:39 |
1 |
1 |
| 54 |
42,000 die for failing the "shibboleth" test |
Jg 12:4-7 |
42,000 |
42,000 |
| 55 |
Samson murdered 30 men for their clothes |
Jg 14:19 |
30 |
30 |
| 56 |
Samson killed 1000 men with the jawbone of an ass |
Jg 15:14-15 |
1,000 |
1,000 |
| 57 |
Samson killed 3000 in a suicide terrorist attack |
Jg 16:27-30 |
3,000 |
3,000 |
| 58 |
A holy civil war (it had something to do with rotting concubine body part messages) |
Jg 20:35-37 |
65,100 |
65,100 |
| 59 |
The end of Judges: two genocides and 200 stolen virgins |
Jg 21:10-14 |
|
4,000 |
| 60 |
God killed Eli's sons and 34,000 Israelite soldiers |
1 Sam 2:25, 4:11 |
34,002 |
34,002 |
| 61 |
God smote them with hemorrhoids in their secret parts |
1 Sam 5:1-12 |
|
3,000 |
| 62 |
50,070 killed for looking into the ark of the Lord |
1 Sam 6:19 |
50,070 |
50,070 |
| 63 |
The Lord thundered a great thunder upon the Philistines |
1 Sam 7:10-11 |
|
1,000 |
| 64 |
Another Ammonite massacre (and another God-inspired body part message) |
1 Sam 11:6-13 |
|
1,000 |
| 65 |
Jonathan's first slaughter |
1 Sam 14:12-14 |
20 |
20 |
| 66 |
God forces the Philistines to kill each other |
1 Sam 14:20 |
|
1,000 |
| 67 |
The Amalekite genocide |
1 Sam 15:2-3 |
|
10,000 |
| 68 |
Samuel hacks Agag to death before the Lord |
1 Sam 15:32-33 |
1 |
1 |
| 69 |
In the valley of Elah: Goliath |
1 Sam 17:51, 2 Sam 21:19 |
1 |
1 |
| 70 |
David buys a wife with 200 Philistine foreskins |
1 Sam 18:27 |
200 |
200 |
| 71 |
The Lord said to David, Go and smite the Philistines |
1 Sam 23:2-5 |
|
10,000 |
| 72 |
God killed Nabal (and David got his wife and other stuff) |
1 Sam 25:38 |
1 |
1 |
| 73 |
David commits random acts of genocide for the Philistines |
1 Sam 27:8-11 |
|
60,000 |
| 74 |
David spends the day killing Amalekites |
1 Sam 30:17 |
|
1,000 |
| 75 |
God kills Saul, his sons, and his soldiers (because Saul didn't kill all the Amalekites) |
1 Sam 31:2, 2 Chr 10:6 |
4 |
100 |
| 76 |
David kills the messenger |
2 Sam 1:15 |
1 |
1 |
| 77 |
David killed, mutilated, and hung Rechab and Baanah |
2 Sam 4:12 |
2 |
2 |
| 78 |
God helps David smite the Philistines from the front and the rear |
2 Sam 5:19-25 |
|
2,000 |
| 79 |
God killed Uzzah for trying to keep the ark from falling |
2 Sam 6:6-7, 1 Chr 13:9-10 |
1 |
1 |
| 80 |
David killed two-thirds of the Moabite POWs and enslaved the rest |
2 Sam 8:2 |
|
667 |
| 81 |
And the Lord gave David victory wherever he went |
2 Sam 8 - 10 |
65,850 |
66,850 |
| 82 |
David killed every male in Edom |
2 Sam 8:13-14, 1 Kg 11:15-16, 1 Chr 18:12, Ps 60:1 |
15,000 |
25,000 |
| 83 |
Thus did David do to all the children of Ammon |
2 Sam 11:1, 1 Chr 20:1 |
|
1,000 |
| 84 |
God slowly kills a baby |
2 Sam 12:14-18 |
1 |
1 |
| 85 |
Seven sons of Saul are hung up before the Lord |
2 Sam 21:1-9 |
7 |
3,000 |
| 86 |
David's mighty men and their amazing killings |
2 Sam 23, 1 Chr 11 |
1,403 |
3,400 |
| 87 |
God killed 70,000 because of David had a census that God (or Satan) told him to do |
2 Sam 24:15, 1 Chr 21:14 |
70,000 |
200,000 |
| 88 |
Solomon murdered Job and Shimei (per David's deathbed wish) |
1 Kg 2:29-46 |
2 |
2 |
| 89 |
A tale of two prophets |
1 Kg 13:11-24 |
1 |
1 |
| 90 |
Jeroboam's son: God kills another child |
1 Kg 14:17 |
1 |
1 |
| 91 |
Jeroboam's family |
1 Kg 15:29 |
|
10 |
| 92 |
Baasha's family and friends |
1 Kg 16:11-12 |
|
20 |
| 93 |
Zimri burns to death |
1 Kg 16:18-19 |
1 |
1 |
| 94 |
The drought of Elijah |
1 Kg 17:1, Luke 4:25, James 5:17-18 |
|
3,000 |
| 95 |
Elijah kills 450 religious leaders in a prayer contest |
1 Kg 18:22-40 |
450 |
450 |
| 96 |
The first God-assisted slaughter of the Syrians |
1 Kg 20:20-21 |
|
10,000 |
| 97 |
God killed 100,000 Syrians for calling him a god of the hills |
1 Kg 20:28-29 |
100,000 |
100,000 |
| 98 |
God killed 27,000 Syrians by making a wall fall on them |
1 Kg 20:30 |
27,000 |
27,000 |
| 99 |
God sent a lion to kill a man for not smiting a prophet |
1 Kg 20:35-36 |
1 |
1 |
| 100 |
God killed Ahab for not killing a captured king |
1 Kg 20:42, 22:35 |
1 |
1 |
| 101 |
God burned 102 men to death for asking Elijah to come down from his hill |
2 Kg 1:10-12 |
102 |
102 |
| 102 |
God killed Ahaziah for asking the wrong God |
2 Kg 1:16-17, 2 Chr 22:7-9 |
1 |
1 |
| 103 |
God sent bears to kill 42 boys for making fun of a prophet's bald head |
2 Kg 2:23-24 |
42 |
42 |
| 104 |
The Lord delivered the Moabites |
2 Kg 3:18-25 |
|
5,000 |
| 105 |
A skeptic is trampled to death |
2 Kg 7:2-20 |
1 |
1 |
| 106 |
God's seven year famine |
2 Kg 8:1 |
|
7,000 |
| 107 |
Jehoram of Israel |
2 Kg 9:24 |
1 |
1 |
| 108 |
Jezebel |
2 Kg 9:33-37 |
1 |
1 |
| 109 |
Ahab's sons: 70 heads in two baskets |
2 Kg 10:6-10 |
70 |
70 |
| 110 |
Ahab's hometown family, friends, and priests |
2 Kg 10:11 |
|
20 |
| 111 |
Jehu killed Ahaziah's family |
2 Kg 10:12-13, 2 Chr 22:7-9 |
42 |
42 |
| 112 |
Jehu and his partner kill the rest of Ahab's family |
2 Kg 10:17 |
|
20 |
| 113 |
Jehu assembled the followers of Baal and then slaughtered them all |
2 Kg 10:18-25 |
|
1,000 |
| 114 |
Mattan the priest of Baal and Queen Athaliah |
2 Kg 11:17-20 |
2 |
2 |
| 115 |
God sent lions to eat those who didn't fear him enough |
2 Kg 17:25-26 |
|
10 |
| 116 |
An angel killed 185,000 sleeping soldiers |
2 Kg 19:34, 37:36 |
185,000 |
185,000 |
| 117 |
God caused King Sennacherib to be killed by his sons |
2 Kg 19:37, Tobit 1:21 |
1 |
1 |
| 118 |
Josiah killed all the priests of the high places |
2 Kg 23:20 |
|
100 |
| 119 |
Just another holy war |
1 Chr 5:18-22 |
|
50,000 |
| 120 |
God killed a half million Israelite soldiers |
2 Chr 13:17-18 |
500,000 |
500,000 |
| 121 |
Jeroboam |
2 Chr 13:20 |
1 |
1 |
| 122 |
God killed a million Ethiopians |
2 Chr 14:9-14 |
1,000,000 |
1,000,000 |
| 123 |
Friendly fire: God forced "a great multitude" to kill each other |
2 Chr 20:22-25 |
|
30,000 |
| 124 |
God made Jehoram's bowels fall out |
2 Chr 21:14-19 |
1 |
1 |
| 125 |
God killed Jehoram's sons |
2 Chr 22:1 |
|
3 |
| 126 |
Ahaziah of Judah |
2 Chr 22:7-8 |
1 |
1 |
| 127 |
Joash, the princes, and army of Judah |
2 Chr 24:20-25 |
1 |
10,000 |
| 128 |
God destroyed Amaziah |
2 Chr 25:15-27 |
1 |
1,000 |
| 129 |
God smote Ahaz with the king of Syria |
2 Chr 28:1-5 |
1 |
10,000 |
| 130 |
God killed 120,000 valiant men for forsaking him |
2 Chr 28:6 |
120,000 |
120,000 |
| 131 |
The fall of Jerusalem |
2 Chr 36:16-17 |
|
10,000 |
| 132 |
The Purim killings: God hath done these things |
Esther 2 - 9, 10:4 |
75,813 |
75,813 |
| 133 |
God and Satan kill Job's children and slaves |
Job 1:18-19 |
10 |
60 |
| 134 |
Hananiah |
Jer 28:15-16 |
1 |
1 |
| 135 |
Ezekiel's wife |
Ezek 24:15-18 |
1 |
1 |
| 136 |
Oh! Susanna |
Dan 13:6-62 |
2 |
2 |
| 137 |
Judith is blessed above all women (for cutting off a sleeping man's head) |
Judith 13:6-10 |
1 |
1 |
| 138 |
The Judith massacre: hang ye up this head upon our walls |
Judith 15:1-6 |
|
1,000 |
| 139 |
Mathathias's double murder |
1 Mac 2:24-25 |
2 |
2 |
| 140 |
Mathathias and his friends slay the wicked sinners |
1 Mac 2:44 |
|
100 |
| 141 |
God killed Andronicus, the sacrilegious wretch |
2 Mac 4:38 |
1 |
1 |
| 142 |
A Jewish mob killed Lysimachus, the sacrilegious fellow |
2 Mac 4:42 |
1 |
1 |
| 143 |
God helped Judas Machabeus destroy the wicked |
1 Mac 3:1-26, 2 Mac 8:5-6 |
800 |
4,900 |
| 144 |
Judas and his unarmed men kill 3000 of Gorgias's soldiers |
1 Mac 3:44-4:24 |
3,000 |
3,000 |
| 145 |
The Hanukkah killings |
1 Mac 4:34-5:7 |
5,000 |
17,000 |
| 146 |
The Machabees brothers slaughter the heathens |
1 Mac 5:21-51 |
11,000 |
37,000 |
| 147 |
Nicanor's army: The Almighty being their helper, they slew above nine thousand men |
1 Mac 7:32-47, 2 Mac 8:24, 15:27 |
147,002 |
147,002 |
| 148 |
Jonathan and Simon destroy the wicked out
of Israel |
1 Mac 9:46-49, 2 Mac 8:30-33, 10:61 |
1,000 |
1,200 |
| 149 |
Five heavenly horsemen cast darts and
fireballs at the enemy |
2 Mac 8:32-10:38 |
21,103 |
21,400 |
| 150 |
God killed Antiochus with an incurable bowel disease |
2 Mac 9:5-28 |
1 |
1 |
| 151 |
Idumeans, traitors, and Jews in two towers |
2 Mac 10:16-17 |
40,000 |
40,100 |
| 152 |
Nicanor's head: A manifest sign of the help
of God |
1 Mac 7:33-48, 2 Mac 15:1-35 |
35,000 |
35,000 |
| 153 |
Aliens at Cades |
1 Mac 11:74 |
3,000 |
3,000 |
| 154 |
John burns to death 2000 in the tower of
Azotus |
1 Mac 16:10 |
2,000 |
2,000 |
| 155 |
God sent wasps to slowly destroy people |
Wisdom 12:8-9 |
|
1,000 |
| 156 |
Ananias and Sapphira |
Acts 5:5-10 |
2 |
2 |
| 157 |
Herod Aggripa |
Acts 12:23 |
1 |
1 |
| 158 |
Jesus |
Rom 8:32, 1 Pet 1:1820 |
1 |
1 |
|
Totals |
2,821,364 |
24,994,828 |
664 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 664 Newer› Newest»Mada
No do not try the old "indentured servitude" argument that tries to make slavery look like a mutually beneficial agreement, labour in return for keep. It was nothing like that. There is so much wrong with what you said I will tackle one point at a time. Firstly, slavery is the ownership of people. They are property. You do what you like with your own property. Even if you are not supposed to do A, B or C, in ancient times there were no regulatory bodies to oversee treatment, no complaints boards or ombudsmen or sets of laws to ensure the safety and well being of the slave. You did what you liked. Maybe behind closed doors, so who you gonna call, huh? Slaves were bought and sold, and what regulatory body was present to investigate where the slaves came from, or if they were actually people being "punished" for wrongdoing as you say. Slaves were whoever found themselves enslaved. This rosy picture you have that "all slaves were freed after seven years" is wrong, that is not what the bible says. "Hebrew slaves" were to serve for six years and go free in the seventh. I quote: "The Bible identifies different categories of slaves including female Hebrew slaves, male Hebrew slaves, non-Hebrew and hereditary slaves. These were subject to different regulations. Female Hebrews could be sold by their fathers and enslaved for life (Exodus 21:7-11), O there is so much more, Mada. I will continue just so that you know what the bible says, and that it is very far from the romantic notion of indentured servitude that you are imagining. It is very important that you get this right and honour the memory of all slaves who were denied their humanity and treated as property.
Mada
Continuing information on biblical slaves: "Male Hebrews could sell themselves into slavery for a six-year period to eliminate their debts, after which they might go free. However, if the male slave had been given a wife and had children with her, they would remain his master's property. They could only stay with their family by becoming permanent slaves (Exodus 21:2-5)." Please note that "permanent" meant until death. Never free. Always property of a master.
But there's more: "Non-Hebrews, on the other hand, could (according to Leviticus 25:44) be subjected to slavery in exactly the way that it is usually understood. The slaves could be bought, sold and inherited when their owner died. This, by any standard, is race- or ethnicity-based, and Leviticus 25:44-46 explicitly allows slaves to be bought from foreign nations or foreigners living in Israel. It does say that simply kidnapping Hebrews to enslave them is a crime punishable by death (Deuteronomy 24:7), but no such prohibition exists regarding foreigners. War captives could be made slaves, assuming they had refused to make peace (this applied to women and children—men were simply killed), along with the seizure of all their property (Deuteronomy 20:10-15).
Hereditary slaves were born into slavery and there is no apparent way by which they could obtain their freedom."
Please note that last sentence: No way out, Mada. No way to be free. Ever. Simply because you were born to slave parents. Is your rosy romantic notion of biblical slavery beginning to fade yet, Mada. I hope so, because there is more to come.
@ James Bond
Fine, you have proven your point. The Bible does have guidelines on how to treat slaves, but this is not condoning it. Can you show me a verse specifically saying slavery is a good thing. I think this is more similar to things like the Geneva Convention. Of course it writers are not condoning war, but they have war crimes laid out and regulations to minimize suffering. What happens behind closed doors cannot be blamed on the Bible it has not physical power to cause slave owner to mistreat their slaves. If you a cruel slave owner, and you beat your slaves and mistreat them, you would theoretically be judged for it in the end.
The Bible has verses about loving your fellow man, what are you thought on those verses?
Mark 12:31
The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."
This trumps everything else written in the Old Testament, it is the greatest commandment. To love first.
If your actions do not show love, then they are not supported by the Bible.
It always troubled me that there are verses about slavery, very specific commands and regulations, but (I think) the rules were to protect slaves. There nothing that can be done about the act happening. No these rules are irrelevant, because slavery is outlawed, and the bible also says this.
Mark 12:17
Then Jesus said to them, "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." And they were amazed at him.
This essentially means to follow the laws of the land.
I'm glad we can argue civilly now, I apologize for my clerical attitude earlier and accusations about your character. Your right, it is healthy. You causing me to think. What good are my beliefs if I cannot defend and support them.
Mada
look I will not just go on quoting from wikepedia, you can look it up for yourself. So much more on slavery, selling your daughter into slavery. I urge you to look up these passages: they are at http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Bible. You can verify them by looking them up in your own bible.
But one of the worst of the slave passages I think is this one: "Exodus 21:20-21 (NASB): 20. If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property." Now please think about that passage Mada. What gets me about this one is that it's obviously okay to beat your slave with a rod. Note, there may be no reason for the beating or it may be for any supposed offence at all. But the beating can be so cruel that the slave dies after 3 days. No punishment. First, there is no saying what the punishment for killing a slave by beating is. A fine, perhaps? The slave owner is only punished if the slave dies within 2 days. Think of this. THink of a person beaten so brutally they linger for weeks or even months with terrible injuries, maybe blindness, broken limbs, etc. But they don't die, just suffer terribly. It's okay with god. All good. Read all the passages Mada and please tell me then how you justify your views that slavery in the bible was a good thing. Please explain it to me.
Mada
Oh and I agree with your comments: "I'm glad we can argue civilly now, I apologize for my clerical attitude earlier and accusations about your character. Your right, it is healthy. You causing me to think. What good are my beliefs if I cannot defend and support them." Thank you for that. I think we are arguing civilly.
But I get very impassioned about the slavery arguments because it is so important for people to know just how bad the bible is on this point. The bible in no way "outlaws slavery" as you say. On the contrary, it enshrines it in law as a just and good thing. It has to be condemned in the strongest possible terms for this. And if you say the bible was merely reflecting the law of the land, well I'm afraid that is not good enough. The bible is supposed to be the enlightened word of a good and just god. The slavery passages are just one very clear indication that the bible was written by men, not a god, that it reflected the morals of a savage and unenlightened time when men thought it was okay to own and to beat people. It is not. So I urge you, Mada, in honour of the African slaves that America abused for all those years, to come out and condemn the bible's approval of slavery. As you will see if you go to the source quoted, there are other passages on slavery, I have not exhausted them.
Thank you for thinking about this.
Mada:
just one more thing, in response to your comment:
The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."
I agree with Freud that this is an impossible and silly thing to expect of people. What if my neighbour is a monster? A child-molester, an abusive husband? I do not love that person at all. The most that can be expected of neighbourliness is to respect your neighbour as a person unless there is reason to think otherwise and to respect his or her rights. If you know your neighbour well and love that person, that is good, but there is no reason to love that person as much as yourself. Self-love is a necessary survival emotion and has to be stronger than the love of a mere neighbour. I am sure you do not love cruel and abusive people and would not love a cruel and abusive neighbour at all.
The best rule of the bible is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Not sure where that is in the bible. But that rule pre-dates the bible, so the bible merely borrowed it. No originality there, sorry.
@Mada, Dee and James:
OK, I think we can safely say that Mada did not provide any versus from the bible that says that slavery is bad.
Here are two verses, one from god in the old testament, and one from jesus in the new testament to think about:
God
Deuteronomy 20:10-14: “As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.”
Jesus
Luke 12:47: “And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.”
I can't help but wonder how many ancestors of Mada, James, Dee and myself were 'beaten with many stripes' as slaves in the past while their owners quoted this verse from the bible.
Tom
I am always amazed at how much obviously atrocious stuff gets brushed aside as though it did not exist. I recall at school that even though we read or knew about some of the evil passages, we still thought that the bible was good, as if some sort of odd instant amnesia stopped us from remembering the brutally cruel stuff almost as soon as we'd read it. I still can't understand why I did not stand up to the religious instructors at school and ask how a good and kind god could suddenly kill everyone on the planet. Fear? Or some weird brain-washing technique they used. Maybe the poetic verses lulled us into some sort of mental numbness. There is so much awful, even obscene stuff in this book that is held up to be so beautiful. I mean how about this: 2 Kings 18:27King James Version (KJV) 27 which talks about men eating faeces and drinking piss? And this: that he slew all the house of Baasha: he left him not one that pisseth against a wall, neither of his kinsfolks, nor of his friends” (1 Kings 16:11, KJV).
Certainly no beauty there. These are passages no preacher ever talks about in the pulpit or the sunday school classes. Mada will most probably not want to bring these bits up because they are not the pretty, romantic, feel good stuff he likes.
Tom
And it's no good if they try to argue that this evil stuff is from the old Testament and "we are under a new covenant now" because, for a start, jesus says in the NT that all of god's law shall be fulfilled in its entirety: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Matthew 5:17-18). So there was to be no repeal of any of the old stuff: nothing goes, it all stays. And you can't dismiss the Old Testament, or you lose the creation, you lose the Ten Commandments, you lose the very fundamental underpinnings of christianity, you actually lose god.
@mada124
You asked:
“The Bible has verses about loving your fellow man, what are you thought on those verses?”
They are great! They are fantastic! They are a good start! But they fall woefully short of providing complete moral guidance. And I don’t think there is a single verse in there about being nice to other folks that is unique to the bible, and that is not repeated in various forms in other societies around the world, past and present. (Feel free to prove me wrong, as long as you provide references other than your own opinions.) I will let James The Literate carry the ball on that rebuttal, as I believe he is more qualified to address the issue than I am.
Not to hurt your feelings, but sometimes it appears that when myself or others point out things in the bible that are diametrically opposed to the concept of a loving god or jesus that you fall back on bringing up quotes about all the good stuff in the bible. In my mind, that is like defending someone on trial for murder by saying “Sure he killed someone, but look at all the good he has done and how much he loves everyone. Can’t we just ignore the bad stuff that he did?” A gross simplification, but not far off the mark.
Thoughts?
@mada124:
Here are some more quotes and postings from you over the last week or two:
“He is in fact all knowing, and omnipotent.”
“The whole bible is the word of God, and Jesus is the Word.”
“Most of the Bible is written by inspired men. For believers, the Bible is the Word of God, all of it.”
“Seek God out, and ask him your questions……………… the God of Dorian Xavier Louis Randall, is faithful to answer.”
“Those who are spiritual can evaluate all things, but they themselves cannot be evaluated by others.”
“You look for what you want to see in the Bible, and you do it without an open mind, so you will find nothing. Of course it makes no sense to you.”
“He is an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent entity that exists outside the universe, or bulk universe, whatever theory you believe about the universe. That is why I do not question His actions. How could I understand?”
I will just say that if I wanted to reach the most people in the world with my message, I would do the opposite, and
1) make my message as clear and simple as possible to avoid confusion,
2) and without contradictions,
3) and without requiring interpretations,
4) and would not require someone to claim to be ‘spiritual” or have unique understanding or knowledge to understand and explain to others. (this inherently limits the number of people who understand, instead of increasing the number of people that understand).
That, I believe, would be the way to get the maximum number of people to hear and hopefully follow my message (whatever it might be).
I cannot speak for James, but I think we both have indeed read and studied the bible, and if god existed, and if he was indeed “omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent”, then my opinion is that his bible falls far, far short of perfection. Otherwise, it would not be so easy (impossible, actually) for James and myself to come up with the multitude of biblical verses that we have found and presented that show parts of the bible that many Christians feel are contrary to the message they want to present, and don’t want to acknowledge. As I have stated before, if one wants to take the claim of perfection out of the equation, then that is where most of my objections fall to the ground.
(And before you say that we are not spiritual or we have not looked at the bible as a whole, please refer to Item 4 above. Thanks.)
Once again, please do not take this as an attack or criticism, but I did want to verbalize my response to your question "why do you not believe as I do?"
/Rant
One more parting thought: "Those who are spiritual can evaluate all things, but they themselves cannot be evaluated by others" Really? That (in my opinion) borders on the arrogant, and provides a convenient way for folks to claim superiority and 'don't question me' attitude. And yes, that is a bible verse, and not your words, so I will cut you some slack on this one. I will just say that versus like this do not endear Christians to non believers.
/End rant
And who in the world is Dorian Xavier Louis Randall? Enlighten me.
@mada and James
You know, if we all got paid a penny a letter typed on this blog we'd all be rich now!
The problem that everyone seems to be having is the understanding of Who God is and who man is in relationship to Him. Since God is the creator whether ypu believe in Him or not , as creator it is His prerogative to do with it what He wills. Man is the sinner here and God told man that if he , man, sinned he would surely die. now God told Noah to build an arc, and he gave man the opportunity to repent of his sin, and He gave man 120 years, the amount of time it took Noah and his sons to build the arc. Man did not repent nd God terminated them all. So you poor people think that that is terrible and you probably also think that God should allow you into heaven, even if you deny His existence. Think again! and prepare yourselves for what is soon to come upon this world. I'm not worried because I won't be here!!!
@leo1jm2:
Actually, if you read the bible (that is OK if you haven't, most Christians don't), god only told adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Genesis 2:17: "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
But then later, after eating the from the tree we find
Genesis 5:5: "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."
Bummer! The very first promise god makes in the bible, and he drops the ball. I guess that you just can't count on some folks to follow through on their promises/threats.
In any case, thanks for stopping by. Let us know if you have any other things we need to know about you.
@Tom Vouray
"But then later, after eating the from the tree we find
Genesis 5:5: "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.""
"And he died"
I'll leave that as is. God said he would die, and he did. He didn't say you will die immediately, did he?
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Matthew 5:17-18)
Till all be fufilled. Guess what Jesus came to do?
Mathew 5:17
""Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them"
Again, you are taking verse out of context. You referenced Luke
"Peter asked, “Lord, are you telling this parable to us, or to everyone?”
42The Lord answered, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? 43It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. 44Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 45But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the other servants, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk. 46The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.
47“The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."
This is a parable relating this scenario to the second coming of Christ.
When you were quoting me you said I stated the following
"The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments,"
This does not mean we can judge other humans, but we can judge their actions and tell whether or not they are of God. This is not the same as Judgment from God.
Matthew 7:1-3
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? "
I am Dorian Randall. mada124 is a username I use for online stuff. Does it matter?
If you read the Bible, it must be the whole thing, and it must be applied to the other verses in it. That is how you read the Bible. Id I only took the part of German history where they were controlled by a Nazi regime, you would think very poorly of them. Not that it is at all similar to the bible, any acts of violence by God are righteous and for a purpose.
Romans 9:19-21
You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?
@James Bond
"On the contrary, it enshrines it in law as a just and good thing"
Show me a verse calling slavery a "just and good thing"
Again, these laws are there as regulations because slavery is a thing. You may not like that reason, but it is the reason.
"Exodus 21:20-21 (NASB): 20. If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property."
"Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven."
Colossians 4:1
Is beating your slave within an inch of their life "just or fair" according the laws stating that you should treat others with respect?
"And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him."
Ephesians 6:9
Now, in case you think the Bible considers slaves sub-human
"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
Galations 3:28
Lets not forget, slavery is a man made invention. God therefore made regualtions for it, so that slaves would not be mistreated. It does not condone or oppose slavery, so long as it adheres to these very strict laws.
Now, this is all irrelevant today, because slavery is not longer socially accepted. I will agree with you, slavery is archaic and inhumane. But i will not agree the the bible condones it. I don't see that, lets just agree to disagree here, as I wont convince you and you wont convince me.
You see this as condoning beating a slave to death, and I see the opposite.
If the slave dies at all, he shall be punished. If a slaver owner beats a man so badly that it take him 2 week to die, that man will be punished, because he is not treating that slave with dignity.
I want to change the topic to prophecy. This is the most compelling reason for my belief in the bible. There are many misconceptions and false teachings about bible prophecy. It is somewhat vague at times (Matthew 24), but others are very specific. I want to address the following, and give evidence showing it possible. Possible being the key word, im not saying this is what will happen, but it is strikingly similar to text that was written thousands of years ago.
Ezekiel 38:1-13 NLT
This is another message that came to me from the Lord : “Son of man, turn and face Gog of the land of Magog, the prince who rules over the nations of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him. Give him this message from the Sovereign Lord : Gog, I am your enemy! I will turn you around and put hooks in your jaws to lead you out with your whole army—your horses and charioteers in full armor and a great horde armed with shields and swords. Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya will join you, too, with all their weapons. Gomer and all its armies will also join you, along with the armies of Beth-togarmah from the distant north, and many others. “Get ready; be prepared! Keep all the armies around you mobilized, and take command of them. A long time from now you will be called into action. In the distant future you will swoop down on the land of Israel, which will be enjoying peace after recovering from war and after its people have returned from many lands to the mountains of Israel. You and all your allies—a vast and awesome army—will roll down on them like a storm and cover the land like a cloud. “This is what the Sovereign Lord says: At that time evil thoughts will come to your mind, and you will devise a wicked scheme. You will say, ‘Israel is an unprotected land filled with unwalled villages! I will march against her and destroy these people who live in such confidence! I will go to those formerly desolate cities that are now filled with people who have returned from exile in many nations. I will capture vast amounts of plunder, for the people are rich with livestock and other possessions now. They think the whole world revolves around them!’ But Sheba and Dedan and the merchants of Tarshish will ask, ‘Do you really think the armies you have gathered can rob them of silver and gold? Do you think you can drive away their livestock and seize their goods and carry off plunder?’
http://bible.com/116/ezk.38.1-13.NLT
This essentially predicts that a massive army led by Magog and Persia mainly, Russia and Iran , in the distant future will come against Israel to gain something, Oil perhaps? The Golan Heights recently had a large oil reservoir discovered, and is hotly disputed territory. Feel free to look up the names of those nations listed. I did my own research and found them to be the modern countries I stated.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/iranian-commander-we-can-destroy-israel-in-under-8-minutes/
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/countingthecost/2016/08/turkey-russia-billion-dollar-handshake-160813090616706.html
http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsweek.com%2Fnetanyahu-tells-putin-golan-heights-will-remain-under-israeli-control-451309&h=nAQEeWttn&s=1
http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsweek.com%2Fnetanyahu-tells-putin-golan-heights-will-remain-under-israeli-control-451309&h=nAQEeWttn&s=1
Another little detail in there metions Sehba and Dedan, which is modern Saudi Arabia
They will stand back and vocally oppose this attack, but thats about it.
Interestingly, Saudi Israeli relations have been improving.
http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/08/14/saudi-arabias-pro-jewish-media-campaign-seeks-to-pave-way-for-ties-with-israel/
http://www.timesofisrael.com/saudi-media-battles-anti-semitism-warms-up-to-israel/
This is important because, if this is in fact true, the second coming is also prophesied to take place surrounding this time. Hence my urgency.
Tom's question to me was:
"Are modern Jews in the country of Israel the descendants of god's 'chosen people' who were lead to the 'chosen land', as described in the old testament? If not, what happened to them?"
I would say yes, the modern Jews are the descendants of God's "chosen people". God chose this people group as a platform to make His name known to the people of the day and to set the stage for His own son to come and redeem all of mankind. The people of Israel were by no means deserving of this "choosing" and rebelled countless times (and were themselves subject to plagues and punishments as a result). The chosen land was very strategically at a crossroads where many foreign peoples would pass through and be influenced by the people who were supposed to be following God's laws. Then, same as now, we are all left to our own free choice of whether we do that or not. Jesus was born into this chosen people group. He was the promised Messiah. The many Jews who recognized this and followed him eventually were not called Jews any more, but Christians, together with the non-Jews (Gentiles) that also followed Him. There is no more specific "chosen people" as in a people group. Rather, God has individual "chosen people" in every nation/people group of the world, including modern day "Messianic Jews", who continue to practice a lot of the Jewish traditions but at the same time recognize their ultimate fulfillment in the person of Jesus Christ. God loves the whole world, and this is not just a New Testament idea. For example: “In that day Israel will be the third with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth, whom the Lord of hosts has blessed, saying, "Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel my inheritance."”
Isaiah 19:24-25 ESV (note: Egypt was Israel's oppressor when they were in slavery and Assyria was the nation who took Northern Israel back into captivity at the end of the Old Testament story). I previously mentioned as well how the Israelite camp had room for foreigners and will also note: there were many laws that were set up to protect them such as not going over your crops a second time to leave food behind for the "gleaners" which included widows and aliens/foreigners. If you read the Old Testament prophecies you will notice a theme about a "remnant", which is a continuing idea that only a portion of God's "chosen people" will endure as such. Being Jewish/Israelite never guaranteed safety or blessing and it still does not. God judges us each individually by what's in our hearts, and ultimately, what our response is to Jesus' offer of salvation.
There was a lot of comments today and I am too tired to contribute much else before I go to sleep, but this kind of irks me: "These are passages no preacher ever talks about in the pulpit or the sunday school classes". This is false. You cannot claim this without having listened to every church sermon and Sunday School teaching, which is impossible. Even if you had the time, many are not even recorded. I know that in my own church, the pastor encourages people to read lots of Scripture for themselves and submit their questions to him. He addresses some of the topics from the pulpit, and if more of a discussion is needed (maybe similar to what we are doing here), most times a Sunday School class setting is provided accordingly. I know there are many other churches who also address these passages and questions in various ways as well. Please don't pretend you know exactly how all of our churches run because you don't.
Good night
MADA
Quoting Ephesians also brings us to "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ." And fear. Note the "and fear." Just as you would fear and obey christ. What sort of love is that? What loving parents truly want their children to fear them? What an archaic and quite horrible idea. But the blind obedience thing is also offensive. The implication of this is "no matter what the master tells you to do." It's an open book to abuse.
And Mada I don't think you've mentioned the passages about selling your own daughters into slavery. What possible way is there to interpret that in a good way? ANd don't give me the old "indentured servitude" rubbish. Slavery then was owning people as property and the bible says you can see your daughter to someone to become their property, as you might sell a horse. There is just no getting around that.
You say "
Lets not forget, slavery is a man made invention. God therefore made regulations for it, [pretty shitty regulations though, you can still kill the slave as long as he doesn't die immediately, and still sell your daughter into slavery] so that slaves would not be mistreated. It does not condone or oppose slavery, so long as it adheres to these very strict laws." [so strict that, as I said, you can still beat the shit out of your slave, long as it takes him or her more than a couple of days to die. Or beat the shit out of them so much that they're maimed and scarred or permanently impaired for life: long as they're still breathing. Oh what a lovely god your god is.]
And yet the bible is supposed to be a god-made thing, not man made. So why would god not realise how inhumane slavery is and condemn it and make one of the commandments "Thou shalt never own a person as property: slavery is forbidden and sinful". Not rocket science, I'd have made that one of my commandments, and got rid of the egocentric bullshit commandment about graven images.
Dee
You criticised my observation that "These are passages no preacher ever talks about in the pulpit or the sunday school classes". This is false. You cannot claim this without having listened to every church sermon and Sunday School teaching, which is impossible. Even if you had the time, many are not even recorded. .... Please don't pretend you know exactly how all of our churches run because you don't."
Of course Dee the passages have to be confronted at some point, and I'm sure you understood the point I was making, that the sermons you hear the evangelists, bv preachers and holy rollers praising the lord for in their ecstatic and pedagogic ways are usually NOT the obscene and distasteful ones. They play them down to such and extent that by and large the passages are ignored and forgotten about. The selling your daughters into slavery, I would venture to bet, is almost never brought up at sunday sermons, it's way too embarrassing. Same with the pissing and shitting references. And the cutting off of the foreskins. Can you imagine that on the church signpost: Sunday Sermon: Oh no, they want to stick to golden and sunny images of grazing sheep and green pastures. Tell me how many times you hear these preached in church? Once? Ever? How often do you see the church advertising it's sermon for next week as Exodus 4:25: "TOSSING FORESKINS AT THE FEET: FUN FOR ALL THE FAMILY" [Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son's foreskin and threw it at Moses' feet, and she said, "You are indeed a bridegroom of blood to me."] Now be honest, these bits of the bible are embarrassing, and skipped over. Don't even get me started on the complete nonsense about the sins wearing different fabrics and eating and not eating animals with cloven hoofs.
Mada
I also have to say the prophecies you allude to could be applied to any conflicts at almost any time. Countries go to war, that's what happens. The fight over land, and other resources. They have always done so. Take any major conflict and you can make it fit the "prophecies" you find in the bible. I too can be a prophet by making vague statements that will surely come true. Give me a prophecy that accurately states dates, names of countries and people that do not yet exist at the time of the prophecy, exactly who is going to do what and when, and the outcome of the actions. Then your claims to prophecy may have some validity. There is no such thing as a prophet who can foresee an actual future. There are simply people who make claims based on experience that things they know are likely to happen at some time, somewhere, will happen and hey presto, such things happen. Sorry, that does not win a prize.
@James Bond
@James Bond
For a God you don't believe in, he seems to incite very real emotion in you. You simply misunderstand. Please re read my post. Beating the "shit" out of your slave is not loving them as yourself, unless your a masochist. Again, let's agree to disagree. I think your wrong about your interpretation, and since I have prayed to God about it, He has given me more insight that you could have about it. Ive given you my reasons, what more do you want? Id rather hear your opinion on the prophecy of Ezekiel 38, and the devopling news stories. Here another one, just today.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/17/world/middleeast/russia-iran-base-syria.html?_r=0
@James Bond
If you would read the posts, you would see the Ezekiel 38 is very specific and does give names of countries. And time, distant future.
@James Bond
The outcome is that this forces army is swept away by God himself, and he will make himself know to man, and those who do not know him will tremble in fear at what is coming to the earth. Rightly so, because it is the Wrath of God, and who can escape? Fear means to respect, something you do not do for God, despite him warning you RIGHT NOW. You reject hsi love, and see what you want, with your vast humam knowledge of the universe. Do you have the solution to human suffering? Or the keys of death? That prophecy has not happened, but it it building. The required nations are at play. Dont gloss past that as if it is nothing. These events are very real. Iran and Russia and Turkey and very real countries that have very real ambitions to take out israel, which is prophesied. Comments on those articles and thier relation to Ezekiel 38's specific commentary on the events?
Mada
No, "he" incites nothing at all in me because "he" (I prefer to think of your god as "it") does not exist. What does incite me is the ways people lie about the man made notion of a god by insisting it is some sort of truth or true thing when there is no evidence at all to base the claim upon.
And yes, I know that "Beating the "shit" out of your slave is not loving them as yourself" so why does the bible not mind at all if you do beat the shit out of the slave (long as he survives a couple of days before he pegs out)? Why did the slavery passages not say "Slavery is wrong, there is never any excuse for it and it has to stop now"? Why say "Oh, long as the beaten ones take their time dying, I have no problem with that? Which is really what it amounts to. Or why not say "Never beat anyone" And why not say "Never beat anyone, no matter how gentle or severe the beating, just fucking don't do it. You got that? " And if it is supposed to be the same god talking when the bible says love your neighbour as yourself, (obviously that excludes slave neighbours) why doesn't it specify "OH wait, I already said you were allowed to beat the shit out your slaves, so my bad, cancel that, now I'm saying you can't do that." You will probably try to say that the love your neighbour does cancel out the other, but how would we know? Anyone can just as easily say, no the neighbour rule does not apply to slaves. Or that loving people means you can also beat them if they live for at least a couple of days.
I'm not quite happy with the "let's agree to disagree" suggestion, Mada. I want you to reconcile these contradictions, and when you just retreat from the argument, it's somewhat disappointing. It's almost like you've given up because it's too obvious my point has a lot of merit. Which is good, but it would be better to hear you concede some ground here, given you have not managed to explain the inconsistencies.
And Mada, it is no argument at all to say "since I have prayed to God about it, He has given me more insight that you could have about it." Come on Mada, that's no argument. I could say "I spoke to god and she told me I was absolutely right, the bible is rubbish and I didn't write it. I'm not that god." A Muslim could say he communicated with Allah or Mohammed and they told him the passages in the bible are just bullcrap. I'm sure you would not believe them. Maybe you do think you are talking to your god. I think you're talking to yourself. You can't prove to me that you spoke to god, so you can't defeat my arguments with that claim, I'm sorry.
Mada:
I think I covered the prophecy argument. It does not take a genius to know that wars about resources, land, political and religious dogmas, races, and all manner of power struggles are going to occur in the future. The biblical passage predict what, conflict in countries already in conflict? Conflict between nations in the future? Well jeez Louise, I could have predicted that. You are not reading forwards, you are reading current events back into the writing and trying to make them fit. It's the same tired old process used by those who claim Nostradamus predicted events that actually occurred. It's rubbish. It's what self-professed "psychic" do, telling you things very likely to happen based upon what they know about you and your life and what often happens to people.
And you ignore the obviously failed prophecies: Isaiah 7:14: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. How could they get the name so wrong?
Isaiah 19:4-5 And the Egyptians will I give over into the hand of a cruel lord; and a fierce king shall rule over them, saith the Lord, the LORD of hosts. And the waters shall fail from the sea, and the river shall be wasted and dried up.
Did not happen.
Isaiah 19:18 In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the LORD of hosts; one shall be called, The city of destruction.
The Canaanite language has never been spoken in Egypt, and is now an extinct.
You can look all these up yourself Mada. There are heaps more.
So all you are left with is the vagueries of wars between countries. Pretty small potatoes I must say. Sorry, the prophecy arguments fail.
@Dee
Thanks for your response on my question concerning god's chosen people and modern day Israel.
I will just express an opinion that it would be sad to think, if what happened in the old testament were true, that all the death and bloodshed that occurred for the 'chosen people' to establish their place in the 'chosen land' resulted in a modern country that does not follow jesus or christianity. That is what the younger folks would refer to as an "epic fail".
@Mada:
Regarding adam and god’s threat if he ate of the tree of knowledge, you said:
“I'll leave that as is. God said he would die, and he did. He didn't say you will die immediately, did he?”
Not immediately, but pretty close, within 24 hours. I will repeat from the bible:
“……….in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
Adam did not die in the day that he did eatest, but lived another 900+ years. That was the whole point of the posting.
I think some of your posting on Tuesday at 8:38PM was addressed to James and not me, not sure what you are referencing?
“I am Dorian Randall. mada124 is a username I use for online stuff. Does it matter?”
The reason I asked was that I assumed that you were referencing a historical or religious person (I have to admit it is a pretty cool name) and I actually googled it and came up with nothing. I never thought it would be your real name.
Here are my favorite verses in the bible about prophecy and end times:
[I am too lazy to cut and paste, look them up yourselves.]
Matthew 26:64 & Mark 14:62
Matthew 23:36 & 24:34
Matthew 16:28
Mark 13:30-31
Luke 9:27
Luke 21:25-33
Matthew 10:23
Hebrews 10:37
1 Peter 1:20 & 4:7
All of which either state or imply that either the return of jesus and/or end times were to occur over 1900 years ago.
But don’t feel bad. The Jehovah’s Witnesses predicted that jesus would return in 1874, and when he missed the memo and was a no show, they revised his second coming to 1914. When no one noticed him standing around, they then they figured out that he did indeed return, but he was invisible. I guess he also came back as a mute, since no one heard him either.
Boy, this whole prophecy and timing of the return of jesus sure can get tricky.
@leo1jm2:
Hey, when you get to the afterlife, do us a favor and post back up here and let us know how things turned out for you.
@Tom Vouray
More evidence you have not read the Bible, as none of those verse imply any sort of specific timing.
Matthew 24:36
"But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."
The Jehovah's Witnesses predicted wrongly. The Bible is not wrong, they are. I don't not even agree with their doctrines or eschatology, I think they mislead people.
And your argument is over semantics, God said Adam would die and he did. Thats it.
@James Bond
Really? 4,000 years ago Russia didn't even exist. Nor did Iran. I doubt you could have guessed with such specificity, these events. Its not just "some countries fighting over resources". It specifically Iran, Russian, Turkey, vs Israel. Which is unfolding in front of your eyes. Are you in denial? You said I could apply this to any conflict, and that isn't not true. The countries are named. You argument is not sufficient, you just simply brush way stated evidence. But I assume my attempts to show you any evidence are futile, you have made your decision already. Saying "well anyone could have guess that" isn't enough. Because not anyone did, the Bible did. And guess whats happening?
Mada
So did I miss the reference to Russia in Ezekiel 38? Hmm, just in case, let me do a word search....no, no reference to Russia. Let's seem maybe a reference to a Soviet Communist nation that is seduced by communist/socialist manifesto written by a couple of guys named Marx and Engels, that finally becomes democratic...sort of....ummm no, oddly, Ezekial mentions nothing like that..just a big nation. And of course the names of some extant nations of the middle east with lots of mythic stuff chucked in: but hey, maybe Ezekiel mentions modern firearms and bombs and planes and weapons: now that would be really prophetic: oh, wait, it only mentions men floundering about on the ground with shields and horses and doing lots of looting and plundering: Gog and Magog, which "in the Hebrew Bible may be individuals, peoples, or lands" according to my source. No one really knows. And you think this is some sort of prophecy? Oh give me a break, Mada. Please. Stay real with me, or the discussion is pointless.
@James Bond
http://www.wnd.com/files/2012/06/richardson120622_1.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meshech#/media/File:Noahsworld_map.jpg
Obviously it wasn't mentioned as "Russia". The area where modern Russia is was Magog. And Persia and Libya are also named. Persia is undoubtedly Iran. You dont know the vision he had either. Swords and shields were used to represent war because he would have no idea what tanks were. And you argument is refuted by the mention of the phrase "distant future".
Mada
Well if it's prophecy, why DOESN'T it mention Russia? Prophecy means foretelling the future, so foretell it already. And Mada, perhaps you can tell me where you're getting your information from: My reading informs me no one actually knows what Gog or Magog was. Wikipedia has a lot on the subject, starting with this: "The first mention of the two names occurs in the Book of Ezekiel, where Gog is an individual and Magog is his land; in Genesis 10 Magog is a person[a] but no Gog is mentioned; and in Revelation Gog and Magog together are the hostile nations of the world.[1][2] Gog or Goug the Reubenite[b] occurs in 1 Chronicles 5:4, but he appears to have no connection with the Gog of Ezekiel or Magog of Genesis.[4]"
But there is heaps more. You really should read it, before you think it's established that Magog is today's Russia. Or publish your own research on the matter and have it peer-reviewed.
And again, if this is actual prophecy, how come it did NOT mention tanks, aeroplanes, and bombs? Prophets are supposed to know about things that have not yet come into existence. Why ONLY mention the weapons of the time? You really have to stretch and stretch and stretch to get your mythical storybook content to fit actual events of today.
And why is it that ONLY christians who believe in the biblical prophecy actually notice or pay any attention to this? The world is filled with historians. I have not yet heard of one non-religious scholarly writer or historian who chronicles the supposed accuracy of biblical prophecy.
@mada
You have said, many times, something along the lines of: "If you read the Bible, it must be the whole thing, and it must be applied to the other verses in it. That is how you read the Bible" to myself and James.
I postulate that this is only your opinion, but it is not supported by the bible and therefore it is unbiblical.
@Tom Vouray
Thesalonians 5
19Do not quench the Spirit. 20Do not treat prophecies with contempt 21but test them all; hold on to what is good, 22reject every kind of evil
2 Peter 1
19 We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
@mada
Once again, I am not sure that if your latest response was directed to me or James, as I was asking about the necessity of reading the bible as a whole, and your response referenced prophecy?
Mada:
love the fly screens comments.
On the prophecies, though: Quoting the bible as an authority on the bible's own prophecies is like trusting that a person is telling the truth simply because he says he is. If you're testing prophecy will I suggest that over the centuries lots of people have examined the accuracy of the alleged prophecies and found them either quite wrong or so vague that you could not call them actual prophecies. In other words, they fail the test that reality imposes upon them.
And really, the romantic/poetic stuff you quote such as " a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts." is really only that. As for "no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things." I am sorry, but this is just using scripture to verify itself. And the claim in the bible that "For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." is just unproven assertion. I'm not personally credulous enough to believe unproven assertions about things that are on the face of it rather unlikely to be true.
@James:
off topic. for your research for your thesis, did you read the novel "johnny got his gun", or were your resources just non-fiction? A very effective anti-war book, written almost 100 years ago.
Tom
No Tom, I did not read that one, by Dalton Trumbo. i referred to many classic WWI novels, including Le Feu by Henri Barbusse, The Return of the Soldier, All Quiet on the Western Front, and A Farewell to Arms and some classic war books based on other wars, like The Red Badge of Courage, and Catch 22 . I've just read a synopsis of Johnny Got His Gun on Wikipedia and I really don't think I am strong enough for that one. Thanks for the suggestion, but maybe I need a break from war for a while at least.
@ James
Oh I am not suggesting that you read it, in fact I concur that you should not. Just wondering if you had read it as part of your research. I had to read it a very long time ago, (in galaxy far, far away) and still have no desire to look at it again.
Thanks for the great work you did. I just came across it now.
There is however one thing I want to add: You refer to the God of the OT as the grand killer - which undoubtedly would be true, if God ever existed.
Now, I think God is a creation of mankind and thus we could just shrug him off, if there were not still so much killing going on in his name. And so much hatred being sown in the name of this murderous religion.
Another thing I want to point out is about the killing of his son J.C. Imagine a father who has the possibility to save his only son from death by torture, his son knowing his father has this power, pleading him, begging him to save him. And the father? To magnify his own fame lets his son be tortured until he dies... Who wants or needs a father like that?
And - any father acting this way would nowadays end up in carcel or the spend the rest of his life in a psychiatry.
But Christians not only worship and glorify this monstrous God/Father, they show their "love" regularly by a gory and cannibalistic rite:
"Take this, all of you, and eat of it:
for this is my body which will be given up for you.
Take this, all of you, and drink from it:
for this is the chalice of my blood,
the blood of the new and eternal covenant.
which will be poured out for you and for many
for the forgiveness of sins .
Do this in memory of me."
I shudder each time I think of it!
The number one thing that believers overlook is the wide gap between what they are taught to believe regarding Christianity (as well as other religions) and what is actually written in the bible (and other 'holy' books).
Non-believers (including myself) are posting verbatim from the bible, and yet believers (who claim the bible is generated by god and perfect) have to twist and turn and squirm to come up with excuses regarding these discrepancies.
Hi Tosha. If one does just a couple of minutes of research on HUMAN SACRIFICE, that person will see what a horrific loss of life that was/is. There are many [non-religious] sites such as Wikipedia, for example, you can visit.
Typically images of Aztecs and Mayas come to mind first and then one quickly sees that this type of senseless and sadistic murder had been practiced by virtually every ethnicity, culture and most religions in the past. From slayings of infants and virgins…to…you name it. It occurred every single day. If human sacrifice has claimed millions of lives, the number of senseless animal sacrifices has to be exponentially greater.
The notion of human sacrifice has its roots in deep prehistory and anthropological scientists tell us that it was an integral part in the evolution of human behavior to appease God or the gods….or “someone/something that created creation”. Skipping over eons of civilizations’ development (each with its construct of a religion), we arrive to the time of Jesus during which Jews and other peoples slaughtered vast numbers of animals as sacrifices and offerings for religious purposes, and barbarians continued sacrificing humans. God is infinitely merciful by sending Jesus Christ to be the last and ultimate sacrifice, the “unblemished lamb”. You can research what that means.
I can already hear the adrenaline coursing through your veins to write about how religion has caused loss of life in wars. While there’s no denying that campaigns such as the Crusades and the Thirty Years’ War foundationally rested on religious ideology, it is simply incorrect to assert that religion has been the primary cause of war. See Philip and Axelrod’s three-volume Encyclopedia of Wars, which chronicles ~1,760 wars waged over the course of human history. The authors categorize 123 as being religious in nature (6.9% of total). If you subtract those waged in the name of Islam (66), the percentage drops to 3.2%. So this means that all faiths combined – minus Islam – have caused <4% of all wars and violent conflicts. Not to mention, religion has not played a motivating role in major wars that have resulted in the most loss of life. Non-religious motivations and naturalistic philosophies bear the blame for nearly all of humankind’s wars. Lives lost during religious conflict pales in comparison to the loss during the regimes who wanted NOTHING to do with the idea of God.
Top non-religious dictators and lives lost:
Joseph Stalin = 42,672,000
Mao Zedong = 37,828,000
Adolf Hitler = 20,946,000
Chiang Kai-shek = 10,214,000
Vladimir Lenin = 4,017,000
Hideki Tojo = 3,990,000
Pol Pot = 2,397,000
Thanks for letting me post. I have to sign off now as family, work, friends, sports, Church…LIFE…calls.
I recommend any apologetics book by Peter Kreeft or reaching out to my religious and irrational friends Roy H. Schoeman and Francis S. Collins.
Love ya!...no, really.
---------------
“We of faith accept the fact that God is the infinite unknowable power behind it all. There are fascinating scientific theories that try to work around cause and effect, first cause, and creation theory. They involve aspects which do not constrain God such as time-space, infinity, relativity, string theory, quantum mechanics, parallel universes, antimatter, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and a whole lot more. These theories always wind up in paradox because they can never get past the intelligence of our design or any kind of first cause” – saw it written in a bathroom stall at Caltech or M.I.T., can’t remember.
Tom Vouray: excellent rejoinder.
Men do evil, capricious and homicidal things. They destroy others. Not necessarily in the name of a god. War has many causes and a whole range of rationales, most of them challengeable and often spurious.
God, however, (of course I refer to the fictional being that people claim is real) holds the record for homicide. No dictator or brutal leader has as successfully demolished all of life on earth but for 6 or 7 individuals. And his excuse for doing so is the worst ever given: he was angry with the men he created (to be imperfect) for not being perfect.
Thank goodness we do not need to believe in all that shit.
So I'm a Christian Monotheist, and I am curious how those who don't believe in God justify their belief in objective morals. Certainly God's seemingly horrendous behavior is a problem for Christians, but isn't outrage against evil a bigger problem for nonbelievers since there is no reason why there is anything bad about murder if there is no God? I realize there have been attempts to salvage morality without God, but all I've seen end up committing David Hume's "Is-Ought" fallacy.
Daniel Kwiatkowski I don't think atheists do necessarily believe in objective morals. Maybe some do. But there are two points to be made. At least. One is that there are ways to measure whether something is or is not in the best interests of society. It is not rocket science to know that murder, rape, all forms of violence generally, do not promote peaceful co-existence and actively impede the productive and happy functioning of society and community, which includes family. We arrive at a fairly common consensus about what we want and the ways we want to live. We deem it immoral to do things which prevent, or hinder our aims for ourselves and our society. Obviously over time our sense of those things may alter, as it did with homosexuality, once considered indisputably wrong. We learn and adjust our thinking. This does not happen overnight, it happens slowly through trial and error and with the addition of new information and new discovery. Laws, morals, ideas, all evolve. Your question "why is there anything bad about murder if there is no god" is incredibly naive. Try to imagine a culture deciding it was perfectly alright. What would happen? Societies before your god was thought of realised murder was not going to be in the best interests of all and made it an illegal and wrong act. The second point is that no one has ever discovered where this hypothesised "objective morality" actually exists. Where is it, in the bible, right alongside those passages that approve of murder, rape, infanticide, slavery, torture, and so on? And if you think there is some objective morality somewhere in between all those allowed atrocities, how come it has never prevented believers in god from committing every possible barbaric and homicidwhen they committed those breaches of your supposed objective morality, they must have known what they were doing. My point is that asserting that there IS an objective morality that god conceived of but somehow failed to instil in anyone, it is of no real value, so we may as well just make up our own minds about what is right and wrong according to the societally desirable or undesirable consequences or our actions. Which is precisely what we have always done and continue to do and for the most part it works reasonably well. The societies in which it works best are those that are the most secular, like Scandinavian countries. A legal system, and a code of behaviour that is constantly scrutinized, modified, adapted to changing circumstances, which evolves with our own evolving understanding and with new knowledge makes for an optimally functional society. Much more so than a rigid, unchangeable and unknowable but nevertheless asserted morality orignating in an ancient time.
Oops, but of a syntax problem in the middle of that comment of mine. SHOULD READ: "And if you think there is some objective morality somewhere in between all those allowed atrocities, how come it has never prevented believers in god from committing every possible barbaric and homicidal act? When they committed those breaches of your supposed objective morality, they must have known what they were doing."
Great post. This may have been intentional because it hasn't happened yet, but I didn't see a number given for Revelation? If Jesus flies out of the clouds tomorrow on a white horse with fire in his eyes and a sword coming out of his mouth, I believe we are to expect at least 2/3rds of the people on earth to be killed according to the mescalin induced dream some ancient lunatic had in a cave 2,000 years ago that has managed to scare the world to death ever since. 2/3 * 7 billion adds another 4.7 billion to God/Jesus's death count, which is significant to say the least.
Another question I have is how many of the ~25 million killed by God were 100% innocent? How many were elderly? Children? Women? Of those 25 million, I literally might put the number of just sentences at 1%, though I truthfully don't think it's that high. Regardless, God is responsible for outlawing then mandating or perpetrating all of the worst crimes we think of today including sexual slavery, indiscriminate genocide, rape, the killing of children in countless instances, killing homosexuals and people of different religions, the punishment of children for the crimes of their parents, slavery, genital mutilation, and the murder of people for imaginary crimes like witchcraft, wizardry, star gazing, etc...
Thankfully, the three Abrahamic monotheistic religions that dominate our world today are so patently false and silly to anyone examining them with an objective mind, uncluttered by fear of hell for asking questions. Once you do the research, I would put forth that there is no conceivable way for an honest, thinking human to still believe in this ridiculous book of horrific myths from a time we are all just glad we didn't have to live in.
As stated before, fundamentally some people are drawn to Christianity and other religions because they are told by church leaders that their religion offers 'perfection' and 'absolute truth'. The reality is that many folks are overwhelmed by modern life, and its choices, and the 'gray areas' of morality and ethics, and so it is easier to let someone else tell them what to do and think.
It is always easier to believe than to think.
But the (extremely large, IMHO) gap between what religious leaders tell their followers and what is written in the bible is part of the rise of atheism around the world. It is now incredibly easy and free to search the bible to 'fact check' what you are told in your church, something not easily done even 20 years ago.
And for all of its flaws, the American (and most modern countries) legal system that codifies our morals and punishment system is vastly superior to that provided in the bible.
Moser seems like quite an intelligent bloke to me, and the examination of the nature of a god he doesn't believe in, and is clearly not the same "god" ... that anyone supports who does believe in him/her/it. So his opinion as offered.. appears to me to be a joke. The discussion has the same ring of dumbcluck about it, as Dawkins statement concerning god's total indifference to suffering.. Assuming Dawkins accepts the notion within his statement that the godgod that he doesn't believe in ..is nevertheless the supposedly creator of all...so there is Dawkins showing compassion? All kinds of tender concern for a troubled, and tortured world. That's to say, there's at least one sentient caring creature, Dawkins, who with others , can rustle up vast resources to work towards less suffering, etc.
Anyway it is halfwitted to imagine that a few old blokes living in such unliterate times, can know about god enough to tell all. What kind of a seedy impotent god would it be, that could live between the covers of ancient tomes, written by glum old men, no women had any ideas at all, apparently...
1) 1/2 a truth is a lie, You quoted Deu 32:29 removing part of the text which the Lord says "I make alive, I heal". i.e. God is free to do any thing He wants with what ever He created "He has legal title to it". Not only this is fair but legal. A creature has no legal rights to complain about it or fair to question it. Having said that and that alone without going any further should humble you since your turn could be next.
2) God in his mercy is allowing you to eat His food, drink His water, breath His air, socialise with His creatures and you being un thankful shows much about the kind of person that you are. I wonder how you would treat some one like your self in you were in God's shoe.
3) I will not write anything about the love of God for God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble and unless you humble yourself "agree with what God said about you - sinner and on that way to hell and needing Jesus's salvation", you will have to pay for your own sins. For it is given to man once to die and after this the judgement.
@Sam Jesse:
1) "God is free to do any thing He wants with what ever He created. He has legal title to it. Not only this is fair but legal." You use the same argument as abortionist to justify abortion; do you believe in abortion? Regardless, you are using a position that side steps the real issue. You are avoiding addressing the issue of morality by saying that just because you created something/someone that you can do whatever you want to do with it/them. I think if you google "sociopath" you will find some disturbing parallels with your non-existent god.
2) "I wonder how you would treat some one like your self in you were in God's shoe." Me personally? If someone did not like/love/worship me, I would shrug my shoulders and say "Oh well". I most certainly would not create a perpetual punishment for them just because someone did not like me. I have an ego, but evidently it is not as big as the ego your non-existent god has.
Yes, Tom. Also, it seems somewhat oxymoronic to suggest an omnipotent being needs to be concerned about what the law might say.
AND yes, I've always thought that someone so monstrously egocentric as god is truly in need of some serious psychotherapy. Might have saved a whole lot of bother.
voodoo spell has amazed me as I have seen results from everything he has done for me, often quite fast. While I have been to other spell casters who I believe tried their best; voodoo spell simply is the best, being truly gifted and having written the book on it. In addition, his integrity truly sets him apart in the field as he has told me several times I did not need a spell when he just as easily could have said I did. He is a truly kind and generous person who took time out on a weekend recently to help with a difficult ongoing case for me which brought him no personal gain. His work resulted in an all out miracle with a man I have been in love with for two years. voodoo spell rocks!. i so much believe in this man here is the contact in case you have any problem, dr.abalaka@outlook.com, God bless
Incredible how many christian zealots justified those murders (if ever happened) mostly because simply "is god" and you cannot question him and/or understand his "mysterious ways".
What really bothers me is the original sin:
1. Was Adam & Eve who (supposed) died 6000 (ignoring scientific facts) years ago - why every body else must "pay" for that? (Note that some folks already pointed this)
2. The most bothering thing:
The sin was GETTING KNOWLEDGE!
God, as most politicians and religious "leaders" wants you DUMB!
They want you to do not question anything and accept your fate!
Religion should make people more spiritual and better person (look at the buddists) Not DUMB!
@ssamayoa:
Yes, once you step back from what one is told from an early age and think about things, then religion quickly falls apart. Unfortunately, it is easier to believe than think, and most folks are too lazy to follow through.
Genesis is an excellent book of the bible to question. In addition to why we should be punished for the sins of others, you have god's first promise that Adam will die (that day) if he eats the fruit, and then he lives 900+ years. And yes, apparently Adam and Eve were frolicking around Eden a la natural, and were only ashamed *after* gaining knowledge that they should be ashamed.
Therefore, according to the bible, sins are not sins if you don't know it. I propose that we immediately stop teaching our children about sins, and within generation, no one will know what sin is, and we can return to Eden. Simple solution!
Yes indeed, Tom Vouray. As I recently discovered, the Finns have a word for sitting around in your underwear getting drunk: the word is kalsarikännit. And most of them are Lutherans. But obviously they don't concern themselves much with notions of sin. Must make a note: move to Finland.
dutchlionfrans1953:
You say that Jesus Christ says in John 3:36: "Whosoever believes in the Son of God has eternal life; whosoever does not obey the Son of God shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him."
Okay, so does that mean anyone who loves his family receives the wrath of god? If the jesus of the bible existed, and I don't believe he did, but if he did he was a shit: "“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."
The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. Luke 12:51-53
Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out ... And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. Matthew 5:28-30
God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. Matthew 15:4
Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death. Mark 7:10
I wonder how many male Christians follow this advice from jesus:
"For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” (Matthew 19:11-12)
Yes, Tom, if there was only one self-castrating eunuch it would be one too many but there were, I am told, quite a few monks who castrated themselves because of this shitty bit of the bible. Of course, if we looked at all the fucking awful things done by people because of religion, we would fill a library.
RE Bible, Religion & Castration. Keep in mind that there is no religion in Scripture. Only Law, History and Poetry. According to the Law of Scripture, it is a crime to mutilate any genitals, especially human....So since one can read in the law that all castration is against the law of the bible, it is disingenuous to blame castration on following the bible. When really It is breaking the bible law.. ..Irrespective of New Testament Writings which are largely mis-translated (to sound like you may castrate yourself) and used by modernists to contradict the law of scripture which clearly forbids all castration. Furthermore "if it causes you to sin then cut it off" is poetic, not law, not scripture.
@Cain:
"Keep in mind that there is no religion in Scripture. Only Law, History and Poetry."
Really? So when god and jesus demand that we worship them, is that law, history or poetry?
"...it is disingenuous to blame castration on following the bible."
Hey, just repeating what is clearly printed.
" ..Irrespective of New Testament Writings which are largely mis-translated...."
So in your opinion, the bible is 'largely' wrong, and therefore not perfect?
Thanks Tom:
Many would agree there are about 100 or so laws in scripture humanity is the hook for.
Commands to worship, when not accompanied by a punishment, are simply a suggestion, so they are history or poetry, not law.
Re seeing castration commanded in the bible...
The new testament eunich word is asserted by some scholars to not mean castration, but have another meaning. More importantly though, biblical constructionists imo should be limited and be consistent. For example, Jesus says "scripture cannot be broken" So that means whatever we think "eunich" means in this case, Jesus cannot mean castration....
In law the principle is called "Stare Decisis" in latin, and stare decisis comes from "I do not change" (yahweh) and "jesus christ the same yesterday today forever" (hebrews)
Another related principle is "estoppel" .. we are estopped by the "no castration" statute from ever condoning or construction the text to mean castration...
So when islam and monks castrate...I would argue it is man made religion, rebellion against scripture, and not supported by biblical law.
RE bible being largely inaccurate...in my opinion, the bible is putty in the hands of pulpit parrots to control sheep. The mosaic law is so clear and simple and easy: it says the law, repeats the law, gives case law (examples of application). The new testament on the other hand was likely spoken and penned in aramaic, translated to greek (often incorrectly), then translated to english again incorrectly, using whatever manuscript the translators choose....Then us idiots read it like we're reading the morning paper...Haha...I would go further and from Isaiah conclude that not only is our copy inaccurate and full of errors, but even if we had the perfect copy in clear english from the original authors, the meaning and application of the large part of it would be hidden from us by design...Isa. 28:9 (I will not teach the simple) and Mt. 13:13 (Parables aim to hide the truth). That is what is clearly says, right--it is hidden from us?
That should explain my opinion on biblical inerrancy and answer your question? That is NOT what is taught at seminary however! Thanks for asking!!
I wish this forum allowed us to "like" some of the posts, there are some awesome ones here! I'm thinking of the one by Tom that says in part, for all the bloodshed by Israel in times past, its a shame that the "modern state" of Israel does not practice the law....
The very provocative topic title says it all, "how many has god killed?" And the answer is clear and irrefutable...and that answer is a big slap in the face and f-u to the "god is love" modern american christianity...The bible is clear: Yahweh will smoke you and the horse you rode in on in a freakin heartbeat...I think that the sooner you learn that the better off your christianity will be.
@Tom said:
The number one thing that believers overlook is the wide gap between what they are taught to believe regarding Christianity (as well as other religions) and what is actually written in the bible (and other 'holy' books).
Non-believers (including myself) are posting verbatim from the bible, and yet believers (who claim the bible is generated by god and perfect) have to twist and turn and squirm to come up with excuses regarding these discrepancies.
Tom, I am a believer and I agree with you and I think it is great that so called unbelievers point these problems out.
In the words of former Chief Justice Warren Burger, "90 percent of American Trial Lawyers are incompetent, dishonest, or both."
In my personal experience, this is also true of computer programmers, accountants, doctors, christians, pastors, counsellors...people in general... And why shouldn't it be true? Studies show that 20% of us are borderline retarded.
Unbelievers are "so called" because just as many believers have an equal amount of doubt and unbelief as unbelievers. The unbelievers in this case are honest.
Where unbelievers and believers both go wrong, is that they both adopt 90% of the mosaic law in order to succeed, and then give credit not to the bible, but to themselves for their success. in the Hitchens atheism debate they pointed it out clearly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjuS6gkkfp0
Unbelievers & believers alike borrow their path to success from the bible but call it their own, or call it common sense or common knowledge or obvious etc...
Both sides fail to realize that the bible is the biggest stick we have in our arsenal today. But like you said, few people actually read it...But they learn it other ways and it doesn't matter if you are a believer or not, it's the best we have. Ie the 7 day week, it's awesome and works so well that no one wants to go back to the pagan/unbeliever system.
Are you practicing the 7 day week? Then according to the bible, you are worshiping yahweh.....You're keeping his command....
The fact is, in america, or any white county in the world, it is very difficult not to practice 90% of biblical law. And very difficult to escape the rewards for commandment keeping in those same countries. And difficult to break the mosaic law and get away with it.
Thou shall do no murder, another good one. From reading the posts here, it seems like "Worship ME" is ridiculed. However I would not ridicule that so quickly. Because your alternative is being forced to worship Donald Trump or worse nancy pelosi, harry reid et al.. Iow, when you go to scotus as an unbeliever, you are laying the down the biggest stick you have, the second ammendment & the bfg--the bible. Only an incompetent trial attorney would do that. As an unbeliever, you should keep that bfg in your holster safety off. And Tom, even as a so called unbeliever, you seem to keep it locked and loaded.
@Cain:
You said: "The fact is, in america, or any white county in the world, it is very difficult not to practice 90% of biblical law." Question: do you believe the bible contains all of the 'laws' and moral guidance needed?
@Cain:
You said: "From reading the posts here, it seems like "Worship ME" is ridiculed. However I would not ridicule that so quickly. Because your alternative is being forced to worship Donald Trump or worse nancy pelosi, harry reid et al.. "
Actually, we all have the alternative of worshiping no one or no thing.
@Cain:
You said: "As an unbeliever, you should keep that bfg in your holster safety off. And Tom, even as a so called unbeliever, you seem to keep it locked and loaded."
If I am interpreting your comment correctly, you are noting that I frequently utilize the printed words of the bible in my discussions with believers that stop by this website from time to time. If so, you are correct. I recently came across a very good quote: “Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.” — Isaac Asimov.
You and I are in agreement that most mainstream Christian believers are believers in what their local institution has told them, and not what is in the bible. It takes very little time and effort to 'fact check' what is written in the bible versus what the believers believe. But, unlike some others unbelievers (non-believer? anti-believer?), I really don't care if you are a believer or not, that is totally your choice, and we should respect everyone's opinions, and note that no one's opinions or beliefs are facts, including mine.
Now, if I have misinterpreted your statement, please feel free to expound upon your position.
@Cain
You said: "but even if we had the perfect copy in clear english from the original authors, the meaning and application of the large part of it would be hidden from us by design...Isa. 28:9 (I will not teach the simple) and Mt. 13:13 (Parables aim to hide the truth). That is what is clearly says, right--it is hidden from us?"
Really? christians want to maximize the amount of people that hear their position/beliefs in the minimal amount of time, and the bible choses to 'hide the truth'. Not the world's greatest marketing strategy. No wonder that christians are in the minority and shrinking each year.
@Tom
Yes, the Bible has all "laws" necessary. Men can add procedures in pursuit thereof. I believe the bible has enough law to govern society. Proof: England and America and all common law countries--no 3rd world countries represented. The now trending Roman law is a mistake according to England's Blackstone and I agree.
Re: choice of worshiping no-one. Yahweh is a lawgiver. By worship I mean to obey a sovereign. Biblically speaking, your mayor, county board, governor, judges and president are all "gods." You agree don't you that all men on earth are being compelled to obey someone, correct? I mean, believers and unbelievers alike were forced to comply with obamacare right? That is worship. Think of tithing $$ to a god in a black robe, referenced as "your honor." An act of worship in our temples in our county seats...The freedom to worship no one appeals to the anarchist in all of us, but the scenario doesn't play out well in practice.
Re hidden meaning: Yes, really--it is unbelievable that is why I provided the citation. You're right, atheism is the fastest growing philosophy, the previous generation's Christianity is dying especially in the common law countries, leaving behind the form (ie sabbath keeping and other laws, holidays etc) but no longer the widespread belief.
Tubal Cain
You may think the bible is sufficient to base a legal system on but I would never want a society that condones and even regulates the ownership of people as property. And worshiping is not the appropriate way to regard a president or prime minister. Excess adulation of leaders is what leads to ruthless dictatorships. Germany worshiped Hitler. Russia worshiped Stalin. These were the last men on earth anyone should have even respected. All leaders are accountable to the people, they are servants of the people, not deities. Your kow-towing approach to leadership is dangerous. Your statement that freedom not to worship does not work in practice is nonsensical. Of course it does. And implicit in your assertion is a suggestion that we are not free not to worship. Or that we can be forced to worship. What utter rubbish. How is that possible? How real would compulsory worship be? You are speaking of the kind of mind control exercised by Kim Yung Un of North Korea. Or Big Brother in Orwell's 1984. Try living in such a society, Tubal, I can pretty well guarantee you will not enjoy the experience.
Looking at your comments again, I think you must be joking or being deliberately ironic. But just in case you're not, I"ll make my comment anyway. Atheism cannot be the "fastest growing philosophy" because it is not a philosophy at all. Simply an attitude to theism. Atheists just do not believe in gods. That is all atheism is. There is no body of thought or system of belief behind that stance. Theists say there is a god, atheists respond with "prove it." That isn't a philosophy it's a response to a claim.
@Cain
You said: "Yes, the Bible has all "laws" necessary. Men can add procedures in pursuit thereof. I believe the bible has enough law to govern society."
In concurrence with James, I politely disagree. Your position sides-steps the issue of when 'men...add procedures' are in direct conflict with mosaic law. And these "laws" contain the baggage of worshipping god, not worshipping gods, and not allowing your animals to work on the Sabbath, etc. And of course, being written thousands of years ago, it misses millions of issues like driving your car too fast, use of atomic weapons, and child pornography, which severely limits their current relevance.
So, to add to James' input, do you follow mosaic law regarding slavery, women's position in society, working on the Sabbath, etc.?
Separate question: you apparently put more faith (pun intended) in the old testament than the new testament. Would you agree, that as written, that (the non-existent) god supposedly destroyed all of mankind (other than noah, et al) by declaring them all 'evil', BUT, he never provided a definition/guidance of what was 'evil' or 'not evil' before the flood. Therefore, the non-existent god supposedly killed all living beings (other than what was on the ark, and perhaps ocean creatures) for being 'evil' without providing a definition of 'evil' so that they could avoid being 'evil'. A very interesting approach.
@Cain:
I also am in agreement with James regarding worship vs. obeying authority, they are not the same thing.
To me, worship can be defined as a voluntary following of the directives of an entity or person without questioning. You can throw 'praise' in there if you want to, but it is not mandatory. To obey is a voluntary or involuntary agreement to follow the directives of an entity or person, period. So getting back to your example, I can obey a judge, but I can also talk bad about him, work to get him replaced if I do not like him, and work to get the law changed if I do not like it. Apparently, this is not possible with the non-existent Yahweh.
Separate question: since, in your opinion, the old testament contains all the laws we need, do you believe that there is no need for Yahweh?
@James Bond
I'm glad you commented...and yes the position I'm presenting is counter culture. My theory is that biblical slavery is superior to both prison and universal secular slavery as implemented under roman law today (parens patrie etc)
As such, biblical slavery, while sounding harsh to our modern ear, in practice reduces the ownership of men by men which is what we all like...
Under Biblical slavery men don't own other men. Under our current implementation of slavery, we are owned by our neighbors--which you pointed out that the leaders are accountable to the people.
The bible is a revolutionary force useful to defeat tyrants like Hitler because it claims to rule them. Dictators are not allowed under the bible.
Rejecting biblical authority will lead to either islamism or the dictatorship of the proletariat, the latter us americans endorse to our fault.
Re mind control--no..Furthermore, my position is against body/property control, and Pro property rights and freedom. Real mind control is hiding or influencing people to not practice scripture, like was done for 1000's of years by the powers that be.
Implicit in that is the right to sell yourself into slavery instead of starve to death. Or at least work for $9 an hour if you want--something illegal today.
So in rejecting biblical slavery, we have also rejected biblical freedom. now we are slaves to our neighbors.
I reject the notion that "religion" occurs between ones ears only. the bible is law and it should be practiced in the courts. the bible is Not about giving your heart to jesus, it is about owning your land, having a wife, earning money and so on.
Thanks for the atheism comment. To me, theism is belief in "one god" (Yahweh) and university means "one truth" (scripture).
Today, I see our culture as a-theist, meaning against the belief in one god (this includes believers) and our colleges are poly-versities because people practice m)olech worship (which you rightly condemn) and endorse the battle of the molechs, letting them compete for our worship/loyalty partisanship.
My issue with atheism, aka the "fastest growing response" is to the extent that it endorses an earthly "god" like trump and removes the higher "god"--the scripture and yahweh. Because belief and practicing scripture is the best check against trump and the dictatorship of the proletariat.
to me, an athiest is one step more honest than a christian who professes the existence of their god but does not believe that that same god rules them with his law.
These christians to me are "practical athiests" because the worship the same gods an athiest does: their rulers along with their neoplatonic gods & associated philosophies and man made truths.
@tom,
Thanks for the response. The concept is that yes, "procedures" can legislated or judged in pursuit of the creators revealed laws. I'm only repeating Blackstone, Locke et al at
this point though...we've been there and done that successfully for six thousand years...
Scripture is old I grant you but it is better imo than what is being presented today, which I summarize is Roman law from 2000 years ago and babylonian law from 6000 years ago.
So being a biblical reconstructionist doesn't necesarily preclude men from legislating. In the case of speed limits, this is civil contract law that you bind yourself too freely. The punishment for murder however, you do not bind yourself to, we do that to you based upon Yahweh's law.
Remember, for 1000's of years our parents were punished for murder even though there was no penal code written.
Yes, I follow Yahweh's law on slavery, sabbath, and women's positions in society.
Contrary to what you may have heard, the mosaic law rescued women and elevated their status and freed them.
Under babylonian law women were much worse off. In our modern "athiest" society, women are taxed for crying out loud! Women should be outraged!!! I know I am!
I would never tell a woman to sit down and shut up and pay her taxes!
Women should revolt and not pay these anti-scriptural taxes!!! I'm serious--not joking or being cynical...
@tom and @James
Re worship versus obeying authority not being the same thing. I agree that there is a subtle difference in that you may not believe in god while you pay your traffic ticket...
The point is that saint Peter says, "We must obey god rather than man" and the supreme court says we owe our allegiance to a higher power than the laws of the land.
So there is an aspect of obedience that requires you judge whether this law deserves to be obeyed. And you must use a higher truth to judge that--a truth that is higher than the law of the land.
So if you are not going to use scripture, or your belief in yahweh and his will, his commands, his revealed law, then what are you going to use?
In case you give a neoplatonic answer here to this question, i am arguing that it is a religion and following it is "worship." Worship is not what you do between your ears, but what you do with your money, family, social, school and government. This is true "religion" and participation in it is "worship." Dividing the two like so many are prone to do is why "belief in god" is becoming less and less relevant today.
@Tom
You said: "Separate question: since, in your opinion, the old testament contains all the laws we need, do you believe that there is no need for Yahweh?"
That is a great question.
I think the deist founding fathers, if I understand their view enough to speculate, would answer both that there is no need for Yahweh and also that He is not going to intervene if we wanted him to...
In my opinion however, Yahweh plays an active role today in all of Dooyeweerd's "spheres" including personal, family, social, school, church, and government.
For example, the High Priest, in our case John Roberts, needs to inquire of Yahweh to tell trump whether or not to bomb Syria.
Yahweh also needs to tell us where to practice the Holidays. Also, there are many scriptural laws that man is not authorized to punish, such as cross dressing, and Yahweh says he will punish.
He also promises to reward good behavior.
Belief in god has compelled many people to refrain from murder and theft. So not only is he necessary, but believing in him is a good thing for all of us.
TUBAL CAIN
To claim that slavery "in practice reduces the ownership of men by men" is the same as saying that fucking increases sexual abstinence or that war brings about peace. You are defending a practice that is fundamentally barbaric and was fundamentally barbaric in biblical times. That you could beat a slave as long as her or she does not die within a few days is abjectly inhumane cruelty. You could under that directive bash the poor devil's head in so badly he or she loses sight and hearing, and/or is mentally deranged or severely disabled. But that's only wrong if they die. If they survive, despite gruesome disability and permanent disfigurement and loss of function, your god says "no problem, carry on." The slave may have done nothing wrong, or committed some very trivial breach of duty to warrant this punishment. If you overlook the complete approval your bible gives to such utterly atrocious inhumanity you misrepresent it. Even if the slave in such circumstances had some sort of right to pursue legal redress against the master (laughably implausible) he or she would be too disabled (and poor) to pursue it. But this situation is good, you say. Well Tubal, you and I have very different ideas about what is good.
IN bible, people do become the property of other people, and can be passed on down through the generations of the family. Please don't misrepresent what the bible clearly tells you. Do not become one of the defenders of the "indentured service" claims: slavery in the bible was owning people as property, and it clearly says that.
TO say "Real mind control is hiding or influencing people to not practice scripture" is absurd. Everyone influences people in some way. "Influence" is often very benign. As you influence your children to be good and honest. The best influence is encouraging people to question everything. TO accept nothing without critical judgement. Practising scripture means practising a host of abominable things that your monstrous god allowed or demanded. Murder,genocide, rape and slavery being a few of the worst. Let's not forget your god drowned the entire planet at a whim.
Atheism in no way " endorses an earthly "god" like trump." Atheism has nothing at all to do with Trump. As many and I would estimate a great deal more theists than atheists got him into office. Atheism is simply a response to your claim that a god exists and nothing at all to do with political figures or powers. We have no evidence that there is this alleged "higher "god" you claim without a shred of evidence exists. And to say that "belief and practicing scripture is the best check against trump and the dictatorship of the proletariat" is again quite absurd when so many of the tea party christians and prominent christian groups and power bases love him. He is himself a christian. I have to continue my response in another comment as I will go over length.
Tubal Cain..
the rest of my comment:
You say "I see our culture as a-theist, meaning against the belief in one god (this includes believers) and our colleges are poly-versities because people practice m)olech worship (which you rightly condemn) and endorse the battle of the molechs, letting them compete for our worship/loyalty partisanship." I'm not sure all of this makes sense. Universities in my experience (which is extensive) is that, at least in the good ones, like mine, (which ranks in the top 1% of world universities, so it is not some backyard diploma mill) diversity of belief is very evident. We are made up of people of all religions as well as atheists, all working in our fields but seldom of one mind on any particular issue. Diversity of ideas and approaches is actively pursued and encouraged. The basic aims of a good university are exploration, discovery, questioning, and pursuit of knowledge. You seem so reductive and intent to see a single idea for the governing of society. Breadth rather than narrowness is our preferrred practice. Expansion of the mind and a plurality of ideas is enthusiastically encouraged, the not shrinking of the mind and its capacities to singularity of ideas and certainly not abdicating freedom of intellect or power to an entity that is claimed to exist without evidence. No one has ever been able to show there are any "higher powers" than us. If you surrender to the idea of this "higher power" which is merely a construct of "lesser empowered" men, you are becoming a victim of the mind control you claim to oppose.
Thanks for your response Tubal Cain.
@james,
Thanks for the reply. I admit that it sounds backwards but I still maintain that biblical slavery model & implementation reduces slavery in the same way that the biblical death penalty decreases death rates.
This is because (at the risk of being repetitive now) the concept of biblical slavery presupposes that you own yourself and are therefore competent and able and sovereign over your own body even to the point that you can offer yourself into slavery...
While one may bring up to you horrors about eyeballs and beatings of slaves etc...those horrors could be a misconstruction...Upon closer examination of the text, the mandatory release of a slave after a broken tooth, or eye implies (I would think...it is difficult to say with certainty) that this slave owed restitution for stealing, homicide or some other felony. These kinds of criminals may require corporal discipline--the bible instructs us to do this to our unruly children as well. If someone killed your child, and you had mercy on them and spared them the death penalty by taking them as a 7 year slave, then had to release them after a fight with them wherein they lost their eyeball or tooth---clearly the slave got the better deal there and does not seem like a "victim" to me at all. This was so long ago, a different culture, we need to be careful not to fabricate case law based on our emotions and culture or to imply facts not in evidence. I have not seen any unfair case law in the bible that shocks the conscience in a way that you indicate.
Contrast biblical slavery with today where the state (our neighbors) owns us. We are not free to sell ourselves into slavery. Instead, we in the usa and canada are required to work and pay 50% to our "pharaoh." Under the biblical pharaoh, it was only 25%...Now we have abolished the 25% slavery of pharoah and implemented a 50% slavery model in North America.
With that background, here is the proposal. If americans were offered in the first instance a choice of being an entrepreneur and paying an annual 10% tax on all profits (I call this freedom), and in the second instance the chance of earning a subsidized degree, in a discipline chosen by corporate america (the big firms dictate which technologies are taught at universities), working as a w-2 employee and paying 50% of not profits, but of all revenues (remember, the IRS considers your time worth zero, I call this slavery), then which would they choose? I propose that corporate america would end up largely with those candidates that could not make it on their own as entrepreneur. Fewer people would be slaves and many more people would be entrepreneurs. The American experiment supports this hypothesis--the settlers risked their lives and worked their butts off. Today the USA/Canada slave insists on unions and 40 hour work weeks, minimum wages and benefits, overtime, etc and god forbid they get disabled --they are set free with a disability check for life.
@James
You said, " Murder,genocide, rape and slavery being a few of the worst. Let's not forget your god drowned the entire planet at a whim."
Murder, genocide and rape are all capital offenses under scripture, despite the one verse that sounds like there is a loophole for an "un engaged" virgin....Scripture records that when un-engaged women were raped in the bible, the men were hunted down and executed and it is recorded multiple times. Slavery is a great feature of the bible and it is a much better solution than prison or universal slavery at 50% of our pay....
Re drowning the entire planet in a whim, the usa marines did something similar in tripoli and we sing about it today and I don't like it but I support it. Sometimes brute force is all depraved mankind respects. Depravity is a fact of the world and sometimes people cannot be reformed. Who is in a better position to judge that, congress? the us marines? or "god?"
@James,
you said, "We have no evidence that there is this alleged "higher "god" you claim without a shred of evidence exists. And to say that "belief and practicing scripture is the best check against trump and the dictatorship of the proletariat" is again quite absurd when so many of the tea party christians and prominent christian groups and power bases love him. He is himself a christian. I have to continue my response in another comment as I will go over length."
There is no current evidence to prove god, but the bible is in evidence. The reason practicing scripture is the best offense/defense against a president or king or any "lex rex" is because the bible claims to transcend the office and dictate the limits of the office. That is why the magna carta was so powerful. Our "constitution" in the original meaning before the document was penned was and is the common law and our torah observance. To abandon that and replace it with the will of the people is what the deist founders warned us not to do. yes, the tea party may love trump but only because he is catering to them and their beliefs, not the other way around. To the extent he goes against their perception of god's values, is the extent he will lose their support. This has been going on for all of recorded history--the priesthood always battles and subdues the king in the name of god. To eliminate god and hence the priesthood guarantees is one definition of tyrany, "rule without god."
Tubal Cain
There is nothing on earth that would ever make me WANT to offer my body or anything else of me into slavery. So I find that point quite absurd.
Your point about "restitution" for stealing is quite barbaric. (To say nothing about your simply supposing this was the case without historical evidence) No form of restitution for such an offence should EVER extend to barbarism. Corporal discipline is rather retrogressive way of dealing with lesser offences such as stealing. Remember that slaves were probably extremely poor, or destitute and stealing would often be out of desperation.
I do not accept the "oh that was a different time and different culture" crap. (Sorry to use strong language, it shows I feel strongly about these chestnut arguments) This is god we are talking about. If he was real, he should not be so limited in his vision as to be bound by the primitive societies and thinking and cultural ways of the times. He should be able to think way above that level and decide that all human cruelty and mistreatment is wrong and should have been able to say so. That he did not simply indicates he is an invention of the cultures of the time, and as ignorant and inhumane.
I do not see my state or country as owning me. I have the freedom to think as I like and do as I want except insofar as that infringes upon the similar rights of others. The laws that restrict me are mainly for my own benefit too, they safeguard my rights from the whims or violence of others. It's a social contract. Read Rousseau, if you have not done so.
I don't follow all your points about work and percentages of profits, I am sorry but I don't find that interesting. I am a bit of a Marxist and agree if you are saying capitalism is responsible for much oppression and inequality. It is eminently fallible and fails many.
Tubal Cain:
You say "drowning the entire planet in a whim, the usa marines did something similar in tripoli and we sing about it today and I don't like it but I support it. Sometimes brute force is all depraved mankind respects. Depravity is a fact of the world and sometimes people cannot be reformed. Who is in a better position to judge that, congress? the us marines? or "god?"
Oh dear, this is a confusion of thoughts. USA marines are not god, who should have been able to think of something better than killing every living thing just because he got a bit peeved or was having a bad day. I would expect much more from an omnipotent, beneficent god. Your god is such a stupid, murdering, heartless buffoon, (which is what you would expect of a god invented by stupid desert dwelling warlords) I cannot believe anyone is silly enough to believe in, let alone claim to love and follow him.
TUBAL CAIN:
YOU claim "the bible is in evidence." The bible is evidence only that someone wrote something and made heaps of outlandish claims. That is all. It has no evidentiary power as truth of the things it asserts. None. No more than anything I write about flying invisible turtles is evidence that such things exist.
"The will of the people" is a good thing, it is all we have, it is the best we have. Your bible is a construct of the people. But we have better documents now that protect rights and that people draft and redraft and try out and correct. We are not perfect but we keep on working to better our mistakes. We learn from ancient barbarism (up to a point). Most modern first world democracies try hard to respect the wishes of all. Greed and corruption often prevail but at least we try to eliminate those terrible flaws. Sometimes we succeed. Medecins sans frontiers and similar humanitarian groups, and there are many of them, work to help the oppressed and free the enslaved. I agree that the world is imperfect, manifestly imperfect but there is no way that the bible or biblical laws would improve it. They would set the clock back to darker, and even more brutal times.
I do want to eliminate your biblical moloch. I should say the belief in that Moloch because it's a barbaric and ridiculous belief.
Myths have a place in this world, the place that fiction occupies. They entertain, they enlighten us about many things but they should not ever be mistaken for reality.
@Cain and James:
Boy, you two were busy taking up bandwidth on the internet this weekend! Just to throw my 2 cents in, I don't believe that there is a 'law' in the bible that one can say was originated by a 'god' versus 'man', and there is no 'law' in the bible that is superior to the laws that originated in other cultures and times.
The fact that there has been so much discussion back and forth is proof enough (for me at least) that the belief in a non-existent god is flawed. If an entity existed and was omnipresent then there would be no need for discussion, and there would not be so many interpretations.
With that, I present (with tongue in cheek), "Why gravity is superior to god":
1) Anywhere at the surface of the earth, if you fall, gravity will accelerate you at the rate of 9.8 m/s2 until you stop, every time. The non-existent god is very inconsistent in his actions, and this is part of his 'plan'.
2) Gravity does not require belief to work; an believer and non-believer will both plunge towards the earth after jumping off a cliff. You have to believe in god and jesus to get to heaven.
3) Conversely, you can not change the way gravity affects you by believing differently - jumping off a cliff and saying "I believe that I will not fall" does not change the outcome.
4) You can predict the outcome with certainty regarding gravity. If you are told "Bob jumped off the edge of the Grand Canyon", then you are pretty sure that he is dead (or wishes he was dead). If you are told "Bob was a believer and now he is in heaven", there is never any way to confirm that this happened.
5) Gravity affects everyone on earth that is alive or was previously alive. The non-existent god and jesus are still trying to get the word out to the majority of the world thousands of years later.
6) Gravity treats everyone equally; the non-existent god and jesus do not.
7) The way gravity affects someone does not require another person who claims special knowledge or understanding of a higher power to interpret for you.
8) If believe in gravity, you get no special reward.
9) Likewise, if you, for whatever reason, do not believe in gravity, you get no special punishment.
10) Gravity affected the dinosaurs.
Tom V.
Thanks for the gravity of your point Tom. I guess what does up has to come down, and that's why Jesus returned to earth after rising to heaven. He had no choice. What goes up....
I would attach some appropriate gifs or emojis to my response but it isn't possible.
Take care.
@James:
Yes, I wish we had the capability to go back and edit our postings, to correct errors, etc. I think Tubal said earlier that he would want to add a "like" button, but I guess you can't have everything.
How is your WW-1 paper coming along?
@Tubal:
Quick question - do you consider yourself to be a Christian Reconstructionist, or something else. Just noticed this from your previous posts, please forgive my oversight.
Tom Vouray:
Thanks so much for remembering my thesis. Finished, all done and dusted, been to the award ceremony several weeks ago, collected my PhD. So quite happy. Took it in for framing just last week.
regards.
@James, PHD
Well, congrats on your accomplishments!
I wonder if our friend from last fall, Mada, ever made it to the rings of Saturn?
Tom Vouray
Thank you very much Tom.
Ha ha, let's hope so. I have not been keeping up with Mada's journey. Who knows where the windmills of their mind may take them to?
@Tom
Yes, I am a christian reconstructionist. I am at odds with christianity however mainly because as you pointed out it often contradicts its own text, the bible.
And I like your gravity analogy. To me, the biblical law is like gravity in that you don't need to believe it or know about its laws to suffer from violating it. For example, the bible tells me not to eat hybridized beef, the doctor tells me not to eat hybridized beef, but the preacher says the law is abolished, go ahead and eat it. Yet as an athlete I am suffering muscle soreness related to this according to my dr. Same thing for monsanto's hybridized grains. god says don't do that, the dr says don't do that, but the preacher says go ahead and do it. I think people are wising up and telling their preacher to take a hike (that is why christianity is waning in many demographics), and doing what James would say "science" is telling them is wise, and what I would say science and god's law are both telling me.
Furthermore, in the god exists debates, the bible is considered old, and less reliable than science, which is improving. However, science is often 5,000 years behind the bible. The bible is organic sustainable farming, while science brought us hybridized beef and plants, leaches, bloodletting etc. So it may be old, but it very relevant still today I will argue.
@james
You said, "Oh dear, this is a confusion of thoughts. USA marines are not god"
The marines are god, biblically speaking, when they are acting that capacity. Biblically, the us president is a god, the judges are gods.
The biblical prohibition (first commandment) against having other gods before yahweh is to have no other sovereign above him.
According to ths statute, no sovereign can be allowed to break god's law.
To help ensure this, the king was required to write out his own copy of god's law....
The second commandment deals with idol worship--a distinction lost on christendom today.
So Yahweh may be a heartless buffoon, but his law is written, and it makes sense--it is not whimsical and as such he is not a dictator, and I am arguing that his law works: evidence England, usa and other common law country successes when following his law. He says he does not change, and so we have stare decisis.
The marines otoh do change and are often criminals in war, as are the politicians, as are our neighbors often times. And so the answer
for me, and I think the universal answer should be that the biblical god is the best choice and the flavor of the day sage, ie marx or mohammed, is an inferior choice.
@james
Thanks for all of the comments, I responded to several of them in a row:
You said, "There is nothing on earth that would ever make me WANT to offer my body or anything else of me into slavery. So I find that point quite absurd."
A big problem with slavery and the world today is the marxist elimination of private property rights and installation of progressive taxation.
How would a slave's income be calculated and taxed today? Who would receive a slave's welfare benefits? What about parens patrie, the prevailing doctrine whereby the state is the final parent of all people which is in force today?
Private slavery does not work with marxism, and is necessarily outlawed today.
On the other hand, it must be admitted that the world governments today have imposed universal slavery on all of us starting with 50% income tax and no allodial title to property.
While we enjoy the facade of private property rights, our enjoyment of "our" property is regulated and taxed severely.
I am speaking of biblically defined slavery which is no allodial title, and 20% of your profit to the king.
You and I are in agreement then, neither of us wants to be a slave, and that is why I propose reconstructing our social compact to align with scripture, which is anti-slavery and has statutes to limit it. Even current bankruptcy statutes are based upon the anti-slavery statutes in scripture...We should keep those if we are anti slavery, but we are seeing them being taken away...
Scripture allows an income tax up to 10% for state local and federal, and no more.
Regarding barbaric punishments--that is subjective. Scripture considers slavery respectful (and has statutes to keep it humane) yet prisons barbaric and I agree with scripture.
Restitution, even under a slavery sentence, is much less barbaric than prison.
When given a choice between 200 hours of "community service" or 200 hours in prison, people overwhelmingly opt for community service.
As far as not seeing the state as owning you, I agree, as americans we think we are free. It is not until we read the story of Joseph that we read that biblical slavery
is defined as no allodial title and confiscation of one fifth of our profits by the king...Biblically speaking we are definitely slaves.
With the biblical definition in mind, many people are okay with slavery because they want the benefits that parens patrie provides.
As far as hobbes and Rousseau, they are both products of the common law and their philosophy, like ghandi's, only works on a "christian" audience.
Islamism unlike the british for example, would have killed ghandi, and likewise Rousseau needs a previous contract to be in place before his contract works--and that is a belief in yahweh through the ratification of the biblical covenant, aka the common law.
A social compact alone is not enough to compel obedience to the terms and conditions of the contract...
@James
As far as corporal punishment being retrogressive I disagree. According to Pavlov classical conditioning is very effective.
Lashing likewise is arguably very effective in this regard and only recently and in certain demographics has fallen out of favor.
In other words, scripture with its over-dependence on lashing, has a 6,000 year track record of use because it is effective whereas prisoner rehabilitation is brand new and is ineffective.
Whereas scripture requires "barbaric" restitution for crimes, today's new "punishment" is room, board and health care for
the worst dregs of society--all paid for by the victim. I don't think it will work out for 6k years like biblical punishment has. Prisons are already overcrowded and our cutting edge scripture repealing moving athiest nation has the highest incarceration rate quickly approaching 1% of our population. Interestingly, the CAR has the lowest incarceration rate and also employs legalized corporal punishment in homes, schools and prisons. So in this case, american prisons are regressive, whereas biblical corporal punishment is effective.
Modern society is devolving away from scripture and the common law and back towards roman norms and laws.
The supreme court looks to the stoics for guidance instead of to moses. That is retrogressive. And to insult atheists, theists and even marxists, the stoics were polytheists.
So in theory, atheists and theists could be united in the fight against this devolution.
Blackstone warned us to be ignorant of that Roman philosophy because it leads to a no good end.
@James,
One final comment about universal slavery. If one wanted to opt out of Social Security for example, could they? Government employees did not have to participate, but the rest of us do, and our wages are taxed--there is no way out for us..ever...
In the bible, there is always a way out of slavery: walk away....
15 If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. 16 Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them.
Tubal Cain
No, “Biblically, the us president is a god” he is an elected representative who can be removed and replaced. Or assassinated. Unlike your alleged god. Though Nietzsche thought he was dead.
First world democracies do not follow biblical law. Democracies do not have children killed for disobeying their parents or for collecting sticks on the Sabbath. Or worshipping graven images or blaspheming.
Taxes help build infrastructure and keep countries solvent and functional. If you think biblical eras had statutes that successfully took care of slave’s welfare, prove it. Allowing masters to beat their slaves as severely as they want as long as they don’t die within 3 days is hardly protective. So let’s say the slave dies a week after a severe bashing and as a direct result of the bashing, which blinded and deformed him. No consequence. Pretty shitty protection in my eyes.
Tubal Cain:
No the social contract does not “compel” but it seems to work given the rights that people are given under it. That’s the nature of a contract, it benefits both parties to it.
No one would deny that corporal punishment may achieve its primary aim, and beat people into submission. But grudging submission is hardly going to work long term: as soon as an abused child can he leaves the tyranny of an abusive parent. Or abuses them back or abuses others. It’s the crudest and least intelligently devised means of control.
Pavlov’s dogs responded best to positive rewards more than to punishment.
I presume you approve of cutting off the hands of people who steal? And you don’t call that cruel and inhumane and regressive? I agree it would almost certainly prevent that person from stealing again but gives rise to a host of new burdens upon a society, not dealing with a population of amputees who need all kinds of care and assistance. To say nothing of the dangers of mistaken cases where false accusations are made and believed, resulting in horrible punishments for the wrongly accused. Surely you can see this. Surely you know how many men have been wrongly executed or imprisoned on death row but later shown to be innocent.
Tubal Cain:
And all scholars are pretty much in agreement now that Moses never actually existed.
I follow the mythicist position and believe jesus is a fabrication as well.
And of course the Christian god, one of a hundred thousand gods invented by men in very ignorant times.
Good luck with your retrograde beliefs. I actually think you’re just a regressive believing in a fabled golden age that never was. Have fun with that Tubal.
@Tubal:
Thanks for your response. I don't believe I have run into a christian reconstructionist before. Your beliefs are fascinating. Once again, I remind you, I don't care what your beliefs are, you can believe what you want.
Some clarification for me. Here's my interpretation of your beliefs, please tell me where I get it right and where I get it wrong:
1) You believe in god.
2) You believe in jesus.
3) You seem to place much emphasis on 'crime and punishment', or following the laws of the bible and the resulting punishment if you don't.
4) You place more emphasis on the old testament than the new testament.
5) You have no problem with the punishments listed in the bible, versus the law broken (or bad act or what ever).
6) You seem to reject or have problems with various aspects of modern American life (what ever that is), both governmental authority figures, as well as some capitalistic aspects of Americans.
7) You seem to have some level of distain for mainstream Christian and catholic churches; how about jewish beliefs?
Once again, this list is in no way a criticism, just trying to make sure I understand where you are coming from.
Separate question: what brought you to this website?
Thanks!
@Mr. James,
You said, ...No, “Biblically, the us president is a god” he is an elected representative who can be removed and replaced. Or assassinated. Unlike your alleged god."....
However I say that what matters in this case is what the text indicates, and the text indicates that a "god" (elohim in hebrew) is a ruler, or judge or sovereign, a king which is equivalent to a president, governor, ruler etc.
Furthermore, Webster's dictionary definition #4, of god, is clearly: "a powerful ruler"....
Therefore, biblically speaking, AND according to Webster,, a president is most definitely undoubtedly and unequivocally, a "god." You may hold scripture in contempt, but do you likewise hold Webster?
Regardless, none of us humans (you or I both) like this definition because Yahweh says, "though shoult have no other "god" before me." In order to elevate humanism above yahweh, we MUST dismiss Yahweh and his command by redefining "god" to be a mystical non existent "god", and not what yahweh Meant. Again, He Means by "god", a RULER....If the pastors, preachers, teachers and politicians were HONEST, they would acknowledge that, according to Scripture, they are not allowed to overrule Yahweh and his commands, statutes, precepts, judgments and laws....But that would limit their (and hence "our") ability to legislate arbitrarily and whimsically....which they do not like (nor do we citizens like).
To our fault (imo), you and I, the american people, want to be able to legislate arbitrarily without limit. We want to legislate "the will of the people." ala Rousseau, Hume, Coke et al, and not the be limited by the "word of Yahweh"....and that is our downfall. It is our down fall because arbitrariness is an extremely "retrogressive" position. It is similar to Caesar whose followers worshiped as god (were forced to under Roman Law) and who he claimed on his coin, "jesus is lord" on one side and "Caesar is God" on the other side.... And my hypothesis is simply that we can only maximize our total happiness when subjecting ourselves, individually and corporately, to Yahwheh's statutes. I am looking for contradictory evidence, examples, scenarios...
@Mr. James,
You said, "....First world democracies do not follow biblical law. Democracies do not have children killed for disobeying their parents or for collecting sticks on the Sabbath. Or worshiping graven images or blaspheming..."
I say that first, no example exists in scripture (case law) of a child being put to death, nor are there any examples in Hebraic or rabbinic history... Secondly, american democratic courts have sentenced many of people to death for disobeying their laws--even non violent so called crimes such as "treason" or giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Some people may call that free speech, but democracy sentences them to death regardless...
Finally, the law of the land in the american democracy is the "common law," which is verbatim taken from scripture. All democratic nations follow the scripture including the entire anglosphere. So while you may not like the biblical origins of the common law, democratic nations most definitely do follow it. They may follow the bible more than you want, and they follow the bible less than I want, but the origin and substance of the common law is and always will be the bible, and it is most definitely and undeniably being followed today .
@Mr. James,
You said, "If you think biblical eras had statutes that successfully took care of slave’s welfare, prove it."
James, you already quoted many of the biblical protections of slaves, such as automatic freedom after 6 years, Ex 21:7 (in contrast to us law where you cannot extinguish tax debt with Bankruptcy), Ex 21:26-27 where the slave owner is punished for mistreating their slave (in contrast to USA Law of "sovereign immunity" when a police officer kills you while you are in their custody and they are NOT PUNISHED) I could go on and on, but hopefully the point is made. The bible protects slaves much more than USA Law protects us Non-cops, non-elites etc.
@Mr. James,
You said, "I presume you approve of cutting off the hands of people who steal? And you don’t call that cruel and inhumane and regressive?"
I say that no, I do not approve and this is not biblical. I think you are mixing up the common law with islam. Scripture is the perfect law of freedom, islam is for idiots according to pv 28:9.
Having answered that, my friends from Riyadh say that thanks to hand decapitation that there was virtually NO THEFT in Riyadh....She said she could leave her purse on the sidewalk and get it the next day. In the marketplace, vendors would put diamond rings on her finger and tell her to take them home and pay next week if she fell in love with it....NOT gonna happen in the USA--we are literally a nation of THIEVES!!!
The USA does not punish thieves, we reward them with 3 meals and a bed, and send them to the university for thieves--many studies show that prison makes crime worse, not better....And you as the victim get to pay for it. On what planet does that makes sense? Not in the bible it doesn't.
@Mr James,
You said, "Surely you know how many men have been wrongly executed or imprisoned on death row but later shown to be innocent. "
Yes, this is troubling. However, in scripture, when there is perjury or false witness in court, the false witness is given the same punishment sought against the defendant. This is the other side of the equation missing today. With this provision, things like circumstantial evidence (eye witness is required) and manipulated witnesses are eliminated simply because people will not be willing to risk their life to testify falsely or fabricate false evidence, or pursue a circumstantial case... This is case where modern man "fixed" yahweh's criminal justice system....but their fix made it worse. And we see this time and time again. Modern Christians say that Yahweh's 10% tax is not enough--They "fix" Yahweh's problam by raising it to 30, 50 , 90 and in some countries, 110% tax!!!!! Sue for hot coffee? If you lose then you pay the defendant what you were seeking....Yahweh got this one right, america definitely has it wrong. yahweh's plan is very very old, but it is far ahead of our current system imo.
@Mr. James,
You said, "And all scholars are pretty much in agreement now that Moses never actually existed. I follow the mythicist position and believe jesus is a fabrication as well.""
Okay, I accept that. Someone wrote the Mosaic law is all we are left with then....But I must ask you, since scholars are equally in agreement that James the Brother of Jesus most definitely did exist, do you believe in him? According to your scholarly standard, you should. And if so, what do you think about his writings and his testimony of Jesus, his brother?
Finally, while I agree we do not have any external evidence of Moses and the Hebrew Exodus, we do have recent archeological discoveries of Biblical history that was previously also considered only legend until the archeological evidence was unearthed.
@Mr. james,
You Said, "Good luck with your retrograde beliefs. I actually think you’re just a regressive believing in a fabled golden age that never was. Have fun with that Tubal. "
I am having fun with that, thanks! However, as I have shown, Yahweh's laws are not regressive but are ahead of their time, even 6,000 years after they were written. If you follow them, you will be healthier, live longer and be happier. More people will live, and they will live healthier and happier. On the other hand, if you follow mankind today, you will be taxed to death, regulated to death, and most likely killed by some smart ass backtalking kid with an "illegal" gun. Of course he will go to prison for life, and we will continue to have the highest incarceration rate in the world, highest tax rate in the world, highest porn production rate in the world on and on....If you like it, then stick with the humansist program..I've shown that there is a different, proven, way...
@Tom
You sized me up perfect, and all 7 points you made are right on, thanks for listening.
Regarding Jewish beliefs, I am not a fan of Rabbinic Judaism--I believe Jesus was adversarial with it as well when he echoed DT 6 (that his law is easy to keep), that he agreed saying that Yahweh's law is very, very easy to keep and follow and yields great results when you do(ref Britain, usa and the anglosphere), but man made religion he said is made to control and manipulate you and is headed up by corrupt politicians for the most part (Ref catholic church, third world countries)....So when skeptics say that religion is just to control people, they are right.
Regarding what brought me to this website, I was searching for some sharp minds with a counterpoint view from mine. I have watched the academic atheist versus believer debates, and while there are some good points against scripture, most points seem to be false rhetoric, like "the bible is old, and anything newer is necessarily better."
What resonated with me in many of yours and James posts (which I wish I could "like") was the absolute hypocrisy, ignorance, and lack of consistency in the christian poster's arguments. Never mind the irrelevancy of their posts. To wit, no one seemed willing to point out that while Yahweh executed 2m (bible count) or up to 25m (this article's count) in 6,000 years, genocide of 50m occurred by mankind in just one long lifetime--our current one, according to wikipedia. Especially under atheistic marxism mankind has suffered a blood bath. From a simple numbers perspective, the answer to "how many has god killed" should be a resounding, "compared to how many man has killed, Yahweh has killed practically none."
TUBAL, Firstly, you claim “the text indicates that a "god" (elohim in hebrew) is a ruler, or judge or sovereign, a king which is equivalent to a president, governor, ruler etc.” Now you seem to have been extremely selective in your reduction of the definition of a god to something encapsulated in a specific corner of Hebrew culture or writing. Sure, there are contexts that equate god with a king (eg, “King of Kings, Lord of Lords” in Handel’s The Messiah) but be real, please, god is represented in the bible as the creator of the universe, an immortal, transcendent, immaterial, eternal and omnipotent, omniscient being. If you want to call god merely a ruler, that seems to demote him and it derogates from the generally understood idea of what god or a god is. Webster, btw, defines god as follows: Definition of GOD
1. the supreme or ultimate reality: such asa : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
2. b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
3. 2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality Greek gods of love and war
So it seems to me you’re being highly selective in your choices of definitions so that they fit your argument. That’s a bad strategy, Tubal.
TUBAL: you say "you and I, the american people, want to be able to legislate arbitrarily without limit." Firstly, you've made an assumption that I am an American. I am not. And I don't think the American people want no limits on the legislative power of their representatives. I don't think any democracy wants that. I live in a very democratic (and secular) country and we do want limits on legislative power. We want our legislators to be restricted by accepted ideas of morality, empathy, humanity, kindness, and the sanctity of life. We do not want governments to have the power to do whatever they like. We want our constitutions and our community to restrict what governments can do. We do not want a Big Brother situation. We want rights. I don't think you understand the workings of democracy very well Tubal. You want a dictatorial Big Brother in the form of Yahweh. I do not want that. Which is why absolutism is always wrong and ends in great tragedy for the populace who have to suffer it.
TUBAL: You say “no example exists in scripture (case law) of a child being put to death, nor are there any examples in Hebraic or rabbinic history”. If there are no actual examples of children being killed (which I doubt, for I think historically there were child sacrifices) it does not have any bearing on my argument. Your bible says children who disobey their parents should be killed. My argument is that this sort of thing demonstrates that the bible is a monstrously cruel and inhumane document cobbled together by men with no divine influence (for there is no such thing) and that passages advocating infanticide show it to be a barbaric piece of nonsense.
TUBAL: you say James, you already quoted many of the biblical protections of slaves, such as automatic freedom after 6 years,
SO you think six years of slavery is EVER humane???????? Owning a person as PROPERTY to be used in whatever way you use your property for 6 years is humane?
"where the slave owner is punished . The bible protects slaves much more than USA Law protects us Non-cops, non-elites etc." Oh yes? What documentation do you have of any slave owner in ancient times ever having been punished for mistreating a slave? where is that recorded, Tubal? Or are you just making stuff up? Put yourself back into those times, when the status of a slave was so lowly that no one would listen to any grievance he or she had. So a woman slave is raped by her owner in the privacy of the master's home. Who's going to believe her? Who is going to even care? How is she even going to make the accusation and to whom? He can lock her up, for she is his property. If she is his property, he can do as he wants with her, short of beating her so brutally that she dies within a day or two. But who's to know anyway? You think the master's going to reveal to the world "Oh look how sad, my slave girl died within 2 days of my brutal beating." Or is he going to just bury her and tell no one. Or hide the body for a week and then say "O no, she died several days after my beating." Or say "O no, some intruder beat her, nothing to do with me." There were, as far as I know, no actual slave-protection associations in existence in those days, monitoring the treatment of slaves. You don't sound like a naive person Tubal but you are being extremely naive here.
TUBAL< you say "my friends from Riyadh say that thanks to hand decapitation that there was virtually NO THEFT in Riyadh"
I don't care. Theft is something we can control or live with, or deal with in ways less barbaric than amputation. (btw, "decapitation" means cutting off heads, you cannot use that to describe amputation of the hand). There are many social reasons for theft. Some are the result of severe poverty not always the fault of the impoverished. Children steal as acts of rebellion and juvenile or adolescent anger and acting out. I would never recommend amputation for such people. Sometimes stealing is an indicator of an extreme and unjust inequality of resources. There are forms of punishment and rehabilitation that achieve much more for society than cutting off of limbs. People who have stolen often become very highly productive and moral people later in life. Amputees, on the other hand, are far more limited in their potential to be productive, honest people. The extra care and attention they need makes them more of a burden on society. Being barbaric to people who make a mistake ultimately means society is worse off. Surely you understand this. If underprivileged, (perhaps societally disadvantaged people, like blacks or socio-economically deprived people) commit crimes, shouldn't some responsibility for their transgressions lay at the feet of those who have excluded them? Or are you so tunnel-visioned, you can only respond to a crime with "let's punish." Why not examine what's really going on. I am very disappointed in you on this point, Tubal
TUBAL: you say You said,that it is troubling that innocent people have been executed, and then
"Yes, this is troubling. However, in scripture, when there is perjury or false witness in court, the false witness is given the same punishment sought against the defendant." Again, Tubal, you have adopted an overly simplistic view of the issue. You have made the assumption that innocent people are only found guilty on the basis of perjury or false witness. No, Tubal, often the reason the innocent man was hanged or put to death on some other way is because it seemed, on all the evidence as presented, that he was guilty. The accuser was not necessarily lying, but adamantly believed the accused to be guilty. They were just mistaken. That's not perjury. It's a mistake. Mistakes are made all the time because we are fallible creatures. Circumstantial evidence is very compelling. And it is often the most reasonable conclusion to arrive at that an innocent person is guilty. But in fact, he or she is not. So your idea of punishing perjurors is not helpful.
TUBAL CAIN:
TUBAL, YOU ASK: "since scholars are equally in agreement that James the Brother of Jesus most definitely did exist, do you believe in him?"
No I do not. For one thing most biblical scholars are Christians and want to believe. Secondly, there are many scholars who do not believe James was the brother of Jesus, but that everything in the bible is fiction. And the word “brother” was loosely used in those times, often meaning only “brothers in christ” or fellow believers. Or just brothers because we, men, are all brothers. So not literal blood brother with the same immediate parents.
“we do have recent archeological discoveries of Biblical history that was previously also considered only legend until the archeological evidence was unearthed.” Nope, not accepting your claim. Archeologists have not established biblical realities. If so, present it.
TUBAL CAIN:
YOU SAY OF THE BIBLICAL DICTATES THAT "If you follow them, you will be healthier, live longer and be happier. More people will live, and they will live healthier and happier." YET you show no evidence of this. Where are your studies? Show your evidence, Tubal. Making assertions like this is a little dishonest and I'm again somewhat disappointed in you. No one has ever shown that killing disobedient children leads to a happier and longer life.Or than wearing certain fibres and refraining from shellfish leads to a long life. Or that stoning adulterers to death and keeping slaves leads to a great life. Sorry, total fail on this point.
TUBAL CAIN
I disagree with almost (almost) everything you say and yet I like you. I think your heart is in the right place and I enjoy disputing you. It would be nice, I think, to have a beer with you and talk. Keep talking. Thank you.
TUBAL CAIN:
PS: Deuteronomy 25:11-12 ESV / 26 helpful votes
“When men fight with one another and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand. Your eye shall have no pity.
This is not good. It refutes your claim that the bible does not approve of amputating hands. It does.
But in society, to cut off hands for theft can never be helpful. Yes, it may mean there will be less theft. It also means we, as a society, have diminished ourselves, have brought ourselves down to the lowest level. We have reacted to a loss of one's property with a barbaric act of cutting off a hand. When the person who committed the theft may have been desperate, young, confused, whatever. We need to exercise understanding, see that theft often results from the types of society you yourself deplore: the rich exploiting the poor. Unequal distribution of wealth and resources. Rehabilitated thieves often become very useful, good and productive members of society who make amends for their transgressions. Often it is the ruling classes and the government who are the real thieves. I can not believe you can not see this, Tubal. I had taken you for a bit of a reformer and champion of the underclasses and the oppressed. I hope you realise you've made a terrible mistake here. If you had a child who stole, would you ever want that child to have hands removed? Or would you see this as an opportunity to teach the child the errors of his/her ways? I'm not quite sure I have the measure of you yet, Tubal. I think you are a compassionate man. But if so you would never want a thief to be so cruelly mutilated. It's only property, after all. Material things. I've been robbed, and felt violated and outraged. But insurance covered it. I would never have wanted the thieves mutilated. Taught a lesson, yes, of course, but you don't teach people much by making them burdens on society forever. Think it through, Tubal, please.
@James,
RE Amputation of hands, yes, you're right, no hand amputation allowed except in the case of the woman helping her husband illegally.
Yes, rehabilitated thieves are most welcome. However, the rehabilitation according to scripture is at the discretion of the judge and jury goes as follows: First phase, restitution, second phase lashings & restitution (which historically can mutilate the body), third phase capital punishment. According to scripture, mercy is allowed at anytime--at the discretion of the judge, jury, or accuser. So scripture agrees with you on rehabilitation through restitution, but it does not allow a criminal class to breed and flourish indefinitely.
There are not prisons for thieves; restitution is paramount including selling/forced slavery in scripture as a punishment for theft. I was recently robbed (embezzlement) of over $1m cash. There was insurance, but they refused to pay at all and in fact are suing me to squash my action. The criminal was convicted this month in criminal court and the only punishment was a loss of license and being barred from the industry. Civil suit pending.. Sometimes judges order restitution, but often it is $50/month for 3000 months or other silliness. The societal problem is that theft, left unchecked by effective deterrents, is often a gateway to more serious crimes and ultimately murder. It is better that the perpetrator die for their sins than an innocent victim die at the hands of the perp. I know that you do not agree with the scripture instruction that incorrigible delinquent youths are to be executed. In England today these delinquent youths are kicking adults to death. In the USA we have children killing their parents to get their money. Do you agree with meeting life threatening assault with deadly force? And what is your opinion on the USA Prison population--the largest in the world in total numbers and per capita...According to scripture prison is inhumane and forced slavery is more humane. Aaron Hernandez seems to agree with scripture on that point.
And I love beer, glad we have that in common!
@tubal
7 out 7, not bad.
I don't believe that god, jesus, mohamed, exist or existed. I see no law, moral, or guideline in the bible, torah, etc that could not or was not written by a person. I see no evidence of punishment or reward by a non - existent god. I see no reason a non - existent god or jesus or whomever wants us to worship them - there certainly is no explanation in the bible. I see no quote from the non - existent god or jesus that they "love" all mankind. And the non - existent god just stops communicating, followed by a non - existent jesus just stops communicating. Very curious.
And I agree with Dr. James that the punishment assigned to "sins" in the bible are way too punitive. And I will remind you that in Genesis that the nonexistent god supposedly declared the majority of mankind "evil", without providing a definition of what was evil. Not an entity to be believed or followed.
Time for all mankind to grow up, take responsibility for their actions, and then stop depending upon non - existent entities to tell them how to live and act. Or using non - existent entities as an excuse for their actions.
@Tubal
In Matthew 21, the non - existent jesus instructs 2 disciples to steal a donkey. How would yahwah's laws apply to him?
TUBAL CAIN,
Not quite sure how to respond to your personal theft story. That someone would even have a million dollars cash that could be stolen is odd to somebody like myself who has never had anywhere near that amount of money. If the owner of a million cannot find ways to safeguard that money, it seems to me that indicates carelessness. Still, it’s only money, no matter the amount, and would you, seriously, be able to watch as your own perpetrator’s body is mutilated, or meet them later on, seeing their amputated limbs? Could you be that hard hearted? Does not your bible in certain verses advise you to be kind to your enemies, and to forgive them their transgressions? Isn’t that (supposedly or purportedly) what it’s all about? Theft is largely kept within manageable limits by less brutal means.
Your attraction to execution for violent crimes is similarly problematic. Violence begets violence. For the state to reduce itself to the same status as the murderer is simply pointless. The death penalty does not act as a deterrent to murder, as all studies have shown. It is not a cheaper option: the ways our legal systems operate means it is more expensive to carry out an execution than to keep a prisoner in jail. And you also have the problem that it is final, so when mistakes are made and innocent men are executed there is no reversing it. Are you aware of how many innocent men have gone to the gallows in the US?
And I think if you want to punish the perpetrator, a life devoid of freedom is a more apt punishment than execution. It gives the offender his whole life to regret and feel remorse for what he’s done. Don’t think that prison life is a holiday. You may be fed and sheltered, but think of never being free again, never being able to plan anything, even what type of food you will have today, no travel, no volition, no improvement, no future, think of the grubby, violent, mistrusting prison life you have to live, mixing with the worst of the worst, being bullied or having to bully to stay alive. So what if you can watch tv? You think that's a plus? Have you watched the shit on tv lately? I think I would prefer death.
TUBAL:
I just want to respond also to a point you made in a reply to Tom: YOU said, in different words, that god's genocide doesn't even compare with the genocides committed by men."compared to how many man has killed, Yahweh has killed practically none." That is not the point. It isn't a score card in a football match, we are not trying to select the better team here. Your god is supposed to be perfect and have all the answers and be kind and compassionate and love mankind. Supposed to be better than us, not the same as us. Should have better anger management, should know all sorts of shit we do not. Should not need to be brutal. If he (or it) can't think of less cruel strategies he or it should resign and fuck off to some other place. Is obviously under-qualified for the job. Yep, men fuck up all the time, in all sorts of ways. But if the god created those men, you know where the buck stops? Your god should kill itself, not get all pissy with the screwed up creatures he made "in his own image." A useless and worthless god, your yahweh.
@Tom
You Said, to effect, "I dont believe Mohammed existed."
Wow, that is awesome and I admire you. I would call you my friend but I don't want to overstep protocol. But let me say, I retroactively like all of our posts.
I wish more people would take such a provocative stance against a scourge of this world, Islamism.....
As far as moses, Jesus, et all, our actions speak louder than words in following their written precepts...to our corporate benefit IMO, and i don't care if those precepts are not acknowledged, just that they are followed, and for the most part they are.
Dear Tom,
You said that "Messiah ordered his followers to steal a donkey..
First, if he did, then he is guilty of theft, a crime under Torah, and he cannot be the "sinless sacrifice" required by Christianity.
I like your thinking here...Checkmate so to speak against Christianity....Because we catch messiah sinning/breaking Torah--I like where you are going.
I think my first answer is a regurgitation to my first introductory post to you, and that is that we really cannot be certain of what is going on in Matthew--you know, the aramaic spoken language, then maybe translated to hebrew or eventually greek... from then to today (time and culture) etc..
However in Mt. 21, Messiah clearly says that if the owner objects, tell the owner that "messiah has use of them" and then messiah predicts that the owner will agree.
We must presume that the owner has agreed as messiah predicted, right?
As a judge, I don't see evidence leading to a conviction of theft. Rather, I see a pre-qualification that it will not be theft... he didn't say ride her like you stole her, he said tell the owner I need her and the owner will say okay or to wit, "HE WILL SEND THEM." So to be clear, the text says that the owner "Send them."
But I like that line of thought.
The best one I have come up with along those lines is the so called "last supper" AKA passover. According to Exodus 12, the passover is to be eaten rapidly with your sandals on, and afterwards you DO NOT LEAVE the house....However, Jesus, on the last supper and supposedly the passover, not only removes the sandals of his followers (foot washing) he also Leaves the house to go pray in the garden!!! he is breaking the passover statute at least twice! he also tells Judas to go do his business, which we know is betraying messiah for 30 shekels, which is working on the shabbat, so there is another crime!!!! What do you think? To me that means that the last supper was definitely not a "passover" meal (the gospels contradict each other on the timing). To christians who feel it was the passover, they must accept (are forced to accept) then that messiah is sinning big time... It's subtle, but I can tell you are well versed, like Pontiff Pilate was, in jewish and christian knowledge...
@James,
To your next post, not knowing how to respond to me losing a million dollars and that I should know how to protect myself.
First, why should I need to protect myself from embezzlement? That line of thinking is why every house has deadbolts today, when 100 years ago, houses did not have locking doors on them. In the (tom says make believe)hebraic cultures they lived in tents--no doors. It is incumbent upon YOU (colloquial you, not actual you) to NOT STEAL, not on me to ARM MYSELF WITH AN AK47 AND SHOOT YOU AS YOU TRY TO STEAL.
I don't want to conceal carry--to effect that, you need to agree to not steal.
Here is a story for you. I have a friend, he is black, I am white. He is also a tenant of mine, and an employee (security) of mine. Instead of protecting my property, he stopped paying my rent, and stole from me, assaulted my other tenants, repeatedly got high on drugs and assaulted others.
The police investigated, got his finger prints on the broken glass, got video of him stealing etc, and this week in trial he is looking at 2 years in prison--that is texas baby.
I would gladly accept restitution instead of prison time for him. He can't pay--I will gladly take him in custody and make him work it off. he is a drunk and meth addict. If he dopes up and assaults people, i will gladly submit him forcefully. Torah Allows that... YOU say "NO" only the "philosopher kings" can do that (you via the cops and judges aka the will of the people). I'm calling bullshit. Ken would be 100x better off submitting to me, and my "forceful but loving hand" than prison. See, I love ken and want the best for him and I would truly reform him albeit he might die if he assaults me high on crack or alcohol....That's what moses is dealing with, and moses' solution is, imo, better than yours. And please, try to defend usa highest incarceration rate in the world...no one can, it doesn't work.
@james
You said in effect that even though man has killed 50 million this generation according to wikipedia, and Yahweh has killed only 2m since the dawn of time, who cares...Yahweh is supposed to be perfect is the point...
First, I love your thoughts and apologize in advance for the delay in responding.
Second, I observe that simply his killings are justified, and we should mirror his killings more than we do if we want to preserve the lives of the innocent.
Freddie Gray needed to be killed under torah for striking that shopkeeper (an elder)...That is torah. That the officer shot him sounds sad, but imo is the fingerprint of Yahweh enforcing his law. Thank god, I will not die at the hand of Freddie gray in missouri. But I still am sad that a young man had to die. The point is that executions under yawheh's criteria increase health and life. Failing to capitally execute under Yahweh's instructions result in MORE death, destruction and misery for all of us.
Alright, TUBAL, let's examine the point about god's killing.
You say "his killings are justified." How? Why? I refer specifically to the drowning of the entire world. Firstly, how is it justified to kill every infant, every animal, every other non-animal living form of life? None of those infants, animals or plants, birds, etc did anything wrong.
Next, of all the adults on earth, who was it that committed a wrong that warranted execution? Did any of them get the chance to defend themselves against any charges of acts warranting a death penalty? I don't think so. How is that in any concept of the term, just?
Third, the supposed sinners where god's own creatures, created by him. If they go wrong, the creator cannot blame his own creations, he has to blame himself. He can't then exculpate himself. If he should kill anyone he should kill himself.
And Fourth, this supposedly perfect god sees no other solution to the general disobedience of men than to kill them all? What sort of fucked up god can't think of a way to call back his flock to the paths from which they've strayed? He would have to be not only less that omniscient but a total dumbfuck. If that's the god you want to believe exists, go right ahead. But what a dick of a belief. You are welcome to it Tubal.
TUBAL
ON the theft question, you ask "why should I need to protect myself from embezzlement?" Because that's what we do, it's why we lock our doors, because we protect ourselves. If you can't be bothered to do that, then take the consequences. You have to take some responsibility for the things that happen to you, Tubal. It's called being wise and being an adult.
And on incarceration, if the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world, then perhaps the US should be taking lessons from other cultures, like Japan, which is a very law abiding country. People do not commit crimes with anywhere near the frequency as in the US because in Japanese culture you lose face when you do a wrong to someone. Why is the US so stupid as to not learn how to raise its children not to steal or commit wrongs? It has more money than anyone else. But chooses to devote it to punishment rather than prevention. In many ways the US is the stupidest nation in the world. But improving things should not involve going back to barbarous times of the past and ancient books that describe monstrous acts and approve of slavery, rape, genocide, murder, and torture. We need to be forward looking, not backward looking. Many other nations, such as the Scandinavian countries, also have nowhere near the same crime rates or imprisonment rates as the US. Nor anywhere near the same belief in god. The more secular a nation is, the less sociological malaise it suffers from. There is a lesson to be learned here, Tubal. Religion does much more harm than good.
@Tubal:
You said:
"I think my first answer is a regurgitation to my first introductory post to you, and that is that we really cannot be certain of what is going on in Matthew--you know, the aramaic spoken language, then maybe translated to hebrew or eventually greek... from then to today (time and culture) etc.."
And then you said:
"However in Mt. 21, Messiah clearly says that if the owner objects, tell the owner that "messiah has use of them" and then messiah predicts that the owner will agree.
We must presume that the owner has agreed as messiah predicted, right?"
Tubal, you have disappointed me. You have fallen into the old trap of religious people that conveniently pick and chose which parts of the bible you believe is 'correct', and then hand wave the parts that you do not agree with by claiming it was a mis-translation. You even did it within the same section of bible!
I (and probably James, I will not speak for him) do not presume, guess, assume, etc. what is written in the bible is right or wrong. What is written is written, whether you like it or not. And like it or not, jesus told his disciples to steal, and they did. There is nothing written about the owner's consent for them to take the animal.
If the bible is so poorly translated, and full of errors, when do you think that publishers will pull it off the shelves, fix the errors and issue Revision 1 (although it is well documented that 'the bible' has undergone several revisions over hundreds of years)?
@Tubal:
You said:
"I observe that simply his killings are justified, and we should mirror his killings more than we do if we want to preserve the lives of the innocent."
OK, here we go again (drum roll, please): Please explain how the (supposed) killing of 70,000 Israelites by (the non-existent) god because a census was taken by David was justified. If this really happened, then most sane folks would avoid christians at all costs, as their god kills people other than the one that deserves punishment. ("Where is Bob?" "Oh god killed him, and 69,999 more because Tubal got a parking ticket." "Bummer!")
@Tubal:
You said:
"I wish more people would take such a provocative stance against a scourge of this world, Islamism.....".
Actually, as per my previous postings, my 'stance' is against *all* beliefs in a non-existent god, messiah, know-it-all-so-follow-me entity, including your god and jesus, and not just islam.
And
"I would call you my friend but I don't want to overstep protocol. But let me say, I retroactively like all of our posts."
Hey, you can call me a friend. I have no animosity against those who do not share my beliefs. I have no agenda to 'convert' you to my way of thinking. I will even say it is refreshing to have someone who can hold his own with myself and James.
Question: Can you provide an example of someone who has definitely been "smoked" (your words) by (the non-existent) god, but not written in the bible (i.e. - in the last 2,000 years or so)?
@Tubal and James:
Side topic: I assert that neither (the non-existent) god or jesus ever clearly states in the bible that -
1) they love every one in the world; and
2) they were perfect.
Which I find amazing, since that is the two main concepts that christians use to sell their beliefs to others.
Now before you fire up your search engines, let me restate that no where in the king james bible is there a quote by god or jesus stating that they love everyone or that they are perfect. Statements by others do not count!
Comments?
Tom Vouray
Not that amazing to me Tom. But good to have it pointed out. The book is such a mish mash of self-contradicting and often nonsensical junk, albeit at times dressed up in poetic and stylised prose, that I'm never surprised by what it either says or refrains from saying. Most Christians either do not read it or read small, pretty fragments and remain forever ignorant of its ugliness and horror. Most think the New Testament is written by people who walked with or knew or met the alleged jesus. In fact. as you would know, no one who wrote about this person they present as a fact actually ever met him. I am told that the authenticity two or so letters that are claimed to be written by someone who met Jesus are pretty much disputed by everyone. That leaves no one. At all. So all we have are claims by credulous or naive or hopeful or delusional people that the stories they were told and the visions or dreams they had were real.
I am disturbed by some of Tubal's comments, particularly those in which he advocates a violent biblical-style suppression of an alternative religion, Islam, that he deems to be a scourge. Using his own supposedly benign book and benign god to violently crush what I guess in his eyes are infidels, to death. He has no problems with slavery. Or amputating the hands of thieves. His god approves of such measures. So yes, I see your point Tom, no god like that loves man unconditionally. Probably does not love them at all. In fact, has such a profound personality disorder that he probably even hates himself and projects it onto humanity. It constantly astounds me that this garbage has influenced so many people for so long.
Anyway, keep up the fight Tom, with the only weapon atheists have or are prepared to use: our words.
@Tubal:
The following ramblings are strictly "in my humble opinion".
Fundamentally, America's and other modern countries’ current legal system of
1) police (trained to determine if you have committed a crime) >
2) courts (allows the accused to defend him/herself) >
3) punishment (with oversights to insure it is applied in a fair and consistent manner)
is far superior than what is provided in the bible. Not perfect, but vastly superior.
Now one can establish a biblical legal system, where you could cherry pick certain sections of the bible, particularly the old testament, regarding crime and punishment, and then you have the basis for you (the individual) to become the policeman, judge and executioner. And you can refer to those cherry picked verses to support your position.
The basic problem is that this biblical system puts way too much power in the hands of individuals, individuals that make mistakes, or more likely, use this power to abuse others. In this respect, this biblical legal system parallels the ISIS (of islam) way of justifying their actions.
The biblical legal concept is a simple two step process:
1) (in the opinion of an accuser, you have violated a law) >
2) (punishment is applied as directed by bible).
This system assumes several things:
1) The accuser has correctly identified the person (accused) who violated the law;
2) The accuser is qualified to interpret and apply the law;
3) The accuser is not falsely accusing the accused to benefit himself or others;
4) The accused has no mechanism to defend himself;
5) Punishment is absolute – there is no allowance for special circumstances;
6) There is no system of checks and balances for items 1 – 3;
7) There is no mechanism for correcting any errors that occur in items 1 - 5.
So for all of the mistakes, errors, abuses, etc. by police, lawyers, courts, and prison systems of America and other modern countries around the world, I will gladly take the modern legal system over the biblical legal system. And I believe that the modern legal system has evolved over time to address the flaws of the biblical system as I have outlined above.
So Tubal, two challenges for you:
1) Explain how your interpretation of the biblical system of punishment addresses items 1 -7 above to insure that the accused are not falsely accused or abused; provide biblical quotes to support your position.
2) As an extension of #7, suppose you accuse James of a crime, and put him to death. Later, it is revealed that Tom did the crime. Provide a biblical reference as to what punishment applies to *you* for killing James by mistake.
Tom Vouray
wow, your attention to detail is impressive, Tom V. You address specifically the kinds of issues I have with the bible and those who adhere to it. I think my way of looking at the problem is this: those who steadfastly defend biblical law, practice, precept and moral framework and use it to justify such things as slavery usually have zero knowledge of the times and systems that were supposedly operating when the bible was written. So those who contend that slavery, for example, was a just and workable system that operated in the interests both of master and slave (and the society in which they lived). But no one, ever, to my knowledge, has provided evidence of slave protection or slave rights or shown that there were mechanisms in place that ensured slaves were not treated with brutality or at the unpredictable and debauched whims of the slave masters. I mean, honestly, the biblical "rule" (yeh, right) that slaves could only be beaten to the extent that they did not die within 3 days of the beating presupposes some sort of apparatus by which the beatings were reported, monitored, registered, and recorded, so that the very minute a beaten slave died a few hours within the prescribed 3 days, the master would be taken into custody and charged. Oh, sure, that happened. No one that I've ever listened to has even attempted to argue that god's law about slavery was subject to a legal apparatus that ensured the biblical regulations were implemented. OF course they were not. Of course slaves were beaten, raped, killed, mutilated and mistreated and abused in every conceivable manner. Maybe some were treated kindly too, but so what in a system that supports the debasement of human beings to the status of objects that are owned? This sort of thing makes me so angry, people who defend slavery make me angry, they have lost touch with humanity and empathy. But hey, why should we be surprised, eh Tom? I am on tenterhooks now, wondering how Tubal will respond to your posting. I expect he will somehow sidestep your checks and balances questions, and fall back to some nonsensical default position presuming god's infallibility and omniscience or some other even less rational position that draws him to defend the indefensible. Let's wait and see.
@ James
Well I will not speak for Tubal, but I will defend him (but not his beliefs).
Compared to other visitors to the web site in recent years, he is articulate and can hold his own in presenting his beliefs. And compared to the multitude of "drive by" posters (the ones who post "you are going to hell!" once, and never post again) common to this site, he apparently is not driven by evangelistic motives. He states his opinions and beliefs, but he does not insult you if your opinions do not line up with his. And to his credit, it would appear to me that he is completely happy in discussing ideas with us, even if we are apparently on opposite sides on many issues. Last but not least, Tubal is way more lucid than our friend Mada was last fall.
So once again, not agreeing with his beliefs, but I am willing to continue the debates with him as long as all parties see fit.
Tom Vouray
Granted he is okay to argue with, and somewhat likeable, despite his outright advocating of violence and brutality and slavery. Some of what he says along those lines is rather appalling. And I don't necessarily think he's articulate all the time. Often he lapses into some sort of oddly archaic language that is perhaps in keeping with his archaic beliefs. Yes, okay, maybe he's deliberately overstating his case and would not actually practice all of what he preaches, I don't know. I hope not. Yes, I am prepared to keep up dialogue with him. But he does get a bit disturbing, suggesting as he did in a recent post that we could use some of god's murderous ways to get rid of Muslims. That's when I begin to question his character.
Let's just see where he goes next.
I love your article but in your title you use the word "killed". We are always told by the religious lot that BigG knows everything; all that has been, all that is and all that will ever be. Thus, any action by BigG cannot by definition be an accident and must be what a court would refer to as "premeditated". As a result, the word "murder" should be used instead of "killed". Also, the use of "murder" further strengthens your case for what a nasty piece of work their BigG really is.
Gmseed,
I think you are right in that killing with intent is murder and since god obviously intended all of life on earth to die by drowning it can rightly be called murder, by our own legal definitions. But there is ample evidence of god's fundamental nastiness throughout the entire bible. In fact I find little evidence of anything but nastiness.
Well, the big picture is that god does not exist, so none of these folks died at his bidding.
The main purpose of listing the deaths is to reinforce to believers that the imaginary god that they worship, if he existed, would not be the kind and loving and just being that they portray him as. It also reinforces the fact that the vast majority of believers have not read the majority of the bible, and take the easy way out by letting others tell them what to believe and think.
And that is really sad. :(
@James
Well, it would appear that Tubal has left us, or is on extended vacation.
Tom Vouray:
Hmm, gone down the Tubal perhaps. Has he had a contra-Pauline like conversion to atheism? Or will he rise like Phoenix from the ashes when we least expect it? Who can say?
@James
Your thoughts on the recent Manchester bombing and the justification of terrorism via selected text from Islamic historic references?
Tom Vouray:
I've found it so hard to watch any of the media reports, and even thinking about the horrors and the pain hurts a little too much. I don't want to know too much about the perpetrator(s) they are all of a kind, pursuing their unattainable goals and the moronic ideals of an antique fraudster, liar and manipulator because they're frustrated and feel they are not getting what they want from this world. These attacks will go on happening. Trying to stamp out radicals only encourages their growth anew, like the heads of the hydra. I have no answer to the phenomenon of terrorism nor does anyone else, it seems. An incurable cancer. You probably have more to say than I do on this. I just have to withdraw from it.
@James
Setting aside the violence (but never forgetting), I was wondering if you agreed that all of the major (not just Islam) religions have been (and are continuing to be) "hijacked" by those who selectively quote sections of text, while ignoring the other sections. The extreme cases include ISIS et al, while modern Christianity uses it more to control the thoughts (and check books) of believers, depending upon the individual church and its leaders.
What they have in common is the ability to find those who allow others to do the "thinking" for them. If societies were to encourage their citizens to do their own critical thinking, then the world would be a better place.
Happy Memorial Day to all.
@James
Memorial Day is (supposed to be) for acknowledging the sacrifices of men and women of the armed forces who have served, and often died, defending their country.
Regarding your friend, it seems that many modern churches have to create enemies for their flocks to do battle with. As a side note, I love movies, and a great movie has to have a bad guy just as bad as the good guy is good; otherwise it just is not as interesting. I think that churches pick their 'bad guys', not based upon their relative magnitude of sin, but rather what will get people to attend church (and put $$$ in the plate; never forget each and every church is a business, not a charity).
For example, I think most folks would agree that murder is a worse sin than being gay (I am not saying being gay is a sin, just acknowledging what the churches say). Therefore, you would think that churches would focus their time and efforts on the 'big' sins, and then work their way down to the 'little' sins. (Of course, you can get on a side issue of if all sins are equal or not, but we will save that for another day). That way you get the biggest bang for the buck. BUT preaching against murder each week will not fill the pews, and certainly will not fill the donation plate when passed around. So churches go the easy route, and pick a 'sin' and use the very few passages in the bible to condemn and justify their prejudice.
I would dare you to add up the passages in the bible related to being gay (I think there is a grand total of one related directly to being a lesbian) and then add up the passages against divorce. Of course, divorce in modern churches, with a few exceptions, is OK, so you are not going to hear shouts of accusations against divorcees, like gays, as that would have a negative impact on attendance (and donations).
Last but not least, the concept of 'sin' is and should be one of voluntary action and choice. And I agree that one's sexual orientation is not choice, but rather just the way that you were born. I hope your friend can escape from the clutches of the person/church that is trying to tell him that he is "bad".
Tom Vouray
Oh so that's what Memorial Day is. We have a similar day here to remember service men and women of the two World Wars, and service people of later wars are celebrated too.
You may notice I deleted the comment telling you about what the pastor did to my friend because I very unwisely mentioned the pastor's name and what I said could just amount to libel and be actionable. There wold be no "turn the other cheek" response from this christian piece of work.
The point you make about focusing on the small things is interesting. Churches do spend a lot of time on minutia don't they? Worrying about who sleeps with whom. You see sports people praying for victory, and actors thanking god for their oscars, etc. So the only conclusion we can reach is that god does care about football matches and movies while millions of children die of painful diseases unsaved from their fates by the same god. There are some good memes on the internet to this effect: God: very concerned about who white people marry: not so concerned about masses of African kids dying of starvation.
Yes, until the day that all heterosexuals admit that they did not one day make this conscious decision:" I am going to be attracted to the opposite sex," homosexuality will go on being spoken of as a "lifestyle choice." JESUS CHRIST!
But I digress. There is a film being shown here called "The Case for Christ" which is about Lee Strobel's "journey" (don't you love the way they all latch on to the journey word when speaking of their faith) from atheism to becoming a born again christian. My friend wanted me to go and see it but I did some research on the internet, listened to some of the things Strobel says and there is no way I would waste my time and money on his story. Strobel was an investigative journalist and says he used his investigative skills on the jesus story and lo and behold, despite all this intentions and against all his instincts, he found that the bible is completely true. Maybe you've heard of him. The man's shallow as a birdbath, his arguments that he uses to prove the existence of god are just plain embarrassing. In one of his talks he claims we have medical records to prove that jesus died on the cross. I didn't bother to listen to it all. I presume he has some sort of advice from experts to the effect that a man could not by nailed to a cross for 3 days and survive and for good old Lee that's enough to prove Jesus was dead when they took him down. It goes no way at all to verify that there was actually a jesus, or that if there was he was crucified, and remained on the cross for 3 days, etc etc, but Lee sort of sneaks those minor details into his "medical proof" argument. There are even worse things in this talk than this. And yet the movie was made, I imagine with a lot of christian backers. When will these people grow up?
This blog, like the truth, is anti-semetic.
@jacob
Feel free to elaborate.
Jacob Frank
Challenging the old testament in no way means those who do it are anti-semitic (which is the correct spelling, btw), if that's what you're assuming. It means they do not believe in the contents of the old testament.
I as a christian have no sympathy for the Jahweh of the Old Testament. It is as big a cruel selfish bastard as the Allah of the Koran. But I do have sympathy for the God of the New Testament. This is far more important to me than that religious invention of backward and retarded desert tribes. You will find very little violence in the NT. The NT is really a message of peace. Although I have to admit that the "Revelations" don't make sense to me. The "Revelations" were highly contested during the Councel of Trente but added to the NT anyway. A pity.
Same god, though. If you don't need the OT you also don't need the NT. Why not throw them both out? Jesus stated that every jot and tittle of the old laws remain, confirming everything in the OT. Why would you bother with him? You can adopt whatever non-religious philosophies of peace you want, and not be tied to myth or claims to godliness or any of the biblical nonsense. Jesus was pretty awful at times too. Urging people to hate their families and love him most highly. Egomaniacal nonsense and very wrong. And there are Jesus's words in Revelation 2:23 "I will strike her children dead." Christianity is just plain silly.
You can Download games torrent
RiME games torrent
Armed with Wings: Rearmed games torrent
Jump Stars games torrent
Evil Glitch games torrent
Last Dream: World Unknown games torrent
Neighborhorde games torrent
Nancy’s Summer VR games torrent
Blitzkrieg 3 games torrent
I'm back--I've been on extended travels...
@Tom, you Said:
So Tubal, two challenges for you:
1) Explain how your interpretation of the biblical system of punishment addresses items 1 -7 above to insure that the accused are not falsely accused or abused; provide biblical quotes to support your position.
2) As an extension of #7, suppose you accuse James of a crime, and put him to death. Later, it is revealed that Tom did the crime. Provide a biblical reference as to what punishment applies to *you* for killing James by mistake.
Tom, many years ago I thought I wanted to be a lawyer, so I started studying american law. My classmate also wanted to be a lawyer so he majored in history at harvard--I thought wow, what a waste. Of course my opinion was extremely wrong.
And I was shocked to learn that all of our laws come from Mount Sinai. And our modern legal systems, the best ones worldwide which are like ours, are all common law.
Here is a link, notice "based on English Common Law"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_legal_systems
The common law was written by King Alfred c.986ad,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doom_book
Briefly, the common law=Bible.
Alfred did this at a time when there were no printing presses, and people did not have bibles. Today, we have commentaries on the common law, and we have bibles. We can see that they are one and the same. However this fact has been banned from our national conscious. Blackstone's commentaries on the laws of England are among my most favorite reading. You will learn all about american and biblical jurisprudence after reading these commentaries.
So Tom we somewhat in agreement I think--the anglo saxon administration of jurisprudence categorized as "based on English Common Law" is the best system and continues to be the best system. However, admittedly it has taken a turn in the last 100 years away from its common law biblical foundations and towards greek and roman philosophies. For example, under the common law and under the bible, Abortion is a capital crime. In Roe V Wade we see the high priests (scotus) in the usa reject the common law and embrace Baal, quoting and giving credit to baal for their decision.
@Tom,
To your point, your initial aforementioned items 1-3 are moses' ideas exclusively, and a departure from Egyption/Hamurabi etc.
The bible based system which is the common law, is what we all like, and the opposite of Egyption, and a departure from roman/greco.
As for checks and balances, these are good and are all owed to biblical precepts:
Point 1, under DT. 19:15, all facts must be verified by three eye witnesses. We are missing this in america today where one witness, either eye witness or circumstantial, condemns people. The strictly biblical system errs on the side of the defendant then, don't you agree?
Point 2, qualifications for the DA, Judge and Jury. Apostle Paul was an accuser--he sat under gameliel and is an example of highly trained scribes and pharisees biblically speaking. Ex 18:21, choose wise judges. PV 17:23 condemns corrupt judges.
Point 3, false accusations, Dt 19:16 deals with this visiting the same punishment on the false witness. So if you are caught lying in a murder trial, you are put to death. It is a perfect tort reform I belief should be relied upon more today in civil matters. People would be forced to stop suing for exorbitant amounts lest the judgement go against them. It is probably the basis for our "counter suit" and "court costs" provisions.
Point 4, in biblical jurisprudence, the accused is always called upon to defend themselves and in fact, there is no punishment without a trial first biblically. In Genesis 38, Tamara defended herself against harlotry charges and prevailed. Blackstone does not know where we got the number 12 for jurors from, saying it is predates the common law even but used by all countries that adopted the fuedal system. But under the OT and NT the number 12 figures prominently and it is not a stretch that under christianity (catholicism), the 12 apostles ruled. Moses implemented the appellate system ex 18:26 and is the model common law follows.
Point 5, Biblically the punishment is definitely NOT absolute, but is designed to fit the crime. In sharp departure from hamurabi where a slave could be executed for breaking a dish, Moses gives us a limit on draconian punisments, limited to punishments that fit the crime, summed up as an eye for an eye etc. Like Tamara's case, mercy can always triumph over judgement. I believe that mercy judgements outnumber death judgments in biblical adultery cases. The three mercy cases that come to mind are Tamara, Bathsheba, NT woman that Jesus presided at her trial. Though Technically Jesus helped her win the case through witness disqualification.
Regarding extension of #7, where James is sentenced incorrectly to death...DT 19:16 covers this. the biblical system is proactive/progressive in that it firstly requires three witnesses and then punishes them with the same punishment they sought for lying. In this case death. It is progressive because it requires the witness to stake their life on their testimony. However, they are not alone, they have at least two other collaborating witnesses...It is not hard to see that this is where we get our "beyond a shadow of a doubt" criteria.
Now, the punishment for this error against the original jurors and judge (me in this example) can be one of several remedies: death, restitution, slavery, mercy....A lot depends on the "blood avenger" and subsequent wrongful death trial, but scripture has plenty to say about it. One thing that the bible does not have is "Sovereign Immunity." I know people that were killed in police custody and biblically even police must answer for it but often don't today...
@DeleynGunter
Your last comment regarding the addition of Revelations to the bible is interesting. Are you confirming that the bible is a collection of documents written and edited by men, and not a god?
@Tubal:
Welcome back!
Regarding your statement "under DT. 19:15, all facts must be verified by three eye witnesses. We are missing this in america today where one witness, either eye witness or circumstantial, condemns people. The strictly biblical system errs on the side of the defendant then, don't you agree?"
Nope, not at all. So, I shoot James (sorry James!) and you are the only witness, I walk free because there were not 2 other witnesses. Cameras? Video? Photos? Audio recordings? Not covered by the bible.
@Tubal:
This is a re-post from late April that I believe you have not responded to yet.
You said:
"I observe that simply his killings are justified, and we should mirror his killings more than we do if we want to preserve the lives of the innocent."
OK, here we go again (drum roll, please): Please explain how the (supposed) killing of 70,000 Israelites by (the non-existent) god because a census was taken by David was justified. If this really happened, then most sane folks would avoid christians at all costs, as their god kills people other than the one that deserves punishment. ("Where is Bob?" "Oh god killed him, and 69,999 more because Tubal got a parking ticket." "Bummer!")
TOM VOURAY
How can killing ever be justified? Sel-defence, sure. An out-of-control maniac, sure. Otherwise, killing in the name of some ideology, forget it. I hate the christian god with a passion because he is so partisan and kills on partisan lines. Or just because he gets peeved. Fuck him. I am sot grateful that he is a complete fiction. Like the rest of the bible.
I keep hearing Christians speak about love. I call BS.
As the mother of a gay son, I have been given more grief by Christians than by anyone else. They are the first to say that I should burn in hell. I've also been told that a millstone should be put around my neck and thrown in the sea. I have even been called the Whore of Babylon.
If God is so full of love, then why the violence and hate against a woman who is raising her son with love and support instead of brainwashing and punishment?
Are you so godly yourself that you can judge me? Are you so godly yourself that you can cherry pick which parts of the Bible suit you? I bet you yourself wear mixed fibers. Should I say that you should burn in hell for that? Do you stone your children to death when they misbehave? No? Because you only believe what you want to and what suits your personal tastes, which makes the whole thing nothing but a bunch of crap. If you are going to say you believe in the Bible, practice the beliefs in all of it, not this part or that part to suit your convenience. Let's see how far you get. Christians are nothing but frauds to me. Religious is the biggest joke ever played on man.
I was not always this way, but your hatred against me for no reason other than the fact that I love my son in ways that you cannot allow yourself to, has made me so.
Can we add to the chart the number of LGBT youths that commit suicide because their religious parents reject them?? Murderers.
My personal beliefs are in worshipping what I can see, hear, touch, etc. I cannot believe in anything that is not real. I am thankful for the sun, the trees, the beauty of the animals I share this earth with. Those are all things I can believe in a lot more than some old guy in the sky that has a control switch on everything, apparently.
@MissFormosa:
Sorry to hear of your troubles. Unfortunately, the way of the world for some folks is to think up some way that they are superior to others that are not like them. This happens with religion, politics, finance, you name it, and people with come up with different ways to put others down. Very regrettable, very immature, very insecure.
The ironic thing about the bible and homosexuality is that I think it is only mentioned like 6 times. And each time it is labeled "an abomination", and at least once they recommend putting the offenders to death. However, if you search for other "sins" either listed as abominations and/or require the death penalty, you will find quite a few things that are perfectly acceptable and are not questioned in modern society (such as divorce). Of course trying to argue with folks like this with cold hard logic is futile.
Last but not least, folks like this also can't process the fact that trans-sexuals are not mentioned in the bible, and therefore are not an abomination or sin (one of the many, many downsides to using a 1,900 year old reference to establish morality and laws).
@ James
Did we lose Tubal again?
God has killed everyone who has ever lived, except those still alive at this moment. For the soul that sins will surely die and the wages of sin is death. Because of the fall of man into sin, the death rate always been and still is 100%. God will kill each of us and each of us will stand before Him in judgment. So, to me, this listing of killings is foolish, for it misses the billions who are not mentioned in the Bible. God killed them too, as He appointed the day of their death. One man who has died has been resurrected and so will those who believe in Him. The bad news is that everyone dies. The good news is that God will resurrect those who believe in and follow the Messiah.
Well DaveBovey, if that's the case, why wouldn't your god just skip the death part and let his followers just stay alive forever. Seems a pretty wasteful way to go. Not very cost-efficient. Thought your god was supposed to be pretty smart.
From the text it is questionable whether Jephthah really sacrificed his daughter in the book of Judges:
http://thetorah.com/did-jephthah-actually-kill-his-daughter/
@DaveBovey:
So, if your nonexistent god kills everyone, then there is no need for laws against killing other folks, since, by your definition, your god was going to kill them anyway.
Once again, the point of the listing of killings is not to argue if they happened or not, or why, but rather to force believers to face the fact that if you are going to believe in this nonexistent god, then based upon the written words of the bible, he would appear to be self-centered sociopath. And that reflects very badly on the believers, which is why their leaders either avoid mentioning these sections of the bible or hand wave them away like Dave did.
And like those before you, you side step the morality of the actions. So DaveBovey, I am not asking you *IF* your nonexistent god can kill people, I am asking if you think his killings are *moral*, and if so, are you willing to be a more godly person (I hope not)?
@DaveBovey
You said: "Because of the fall of man into sin, the death rate always been and still is 100%".
Question: If Adam and Eve did not break any rules, and everyone lived for ever, how many people would be on Earth now? Sounds like a really big environmental disaster in the making.
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/CHINA.CHAP1.HTM
Novel research. No one seems to account for the numerous warnings recorded to those who offended God, as well as in several cases where God waited hundreds of years to execute His justice.
Regardless, the staggering number you have for a total, pales compared the more than 200 million deaths under Atheistic regimes in the 20th century alone.
Atheism is the real killer.
Tony Schaapman,
Your god, if he existed, would have to be a moron if he needed brutality for any reason at all. It's a pretty shitty omnipotent god that can't create a universe to be exactly the way he wanted it to be. I'd say that was a failed project. If he succeeded, and this is the world he wanted, there is no need to punish anyone for anything. But he somehow kills and tortures millions. He should be fired for utter incompetence.
And as for the deaths caused by despots and dictators, not all of whom were atheists (Hitler was not an atheist) their motive was simply power. They were not driven by any atheistic principles or aims. For there are no such things. Atheists simply lack a belief in god. Nothing more. The Stalins, and the Pol Pots of the world kill anyone who threatens their power or opposes their rule: bit like your own god, really. They demand absolute obedience. Bit like your god really. They are jealous of any rival claims. Again, bit like your god really. They want people to worship and revere them. Bit like .... Oh dear, they seem to have learned all their methodologies from your bible.
James Bond I love how you believe Hitler was not an atheist.
Love you to prove such a statement.
Delusion seems to be contagious here.
My argument stands.
Atheism kills.
Many people do not know that Hitler hated Christianity. For example he said:
“Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity. It will last another hundred years, two hundred years perhaps. My regret will have been that I couldn’t, like whoever the prophet was, behold the promised land from afar. We are entering into a conception of the world that will be a sunny era, an era of tolerance.” –Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 343-344
The above is not just one obscure quote. He also said:
“The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity. Christianity is a prototype of Bolshevism: the mobilisation by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining society. Thus one understands that the healthy elements of the Roman world were proof against this doctrine.”
– Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 75-76
There also many more here, https://www.google.com/amp/s/conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2008/12/14/hitlers-war-on-christianity-quotes/amp/
James you are wrong in saying, "They were not driven by any atheistic principles or aims. For there are no such things. Atheists simply lack a belief in god."
Atheistic principles are the absence of moral absolutes, absence of God, objective truth.
Evil is not a thing, but the absence of good.
And Tony you are quite right to assert that as atheists we do not hold with moral absolutes. Absolutes are the province of despots. Morality is decided upon over time and through experience. Morality existed before religion and not because of it. Societies in which people need and depend upon one another could not exist without morals and laws that are in the best interests of all. Society did not need christianity to teach it that murder was wrong.(and in fact it teaches the opposite) We knew that murder was harmful and wrong already. The bible has the most atrocious morality, as it approves of rape, murder, genocide, torture, infanticide and slavery. it is the most abominable guide for morality you could possibly find. It is quite disgusting, as this website demonstrates. Your god is a brutal, evil monster with no redeeming features. Fortunately your sad bible is nothing but a cobbled together collection of ancient myths. It belongs in the dustbin.
Evil is not a thing, but the absence of good.
James Bond I am not the only one that disputes this.
Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs have been a matter of debate; the wide consensus of historians consider him to have been irreligious and anti-Christian. In light of evidence such as his vocal rejection of the tenets of Christianity as a teenager, numerous private statements to confidants denouncing Christianity as a harmful superstition, and his strenuous efforts to reduce the influence and independence of Christianity in Germany after he came to power, Hitler's major academic biographers conclude that he was irreligious and an opponent of Christianity. Historian Laurence Rees found no evidence that "Hitler, in his personal life, ever expressed belief in the basic tenets of the Christian church". Hitler's remarks to confidants, as described in the Goebbels Diaries, the memoirs of Albert Speer, and transcripts of Hitler's private conversations recorded by Martin Bormann in Hitler's Table Talk, are further evidence of his irreligious and anti-Christian beliefs; these sources record a number of private remarks in which Hitler ridicules Christian doctrine as absurd, contrary to scientific advancement, and socially destructive.
Hitler, attempting to appeal to the German masses during his political campaign and leadership, sometimes made declarations in support of religion and against atheism. He stated in a speech that atheism (a concept he linked with Communism and "Jewish materialism") had been "stamped out", and banned the German Freethinkers League in 1933. Hitler was born to a practising Catholic mother, and was baptised in the Roman Catholic Church (as a teenager, he stated that he did not wish to be confirmed into the church, but eventually acquiesced to his mother's wishes and was confirmed). In his book Mein Kampf and in public speeches prior to and in the early years of his rule, he affirmed a belief in Christianity. Hitler and the Nazi party promoted "Positive Christianity", a movement which rejected most traditional Christian doctrines such as the divinity of Jesus, as well as Jewish elements such as the Old Testament. Hitler publicly claimed he believed in Christianity and an active God, and in one speech, he stated that he held Jesus in high esteem as an "Aryan fighter" who struggled against Jewry and Jewish materialism.
While a small number of writers accept these publicly stated views as genuine expressions of his spirituality,the vast majority believe that Hitler was skeptical of religion generally, but recognized that he could only be elected and preserve his political power if he feigned a commitment to and belief in Christianity, which the overwhelming majority of Germans believed in. Hitler himself told confidants that his reluctance to make public attacks on the Church was not a matter of principle, but a pragmatic political move. In his private diaries, Goebbels wrote in April 1941 that though Hitler was "a fierce opponent" of the Vatican and Christianity, "he forbids me to leave the church. For tactical reasons."
More at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
When it comes to the historical Jesus the new atheists just look foolish in their claims "he did not exist".Even Dawkin's tried that in his God Delusion, but had to admit his error when John Lennox challenged him on the internationally televised debate.
Watch this short 3 min. Clip by the most unlikely voice defending the historical Jesus to the new atheists.
https://youtu.be/43mDuIN5-ww
Tony Schaapman:
regarding Richard Dawkins, it does not matter if he thought himself to be wrong on the existence of Jesus. Dawkins is just one voice. Even if that is so, there are many learned scholars of ancient history and mythology who are convinced the whole jesus story is only that: Dr Richard Carrier, being one. The undeniable fact is that there is no shred of actual historically verifiable evidence for the existence of jesus. And many more reasons to treat it as just one more tired regurgitation of made-up stories so many others had been asserting were the truth. Maybe a man named jesus did exist. I don't care, but have no reason at all to believe he did and even less to believe that he was some sort of miracle worker. Your religion is no more soundly based in actuality than any other and yet I assume you dismiss those. I assume you do not think Mohammed was a prophet. I assume you don't believe in Krishna or Quetzlcoatl. You believe what you have been taught to believe is the truth. I am not so credulous as that.
Tony Schaapman:
as we all know too well, Hitler was a scheming, nasty, manipulative man who would use whatever strategies he could to advance his party and his power. Of course he may not have truly believed in any god but himself, and it is wise to be suspicious of anything he purported to say about himself, but it in no way reflects upon atheists or suggests that his career was driven by any sort of atheistic philosophy. He was a ruthless despot interested only in consolidating the Nazis, his own vision for the world and German hegemony. As I pointed out, his propensity for absolute power, demands for absolute loyalty, and severe punishments for anyone not devoted to him makes him sound like your god. Your god was worse, of course, and responsible for much more genocide than Hitler, but I am not going to defend Hitler for that reason.
James bond, anyone who is so foolish to deny the historical Jesus just looks the baboon. I highly recommend you watch a short clip by Bart Ehrman. He is highly regarded, atheist new Testament scholar and is speaking to a group of new atheists in this subject. It is less than 3 mins.
https://youtu.be/43mDuIN5-ww
Your statement, “The undeniable fact is that there is no shred of actual historically verifiable evidence for the existence of jesus.” is absolutely fallacious.
James bond, I was an atheist for too many years. An honest atheist acknowledges once the absolutes are removed everything is subjective.
I am interested in your use of “despot” for Hitler. By which subjective standard can you make such a statement? Since absolute good and evil do not exist in your paradigm, if he felt he was doing right or good then on was basis objective can you judge him to be the contrary?
“It in no way reflects upon atheists or suggests that his career was driven by any sort of atheistic philosophy.” Again, I have to disagree. Once the absolute is removed, everything becomes fair game.
“his propensity was for absolute power” True enough. Actually if you bothered to look at the link in my first post that is what is documented under all the Atheist regimes where 200 million were killed. You got it. When absolute power is removed it creates a vacuum many seek to fill with themselves.
Here is the link again. https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/CHINA.CHAP1.HTM
“Your god was worse, of course, and responsible for much more genocide than Hitler.” First he is not my God, but the God of all creation, that means you too, though you refuse Him.
Next, if you look at the grand total of all the lives taken by God, you will note it pales to the 200 million Stat. Atheism/godlessness is the greatest killer.
Also, since God is the creator, He does have creator rights. Everyone knows that if you created something, you alone have the right to its destruction. Add to that His merciful warnings given for decades and even centuries. What a gracious God.
What Peter says is true.
2 Peter 3: 9. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
That is why I am still alive, and He did not destroy me as a rebel. God’s patience is often confused with His non-existence. Tragic error.
It is His great patience that facilitates even this conversation.
God is good.
@Tony:
1) "He does have creator rights. Everyone knows that if you created something, you alone have the right to its destruction."
This is the exact same logic as abortionists. Do you believe abortion is acceptable?
2) "Add to that His merciful warnings given for decades and even centuries. What a gracious God."
So your non-existent god supposedly kills 70,000 because David took a census that non-existent god compelled him to do. And his 'merciful warnings' were...............?
3) I will leave the historical discussion of Hitler to you and Tom. However, I will ask the fate of each Jew after they die, since they do not profess belief in the non-existent Jesus?
Ton vouray
1)This is the exact same logic as abortionists. Do you believe abortion is acceptable?
You are confused. Conception and create are not the same by any dictionary, regardless the language.
2) "Add to that His merciful warnings given for decades and even centuries. What a gracious God."
So your non-existent god supposedly kills 70,000 because David took a census that non-existent god compelled him to do. And his 'merciful warnings' were...............?
I love how you parrot things off this same site. Oh well, here we go with a basic Hebrew lesson.
To translate the verse literally, we would say, “There was who moved David against them” or “For one moved David against them.”
The translators have to determine what the “it” was. Was it his anger, or God?
-The unstated thing that moved David to conduct the census could have been David’s own evil imagination.
– The “one” who moved David could be Satan, as 1 Chronicles 21:1 says.
– The “adversary” (the meaning of the word Satan) mentioned in 1 Chronicles could be someone other than the devil; it could have been an unnamed counsellor to David who prompted him into a foolish (or sinful) action.
Sorry, I know you prefer the God one as it fits better into your narrative. That is often the real issue. Truth is not the quest, just proof texting, and confirmation bias.
Please be smarter than that, surprise me. Why not try some serious academics instead off this pathetic cherry picking you accuse others of?
3) I will leave the historical discussion of Hitler to you and Tom. However, I will ask the fate of each Jew after they die, since they do not profess belief in the non-existent Jesus?
Israel entered into a serious covenant with YWHW, the consequences of which they agreed to if they failed. Surely you know that. Surely you must be familiar with the blessings/cursing God promised, and the Israelites agreed To? Read the whole chapter.
Leviticus 26: 3. "'If you follow my decrees and are careful to obey my commands, 14. "'But if you will not listen to me and carry out all these commands,..
Tony Schaapman: Firstly Tony, please do not imply or suggest that I am dishonest by beginning with the phrase “an honest atheist acknowledges....”. I am offended by that subtle but definite aspersion on my character. I am an honest atheist. And if I did disagree with the point on subjectivism, I would not be being dishonest, just someone with a point of view that is different from your own.
As it happens, I am in agreement that everything is subjective. But that is actually a good thing. Subjectivism is the reason we are empathic to our fellow human beings: we feel their pain.... it’s a subjective thing to put yourself in someone else’s shoes, and a good thing.
I call Hitler a despot because he was a despot: that word is defined as “a ruler or other person who holds absolute power, typically one who exercises it in a cruel or oppressive way.” It would be difficult to mount a case to show Hitler was not a totalitarian and cruel ruler.
The question you ask about how to judge Hitler is very simple to answer. The goodness or badness of an act is pretty obvious in most cases: as social, empathic human beings any act that brings pain or suffering to people unnecessarily is generally agreed upon is undesirable and should be avoided. And vice versa. Not rocket science, I would have thought. Whereas this mythical “objective” standard of right and wrong has never been discovered. It is not in the bible, for all manner of atrocities there are approved of and perpetrated by your mythical god. His actions make Hitler look almost like a good guy. And no, everything does not become “fair game” in a subjective system. For, unless you live in some sort of totalitarian society, we have a myriad of checks and balances on the abuses of power and general abuse of other people. We enact laws to protect people, and other animals, and the planet, which we try as hard as we can to enforce. When those laws are breached, we try to punish the guilty. Our systems of democratic government are not perfect but when imperfections become clear we try our best to remedy them. Society is in a constant state of continuous self-reflection and improvement. We strive to do better and maintain a happy society. I will continue my comments in my next post.
Tony Schaapman: continuing my comment:
You seem to have overlooked my objections to your claim about “Atheist regimes where 200 million were killed.” Those regimes were not driven by any creed of atheism, for atheism has no creed or book of rules or any aims or claims to power. Atheism is simply the absence of a belief in gods. Totalitarian regimes are run by despots seeking the very type of power your god claimed for itself. “When absolute power is removed it creates a vacuum many seek to fill with themselves.” I don’t quite know what you mean here: when the absolute power of a brutal and merciless, tyrannical and jealous god who murders every creature in the world (except 8) is removed, it creates a vacuum that men seek for themselves? Is that it? Men must create government to rule men, and when that is done in a democratic and secular fashion, you are much more likely to get a good society. Stalins and Lenins are no longer able to flourish easily in developed first world countries, especially in this technological world that exposes injustices and horror immediately. Theocracies are often the worst, most tyrannical, barbaric and murderous regimes. Your god has never been any guarantee of good behaviour, as the number of pedophile priests shows us.
“First he is not my God, but the God of all creation, that means you too, though you refuse Him.” I am sorry, but just asserting something does not make it so, Tony. Give me evidence or the assertion is utterly worthless.
What you are missing when referring to “all the lives taken by God,” is that a benevolent and omnipotent ruler should have no need to take lives: ever. Listen to your own point: you are saying, ok, so god killed millions. Not at bad as human beings, so there!” But Tony, your god should be perfect. Should not need to behave like a human barbarian. EVER. And yet he does. It seems his preferred option, in fact. Go figure!
Saying “God is the creator” is another mere assertion and of no value. Your concept of “creator rights” really sounds like it cheapens your god further: what is he now, someone who saves his creator coupons to use at Walmart?
Oh dear, to say that “everyone knows that if you created something, you alone have the right to its destruction” is just abhorrent and I am sure you do not mean this. Do you have the right to kill your children, Tony? If so, I fear for their lives.
The “merciful warnings” is another silly idea. I’m sorry to sound insulting, but honestly, why would an omnipotent god not just use his omnipotence to talk quietly and in an intelligent way and use his omnipotent powers of persuasion to get his children to obey him? No, he has to be the brutal threatener and bully boy who destroys at will.
“God is good.” Another assertion. Based on all the disgusting acts of murder, genocide and torture in the bible, your god is anything but good. Is in fact the worse kind of bad. Fortunately I have no reason to believe in its existence.
@Tony
1) "Please be smarter than that, surprise me. Why not try some serious academics instead off this pathetic cherry picking you accuse others of?"
For what it is worth, you did not surprise me. You wrote approximately 130 words in response, and did not answer the question that I asked you. You did fall back on the "this could be this and that could be that, and you need to know the translation...." So now I will ask you the question again, what was the non-existent god's merciful warnings to the 70,000 that were supposedly killed to punish David? As a bonus question, provide the biblical reference that states that the census taken by David is a sin.
2) Let me rephrase my question regarding Jews. Jews do not believe in jesus. Jesus said the only way to heaven is belief in him. Do you concur that all jews do not go to heaven when they die?
@Tony
And thanks for your clarification of the words creation versus conception. So your position is that if you create something you have the right to destroy it. Question: assuming your position is correct, is it always moral to destroy something you created?
@James Bond
"I am in agreement that everything is subjective"
That’s nice, but being in agreement with something doesn't make it true.
" it’s a subjective thing to put yourself in someone else’s shoes, and a good thing."
Oh? Why is it good?
".. The goodness or badness of an act is pretty obvious in most cases.."
Oh yeah? So how do you judge what is good or bad? Whats the standard you judge by? Oh yeah it's subjective. If I transported you into a society where everyone agreed it was o.k. to kick you in the head once a week because you were a new comer there, would that be o.k.? Hey they all agree on it.
" any act that brings pain or suffering to people unnecessarily is generally agreed upon is undesirable and should be avoided."
O.k. I see, so we just need to get enough people to agree on something. So pain and suffering is a bad thing, why? In the atheist scheme you're just a mass of molecules, a bag of evolved protoplasm. An accidental by-product of a chemical soup from a universe just coming into existence by itself, unguided and without purpose. What's wrong with a bag of molecules smashing into another bag of molecules? It's only matter reacting with matter. You say you're an atheist but then borrow from the Christian worldview to argue against us. You don't seem to understand that for evolved protoplasm there is no good or bad. You just have whatever happens happens.
I'm going to explain something to you my friend. I'm not here to explain God's actions. Because everthing God does is good, and as Jesus said, "Only God is good." So I don't have to be God's defense attorney because he's not on trial, you are. And you're already condemned. Because whoever does not believe in Jesus is already condemned -John 3:18. You're like someone on death row waiting for the sentence to be carried out. That happens after you die. " If you don't take advantage of the pardon God offers you through faith in Christ, then you'll face what it says in Revelation 20:15- " And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." And as Christians we don't want that for you. God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, he'd rather that you turn from your way and live. Ezekiel 33:11
@ Tom vouray "..This is the exact same logic as abortionists Do you believe abortion is acceptable?"
Hang on hang on we're getting ahead of ourselves here. You made an appeal to logic. Why should anything be logical?
Oh... and since morals are being brought up, do you yourself believe abortion is acceptable? Since you object to God killing people and all. Are you yourself o.k. with killing a baby in the womb?
"..is it always moral to destroy something you created?"
Uh oh! Again we're getting ahead of ourselves. Why should anyhing be moral or immoral to a bag of protoplasm to put it crudely?
"..Jesus said the only way to heaven is belief in him.."
Oh, so you're quite aware of what Jesus said. So you have no excuse on judgement day then.
Mike:
Here is why subjectivity is a good thing:
It's good because just about everything we do is subjectively based: we determine the nature of an act according to our experience, our knowledge, our natural empathy with our fellow human beings and empathy with other animals, we know how to be inclusive and how to consider what is best for everyone. All factors concerning our happiness and well being are subjective considerations. If we left everything to defer instead some sort of posited external, allegedly "objective arbiter", it means we can ignore all of those humanist concerns and just subscribe to what is alleged to be an objective standard. But there is no such thing.
Your head-kicking example is the worst kind of ignorance imaginable. That's not how society works, as I think you should know. We conform to limits on our freedom to do whatever we like because we know nothing would be possible without those restrictions. We do not want others to be hurt, so we punish violent people out of self-concern, if nothing else. I don't know what sort of primitive society you must be from, but mine is democratic and has evolved over many many generations. We have laws that ensure no one, insofar as we can stop it, gets kicked in the head. Laws arrived at through common consensus and much deliberation, careful drafting and much practice. Laws that go back a long way, laws that are drafted with the good of society in mind. It would be a very stupid society that did not protect all of its citizens from harm. Our society is not stupid. Well mine isn’t, I don’t know about yours. We are social animals and know that what is best for all of us is the protection of everyone. We empathise with our fellow social beings and family members and our laws reflect our empathy. I feel sorry for you not understanding the way cultured, educated, secular first world societies function. I feel sorry for you not smart enough to know that the most secular countries in the world like Sweden, or Japan, have the lowest crime rates and the best social welfare programs. No head kicking there, or if there is head-kicking, the perpetrators are jailed. Not rocket science, Mike. And has nothing to do with your god.
You ask “pain and suffering is a bad thing, why?” Refer back to what I just said. Social animals minimize pain as much as possible because that helps society and happiness to flourish. Yes, we are here through circumstances as yet beyond our complete understanding. We make our own purpose and find our own reasons for being. If you can’t do that without an ancient book of nonsense that was written in a very ignorant time, that’s your own tragedy. Some of us think for ourselves and are very happy in our lives.
The rest of your god-referent nonsense is irrelevant. Your god, as your laughable bible shows, was nothing but a brutal and murdering asshole. Luckily it is fictional and can be completely ignored.
@Mike
First and foremost, welcome to you and Tony to the forum. Out of curiosity, what brought you to this forum?
Back to your questions. I am most definitely against abortion, that is why I brought the question up.
In my opinion, which is not necessarily a fact, when believers are asked about the morality of a (non-existent) god killing people, they almost always fall back on "he created them, so he can kill them" answer, which completely side - steps the question of morality. We are not asking IF he can do it, we are asking SHOULD he do it.
Regarding the question of jews, it seems to be a major failure to declare them "the chosen people", kill all the other folks to bring them to the promised land, and then send them all (supposedly) to hell, because they don't follow jesus. Something to think about. Unless it makes you uncomfortable.
Last but not least, yes I do prefer to think logically whenever I can.
This great ref., because God is same today ,as yesterday!!! except for the new covenant of Jesus Christ and his heavenly and earthly Church!!!!God is the same today as he was yesterday ,a Rock,unchanging Rock forever. Thanks again great ref.of old bloody testament;so we know what to expect from God ,today in this day and age!!!he had too set the standard early,back then dealing with Satan,for today's ,end of days ,war!!!! Thanks beloved
A p
That's just preaching. Pretty banal and old fashioned fire-and-brimstone preaching at that. Not going to convince anyone on this page. Not worth the time it took to write it. Good try.
"God is the same today as he was yesterday, a Rock, unchanging Rock forever"
Please provide a biblical quote from god to support this position.
Ton vouray
God is the same today as he was yesterday, a Rock, unchanging Rock forever"
Hebrews 13: 8. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and foreverror.
Deuteronomy 32: 4. He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.
@tony
Unfortunately, neither of the verses are direct quotes from god or jesus. Therefore, that makes the position of the author(s) assumptions or opinions. Can you provide a verse that supports the original position that is directly attributed to either god or jesus?
Tom vouray
Unfortunately, neither of the verses are direct quotes from god or jesus. Therefore, that makes the position of the author(s) assumptions or opinions. Can you provide a verse that supports the original position that is directly attributed to either god or jesus?
You have become worse than a Muslim with their ridiculous question, "show me where Jesus said, 'I am God, worship me'?
I could ask you to show me where Richard Dawkins said, “ I am an animal”, if so I will believe.
Since it is clear he did not say those exact words I win.
Grow up Tom. You look the fool with such games.
@Tony
No. No games. Just a simple, objective look at what is written in the bible, which is the basis of your religion, and comparing it to what your religion espouses. The result, in my opinion, is a very wide gap between what many modern believers are taught and then repeat, and what is actually written in the bible.
Since you have not directly answered any of my questions to date regarding what is written in the bible, let's shift gears. What brings you to this web site, and what do you hope to accomplish?
Tom vouray
Your intellectual dishonesty is glaring and is your main obstacle from finding truth.
I have no patience for it.
Any further discussion with you would be a waste of valuable time.
Here is a true statement
Psalm 107: 17. Some became fools through their rebellious ways and suffered affliction because of their iniquities.
I wish you well.
Post a Comment