The Bible (1 Viewer)

[veloc1ty]

Re: Murder In The Bible

That link has to be the stupidest criticism of the bible I've ever seen.

Cruelty in the bible: Jesus heals two violent possessed people BUT we'll forget that and just say that Jesus killed some pigs who ran into a river and drowned. What violence! Killing pigs to restore two men.
OR moses saying those who don't believe in the prophet will be cut off as the chosen people of God turned into all non-believers must be killed.
OR when it says "God will not forgive us unless we shed the blood of some innocent creature" when the entire point of the referred to verses was about how you are free from that covenant.

Even if you don't believe in the bible or that story it just shows the stupid 'scholarly' approach the website takes. There are many criticisms of the bible that bring up valid points but that site couldn't fool a conscious person with half a brain and gives skeptics and atheists a bad name.

Perhaps you skipped all the other readings there and had to look for three debatable ones, the purpose of linking there was to show the NT is not all good and is not meant to be an in-depth criticism of the Bible. I'd be interested in reading the valid criticisms you speak of though.

 

[scrubs.]

Re: Murder In The Bible

Perhaps you skipped all the other readings there and had to look for three debatable ones,

If I did that it would have made me as shit as them.

 

[veloc1ty]

Re: Murder In The Bible

If I did that it would have made me as shit as them.

You however, are trying to show that such a comprehensive list is bound to have a few marginal inclusions, while the SAB shows the Bible is not to be taken literally and is morally questionable as a whole. However, the author did not simply ignore everything that was not bad, he even took time to make a list of the good stuff. Can you explain exactly how it's a stupid criticism of the Bible?

 

[xeuyrawp]

Re: Murder In The Bible

Oh right, because the 'second part' is so believable right?

Is it just me, or do you have a pathological condition which disallows you from actually reading people's posts? Ari was not talking about believability, he was talking about the inherent good. Could you please not be such a noob, seriously? I don't think someone who thinks that 'four people' made up the historical Jesus should be talking about the religion.

And there have been heaps of threads on this issue already.

 

[scrubs.]

Re: Murder In The Bible

You however, are trying to show that such a comprehensive list is bound to have a few marginal inclusions,

Simply put, no.
I am showing that the 'comprehensive' list did have errors from three stuff I randomly chose throughout the page. (Notice one was from Matthew, one from Acts and one from Hebrews.) Statistically, if all 3 were false it doesn't set a good precedent for the credibility of the others. And the way you try and right if off is hilarious in its own sense. They were outright manipulated - not even a case of 'reading between the lines' - to the extent, at times, that they made it say exactly opposite to what the bible actually says in those verses.

I can randomly choose examples again:
number 39 - says the reason that the rich man went to hell was because "he had a good life on earth and so now he will be tormented" and the poor guy "who was miserable on earth, is now in heaven" and then a nice commentary "This seems fair to Jesus". Now if you actually read the verses it is taken from, the reason the rich man was in hell and the poor in heaven has nothing to do with the wealth they had or how good their life was. It was because the rich man didn't obey the laws of the prophets.

number 9 - says "...drowning everyone on earth in the flood. It'll be just like that when he returns." But the bible says nothing about the a flood coming to drown everyone on earth. It used the analogy of how no one knew when the flood would strike to the time of Jesus' return - "no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen...People didn’t realize what was going to happen until the flood came and swept them all away."


Please stop making assumptions and come back to discuss after you reach puberty or learn the concept of free thought, systematic research and logic. It would be nice if you could actually challenge your immature presumptions instead of relying on a website to tell you the wonders of the New Testament. It is a great tool in life to learn. Just as it is stupid to take the word of the media, who has an aim of making stuff entertaining and controversial, it is not in your best interest to learn about a religion from a site actively against it.

while the SAB shows the Bible is not to be taken literally and is morally questionable as a whole.

Just interested in the whole idea of causation, premise and logic. How did they come to the conclusion that it is not to be taken literally from a short list of apparant evils in the NT which were purposely distorted? Please do show me oh wise year 10 student.

However, the author did not simply ignore everything that was not bad, he even took time to make a list of the good stuff.

Relevance?
It was never about the dichotomoy of good or bad included in the New Testament...?

Can you explain exactly how it's a stupid criticism of the Bible?

Read the start of what I said...and the end. Anything that manipulates sources to achieve an original purpose, especially with such bias, simply cannot be trusted.


------

In general:

There is no doubt that there is an idea of 'violence' in the New Testament. It can't be denied. But that violence, unlike that in the Koran which the OP tried to compare it to, is reserved for God. Christian theology is simply - if you sin, don't get redeemed through Christ you will not have eternal life. You will be punished in the afterlife by God and in hell. That core of hell is probably the only legitimate thing that site could bring up for violence but that is reserved for God, not inciting followers to "kill non-Christians' as the site tries to portray or that Jesus walked around killing pigs or that rich people don't go to heaven etc. Now it comes to the point, if you don't believe in God and the NT says that the punishments come from God, in your mind it won't be an issue to you so why is something an issue to you if it may only, in your opinion, happen to you if the 'violence' happens in the mind of another person in an afterlife that you don't believe to exist. (tricky sentence)


It is just a sad fact that the author of the site went to such lengths to try and BS the readers. It is just petty and unreliable, as it would be, whether or not it relates to the bible.

 

[original123]

Point A -- The Big Bang couldn't have happened so that each flower has pollen, each living animal/insect/human has a heart and each living thing (with minor exceptions) works perfectly. Point B -- Flaws make us stronger if we're ready to accept them. The point of God leaving us there and sitting on his throne laughing at us is simply misinterpreted. The strong people really do become even stronger when they ask for help, and they overcome their flaws.Point C -- Other religions SHOULD be respected no matter what. And Bible verses were taken out of context so many times in this thread that I can't count them. Generally, the Christians who happily believe in God, not out of force or convention, but from their own decisions, turn out to be the strongest people I know. However, EVERYONE has a reason for believing what they believe and we should respect that.

 

[veloc1ty]

Please stop making assumptions and come back to discuss after you reach puberty or learn the concept of free thought, systematic research and logic. It would be nice if you could actually challenge your immature presumptions instead of relying on a website to tell you the wonders of the New Testament. It is a great tool in life to learn. Just as it is stupid to take the word of the media, who has an aim of making stuff entertaining and controversial, it is not in your best interest to learn about a religion from a site actively against it.

What are my immature presumptions? That the Bible contains a lot of violent acts, or that I (foolishly) assumed that all the annotations were fair? I learn plenty about religion, not least because I am made to go to church each week. Please don't assume I base all my opinions or learn things about religion(s) from the internet, let alone a single biased website.

Just interested in the whole idea of causation, premise and logic. How did they come to the conclusion that it is not to be taken literally from a short list of apparant evils in the NT which were purposely distorted? Please do show me oh wise year 10 student.

Actually, the cruelty and violence list is not the only things that were annotated, if you check the site more fully (as I'm sure you're eager to do). And I'm year 11, not that it matters. I'm not trying to be 'wise', I like to discuss things and you're giving me reason to question and look further into the things I write, which I thank you for, all your insults aside.

There is always talk of parables in the Bible, but who is to say what is parable and what is not? Is the creation account a parable? As it's fair to say in this age that it is not the true account of the beginnings of the Earth (and this is only one example I'm making), it puts doubt on just how literally you can take anything in the Bible if you want to maintain its value (for want of a better word). But perhaps this isn't the point of the Bible, it's not meant to be a true historical account, but a moral guide? Putting aside the millions of people who actually do take the Bible literally, acts of violence and other bad morals (such as archaic views towards women) leads you to conclude the Bible can't really be useful as a moral guide either.

Relevance?
It was never about the dichotomoy of good or bad included in the New Testament...?

Sorry, I was given the impression you thought the author was picking and choosing only the bad parts, and the "good list" goes some way to alleviate that.

Read the start of what I said...and the end. Anything that manipulates sources to achieve an original purpose, especially with such bias, simply cannot be trusted.

I agree and thankyou for pointing out what appears to numerous questionable readings of the SAB, from now on I won't make the mistake of linking to a long list for others to read if I don't read it all myself (it was a rather long list).

Now it comes to the point, if you don't believe in God and the NT says that the punishments come from God, in your mind it won't be an issue to you so why is something an issue to you if it may only, in your opinion, happen to you if the 'violence' happens in the mind of another person in an afterlife that you don't believe to exist. (tricky sentence)

Because even if all religion is a complete lie it still impacts me in the real world, because unfortunately a majority of people still appear to believe the stuff in the Bible (excuse any misunderstanding of your meaning there, tricky sentence as you said >_<). And last I checked, without religion (and in particular the Bible) there would not be as much prejudice as there has been (and still is) against women and homosexuals, to name the main two.

Point A -- The Big Bang couldn't have happened so that each flower has pollen, each living animal/insect/human has a heart and each living thing (with minor exceptions) works perfectly.

False. Heard of natural selection? It was a pretty big scientific revolution.

Point B -- Flaws make us stronger if we're ready to accept them. The point of God leaving us there and sitting on his throne laughing at us is simply misinterpreted. The strong people really do become even stronger when they ask for help, and they overcome their flaws.

Wouldn't it make someone even stronger still if they managed to accept and overcome their flaws without appealing to an imaginary being for help? I don't see the part where praying to God is necessary to improve yourself.

Point C -- Other religions SHOULD be respected no matter what. And Bible verses were taken out of context so many times in this thread that I can't count them. Generally, the Christians who happily believe in God, not out of force or convention, but from their own decisions, turn out to be the strongest people I know. However, EVERYONE has a reason for believing what they believe and we should respect that.

I agree with this, insofar as respecting religious people who don't try to force religion on others. Which is not the case for every religious person, unfortunately, and religion itself lends itself to misguided attitudes towards certain groups in society which further stalls progress.

I wonder how religion would fare if no religion was able to influence anyone younger than 20...

 

[darrynXtreem]

well said veloc1ty

Even though he supposedly hates them, all this stuff makes God sound like he's a bit of a fag.

 

[jjsnax]

i got questions..

do the contradictions in the bible exist mainly between the new and old testaments? is it in catholicism (or christianity in general) that the new testament is "more right/more relevant" than the old one?

i don't get why only select things in the bible are being followed but others aren't

when they created the new testament they decided to chop off certain gosbels

y?

its kinda like editing.
having the publisher cut away all the shit bits that dont make sense

xtianity is a theory, its a story and it has to keep changing and adapting to its demographic.

 

[Ba'al Shem Tov]

when they created the new testament they decided to chop off certain gosbels

y?

its kinda like editing.
having the publisher cut away all the shit bits that dont make sense

It must be true, they say it in the Da Vinci Code!

Teabing paused, eyeing Sophie. "Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ's human traits and embellished those gospels that made Him godlike. The earlier gospels were outlawed, gathered up, and burned

jjsnax: Lets ignore the fact that the Gnostic gospels came after Paulian writings and that Arius et al were from North Africa and Arianism was isolated to Africa where it independantly developed away from the church and it only had a place in the Nicean council because Arian was an elder in Alexandria who got invited to the Nicene Council. And because of this the Gnostic gospels were never part of the Christian bible back in the 1st Century or today. Consult any secular or even Marxist 3rd/4th Century Roman textbook on the matter.

And another approach- ancient manuscripts match up to modern bibles.

Even if you do not believe in the Bible or Christian teachings there is no need to be fictitious about the physical accuracy of the book. It is religion - they left the creation story in it. If they were really deadset on changing what 'didn't make sense' that would have been long lost by now.

==Not implying any validity of the Bible, just pointing out your bad history==

 

[HalcyonSky]

yeah i got a question... concerning genesis, as a text written for a specific time (like all the old testament) and specific people do you think it is right to take a literal interpretation of creation as well as many other stories in the old testament of the bible? for example, adam and eve probably didnt get kicked out because they ate fruit from a tree, but rather the fruit is merely symbolic of disobeying god... also one could argue that god didnt really open up adam literally and take his rib, but this was merely symbolic. because of this poetic nature of genesis who is to say that evolution (even common ancestry for humans and animals) is not possible?
it all depends on how we interpret the bible; if we choose to take the bible as a literal scientific text of how the world was exactly formed, then that is your own personal choice, and that is fine personally by me... but when people (not generalising just writting for a specific part of the christian community..) say that evolution is against the bible, then that is not true. it is simply against your own personal interpretation of the bible, and who are you to pick enemies for god. genesis is not what god cares about, he will not pick people to enter heaven because they dont believe in evolution or just because they believe in some form of god. romans 14:15-23 is a good verse displaying the importance of making mutual edification, and not lose sight of what the bible is really about. when saying evolution is an enemy of god you run the risk of having zeal without true knowledge, and not much basis other then what you think the underlying principle of genesis is. and who is to say satan himself is not using that to his advantage to throw more souls into the fire as people are growing up in a world were they just seem to think that they cant believe in evolution or "science" and the word of god at the same time.
so i dont really know what you believe i havent read through any of the comments here but im sure there are some people that commented already about evolution and scientific evidence, and so my question is.... why do christains make a big deal of this "evolution" thing rather then concentrate on the important messages of the bible? is this the correct approach?

no.

 

[somewhereelse]

ok I have a question, where is the proof?
Why do you believe in the Bible?

 

[HalcyonSky]

christians dont need proof: "blessed are those who have not seen and yet believed"; they just choose what they want to believe by brainwashing themselves (reading verses over and over again, praying daily, going to church, singing praise and worship etc) because they want life after death and "purpose".
the bible offers "faith" (being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see - hebrews 11:1) as a substitute for evidence. in other words, a mentality were they view the bible as truth, and any doubt is simply from the devil.
personally, i cant comprehend how they can just simply believe in god. a lot i know however have an ignorance to science and logical reasoning (a lot debate evolution without any knowledge whatsoever, big bang, even carbon dating), and a lot i know were brought up in a christian environment where its a reality from a young age. i think an ignorance to natural selection contributes to a lot of belief in god, as most i know use the argument: "life is too complex for there to be no god".

quoted for truth.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

jjsnax: Lets ignore the fact that the Gnostic gospels came after Paulian writings

So did ALL the gospels

 

[somewhereelse]

"blessed are those who have not seen and yet believed"

yet in every other aspect of life, those who believe without proof are considered foolish. i just don't get it.

 

[S1M0]

I got one:

Who in their right mind decided to revive this thread?

Let people believe what they want to believe and leave it at that.