View Full Version : Visual representation of the Contradictions in the bible.
Quite amazing, i wish they'd extended it on to the koran aswell, but for now its just the OT and NT. Each line like too statements that contradict.
http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j176/jonathan-mcc/ScreenShot2011-10-16at141941.png
darin
10-17-2011, 08:29 AM
The problem - the central problem with stuff like this - nobody gets to decide what a 'contradiction' is.
Did the author of that graph waste his time with:
Verse one: "Go into the world..."
"Contradicting" verse 15 books away "Stop going..."
etc.
If folks spent less time trying to link out of context instruction, which was NOT meant for everybody across time, and MORE time trying to be kind to one-another, feeding the truly hungry, and loving others as much as they love themselves the world would be a much better place, and folks would be doing the will of God.
The problem - the central problem with stuff like this - nobody gets to decide what a 'contradiction' is.
Did the author of that graph waste his time with:
Verse one: "Go into the world..."
"Contradicting" verse 15 books away "Stop going..."
etc.
If folks spent less time trying to link out of context instruction, which was NOT meant for everybody across time, and MORE time trying to be kind to one-another, feeding the truly hungry, and loving others as much as they love themselves the world would be a much better place, and folks would be doing the will of God.
Well then take a simple one, thou shall not murder, every statement thereafter of murder by instruction of god would be a contradiction, no?
darin
10-17-2011, 10:11 AM
Well then take a simple one, thou shall not murder, every statement thereafter of murder by instruction of god would be a contradiction, no?
Assuming God instructed somebody to Murder...if that happened. (shrug).
You'll be able to decide to define every aspect or action as 'contradictory' because you so desperately WANT to find contradiction.
Assuming God instructed somebody to Murder...if that happened. (shrug).
You'll be able to decide to define every aspect or action as 'contradictory' because you so desperately WANT to find contradiction.
He did, *infact* he told Moses himself to murder. You know, the guy that he said murder was wrong to -
Numbers 25:4
The LORD said to Moses, "Take all the leaders of these people, kill them and expose them in broad daylight before the LORD, so that the LORD's fierce anger may turn away from Israel."
Now if you want to the just turn this around about me and how I want to find this and so forth. *or* notice the contradiction in a god telling a man to murder for him, the same god that said to the same man that murder is wrong.
darin
10-17-2011, 11:33 AM
He did, *infact* he told Moses himself to murder. You know, the guy that he said murder was wrong to -
Numbers 25:4
Now if you want to the just turn this around about me and how I want to find this and so forth. *or* notice the contradiction in a god telling a man to murder for him, the same god that said to the same man that murder is wrong.
So you are positive that wasn't a case of something like..Capital Punishment? Do you view capital punishment as murder?
So you are positive that wasn't a case of something like..Capital Punishment? Do you view capital punishment as murder?
Ofcourse capital punishment is murder; the premeditated taking of someone's life. However, as humans some of us have decided that such a kind of murder is okay, because it is subject to a process of law and justice.
Whenever a guy is put in a chair in Texas, or a woman gets a load of rocks thrown on her in Iran, that is murder, but to those in those societies it is deemed legal. Now whether or not it should be legal is another mater, and another debate. However, unless you are suggesting the commandment is 'thou shall not murder, unless you have the support of the state' or something like that I don't see what it has to do with anything.
In any end, god told Moses to kill those people, and it is certainly not the only instance were the good that sees murder as a bad thing, has commanded or committed the murder of us wee humans.
darin
10-17-2011, 12:01 PM
Ofcourse capital punishment is murder; the premeditated taking of someone's life. However, as humans some of us have decided that such a kind of murder is okay, because it is subject to a process of law and justice.
You are confusing Homicide with murder. Homicide has no moral slant. Murder, however does.
In any end, god told Moses to kill those people, and it is certainly not the only instance were the good that sees murder as a bad thing, has commanded or committed the murder of us wee humans.
So - the context of the instruction doesn't matter to you, hrm? You're doing EXACTLY what i described in my first reply - you are cherry picking things completely removed of context, and making a big stink from it.
if I were to do to your posts what you are doing the bible, you'd be rightly upset. Why you are interested in a book you consider Fiction boggles my mind
Whenever a guy is put in, or a woman gets a load in any end, god told Moses to
Did you just say God told Moses to rape a woman?
(see what I did there?)
You are confusing Homicide with murder. Homicide has no moral slant. Murder, however does.
The only difference is that murder is used to always mean unlawful whereas you can have "legal homocide". The word homocide alone could mean legal or not, the word murder is a shorthand for illegal homocide. However, the end result and practice between them is the same; someone's life is deliberately ended.
So - the context of the instruction doesn't matter to you, hrm? You're doing EXACTLY what i described in my first reply - you are cherry picking things completely removed of context, and making a big stink from it.
if I were to do to your posts what you are doing the bible, you'd be rightly upset. Why you are interested in a book you consider Fiction boggles my mind
Did you just say God told Moses to rape a woman?
(see what I did there?)
So which are you contesting? That the commandment or the Numbers verse are out of context? And if it is say the numbers verse, then please detail what concept needs to be applied to mean that The LORD said to Moses, "Take all the leaders of these people, kill them and expose them in broad daylight before the LORD, so that the LORD's fierce anger may turn away from Israel."
does not mean murder?
darin
10-17-2011, 12:57 PM
The only difference is that murder is used to always mean unlawful whereas you can have "legal homocide". The word homocide alone could mean legal or not, the word murder is a shorthand for illegal homocide. However, the end result and practice between them is the same; someone's life is deliberately ended.
So you understand the difference yet somehow apply 'murder' to homicide you don't like?
The contradictions arent in the bible, they are in your mind.
So which are you contesting? That the commandment or the Numbers verse are out of context? And if it is say the numbers verse, then please detail what concept needs to be applied to mean that The LORD said to Moses, "Take all the leaders of these people, kill them and expose them in broad daylight before the LORD, so that the LORD's fierce anger may turn away from Israel."
does not mean murder?
The folks God commanded were criminals. Capital Punishment. At worst it's hypocrisy - God saying HE can kill folks, but commanding us to NOT. No contradiction, however. When you remove anything from context you betray the intent of the author. It's intellectually dishonest. If you're okay with that, fine.
So you understand the difference yet somehow apply 'murder' to homicide you don't like?
The contradictions arent in the bible, they are in your mind.
The folks God commanded were criminals. Capital Punishment. At worst it's hypocrisy - God saying HE can kill folks, but commanding us to NOT. No contradiction, however. When you remove anything from context you betray the intent of the author. It's intellectually dishonest. If you're okay with that, fine.
So you're telling me that when god commanded 'thou shall not murder' the word murder was to be relative to what any given society thought was murder? Because either murder is absolute, or it's definable by law, which is it to be?
darin
10-17-2011, 06:15 PM
So you're telling me that when god commanded 'thou shall not murder' the word murder was to be relative to what any given society thought was murder? Because either murder is absolute, or it's definable by law, which is it to be?
No, I'm saying punishment - capital punishment - is not Murder. It's homicide, sure. Murder, no. You equate the two; thus, in this instance, ANY out of topic verse or action is enough trigger your 'contradiction' fantasy.
No, I'm saying punishment - capital punishment - is not Murder. It's homicide, sure. Murder, no. You equate the two; thus, in this instance, ANY out of topic verse or action is enough trigger your 'contradiction' fantasy.
So the state and the state alone decdies what is murder and not (via capital punishment)
So say a state decides that old people are a waste, a drain on resources and so forth, and so once past retirement (say 65 years old) it is an offence to be alive, and you must submitted yourself, or be submitted to the courts, they will find you to be too old, and sentence you to death, you are duly killed.
You think the above situation is perfectly in accord with the bibles 'thou shall not murder' because the state defines murder and has decided that killing someone over 65 is not murder?
fj1200
10-17-2011, 06:53 PM
So the state and the state alone decdies what is murder and not (via capital punishment)
Did DMP say that? Why don't you read up on it a bit; I know it's not a pretty picture but...
Conclusion: The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is really not as general as the King James version would indicate. The commandment actually refers to premeditated, unjustified killing - murder. Although God ordered the extermination of entire cities, He did so in righteous judgment on a people whose corruption had led to extreme wickedness, including child sacrifice. Did God destroy the righteous along with the wicked? In an exchange with Abraham, God indicated that He would spare the wicked to save the righteous. He demonstrated this principle by saving righteous people from Sodom and Jericho prior to their destruction. The charge that God indiscriminately murdered people does not hold to to critical evaluation of the biblical texts.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notkill.html
I have been saying though out the thread 'thou shall not murder' not 'thou shall not kill'
also, i had to giggle a little to myself upon reading "had led to extreme wickedness, including child sacrifice." given that this god apparently convinced a little earthling that a child sacrifice would be okay if he wanted it done...saying nothing the stories of god choosing himself to kill children.
fj1200
10-17-2011, 07:17 PM
... i had to giggle a little to myself...
Of course you did, it's easier that way.
darin
10-18-2011, 04:40 AM
Mr. Noir - here's what I see in this thread:
You CLING to your faith in your logic. Your logic. You have decided in your heart "there is no God" - therefore EVERY piece of evidence to the contrary is conveniently thrown out. I believe you do so as a defense mechanism. Makes me wonder if there were things, as a child, you perhaps missed out on, or otherwise failed to have your needs met, or similar. Thus, because bad things happened, you decided to have faith in a 'godless universe'. Perhaps that's a control mechanism? Perhaps the thought of the universe, vis-à-vis, your life, being out of your control scares you to the degree its easier if you decide it's 'simply random chance'. From your paradigm there can exist NO God. For God to exist means you come face to face with fears you would rather avoid.
Your paradigm forces your train of thought. Your willingness to overlook the importance of context in literature as written thought, or instruction, is supported by your predetermined outcome of the debate. Because you have decided NO amount of even "Very convincing" explanation will suffice, this thread moves from 'debate' to 'Noir simply insulting the foundation of Christianity'. Thus, it's worthless. You have made your jab. You have received the likely endorphin release from your comments. That, however, is your only and ultimate reward. You settle for that reward, when the reward for you having an Open Mind about God could be so much more. You settle for a Hood Rat when you could have a California dime.
...wow xD
I don't know what on earth that was about lol, but I assure you I had a lovely childhood ^,^
Anyways, back on topic, regarding 'thou shall not murder' do you think murder is an absouloute term or one defined by the state and thus changeable?
fj1200
10-18-2011, 07:38 AM
Anyways, back on topic, regarding 'thou shall not murder' do you think murder is an absouloute term or one defined by the state and thus changeable?
I thought the topic was a pretty picture and someone's idea of contradiction. Nevertheless, anything defined by the state is changeable, the Nazi's certainly had different views of state sponsored killing.
darin
10-18-2011, 07:44 AM
...wow xD
I don't know what on earth that was about lol, but I assure you I had a lovely childhood ^,^
Anyways, back on topic, regarding 'thou shall not murder' do you think murder is an absouloute term or one defined by the state and thus changeable?
Again you deflect. The 'contradiction' is easily explained to anyone with an open mind and/or reason. (shrug)
I thought the topic was a pretty picture and someone's idea of contradiction. Nevertheless, anything defined by the state is changeable, the Nazi's certainly had different views of state sponsored killing.
Indeed the topic is about contradictions.
DMP started talking about me seeing contradictions that were not really so, thus I challenged him on 'thou shall no murder' at which point he started talking about capital punishment, and how that was homicide, not murder.
Which (if you follow that logic) means the state defines the murder that is laid out in the 10 commandments, which is just bizzare lol. But then DMP when off talking about my childhood as some sort of quasi-physiologist! Sometimes you just never know where a threads goin to go xD
But I'd say back talking about 'thou shall not murder' vs 'thou can punish with death' is on topic with the contradictions.
fj1200
10-18-2011, 08:01 AM
Indeed the topic is about contradictions.
Seems to me that you haven't even investigated the source of this particular perceived contradiction and how "kill" is even defined.
darin
10-18-2011, 08:02 AM
Indeed the topic is about contradictions.
DMP started talking about me seeing contradictions that were not really so, thus I challenged him on 'thou shall no murder' at which point he started talking about capital punishment, and how that was homicide, not murder.
Which (if you follow that logic) means the state defines the murder that is laid out in the 10 commandments, which is just bizzare lol. But then DMP when off talking about my childhood as some sort of quasi-physiologist! Sometimes you just never know where a threads goin to go xD
But I'd say back talking about 'thou shall not murder' vs 'thou can punish with death' is on topic with the contradictions.
Will have to break it down -
YOU were equating 'capital punishment' and 'murder'. You claimed a contradiction, when I tried to apply 'context' to help you understand, you willfully chose ignorance and avoidance.
(shrug). This is a non-topic because you don't want to discuss, you want to insult Christians. Howniceforyou.
Will have to break it down -
YOU were equating 'capital punishment' and 'murder'. You claimed a contradiction, when I tried to apply 'context' to help you understand, you willfully chose ignorance and avoidance.
(shrug). This is a non-topic because you don't want to discuss, you want to insult Christians. Howniceforyou.
But by saying that (capital punishment is not murder) you are allowing the State to change the meaning of what god said, by redefing whatever murders it likes as capital punishment (like my suggestion of the over 65s...)
PostmodernProphet
10-18-2011, 09:17 AM
Well then take a simple one, thou shall not murder, every statement thereafter of murder by instruction of god would be a contradiction, no?
you are correct......no.......
DragonStryk72
10-18-2011, 09:09 PM
See, Noir, this is why people don't want to have these discussion with you. You are not having a discussion, you are proselytizing for atheism on a repeated basis, with the barest excuse laid over it.
The point being made is this: In Leviticus, it lists tons of laws and whatnot that are supposed to be followed to these insane standards. However, later on, Jesus shows up, does his thing, and in Corinthians it says "We are not under the Law, but under Grace."
To put it another way, if you come to a stop light, you stop. You wait, and the light turns green. Is that a contradiction? Of course not, it's a new instruction given at a later time.
See, Noir, this is why people don't want to have these discussion with you. You are not having a discussion, you are proselytizing for atheism on a repeated basis, with the barest excuse laid over it.
The point being made is this: In Leviticus, it lists tons of laws and whatnot that are supposed to be followed to these insane standards. However, later on, Jesus shows up, does his thing, and in Corinthians it says "We are not under the Law, but under Grace."
To put it another way, if you come to a stop light, you stop. You wait, and the light turns green. Is that a contradiction? Of course not, it's a new instruction given at a later time.
Well I'm not forcing people to post, yet they post anyway, even though "people don't want to have these discussions with you"
As for Jesus changing the rules and whatnot (ignoring the awful analogy lol) you believe that stands for the 10 commandments too? Because Christians went well out of their way in my life to make sure I knew and wanted to follow them...
DragonStryk72
10-19-2011, 03:07 PM
Well I'm not forcing people to post, yet they post anyway, even though "people don't want to have these discussions with you"
As for Jesus changing the rules and whatnot (ignoring the awful analogy lol) you believe that stands for the 10 commandments too? Because Christians went well out of their way in my life to make sure I knew and wanted to follow them...
Oh no, you mean Christians are human beings too? Oh, the humanity!!! That would mean we can be guilty of sins such as a Pride!
With that obvious sarcasm over with, let's address your "Well, they started it" line of argument. Name one person on this board who has started a thread whose subject works out to "Atheism is bullshit!", now compare your numbers to theirs with regards to Christianity. And let's be clear, it's only Christianity you have a problem with, as you have started no threads on here about Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Islam, Wicca, Asatru, Judaism, or any other religious belief, just Christianity again, and again, and again.
Most of the commandments are pretty common sense, Don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal, don't swear, honor your parents. As far as the first one, Note the way it reads, "Thou Shalt Have no other gods before me". Now, even most Christians miss this just as the miss the part in genesis where God flat out says that there are others like him, when reprimanded Adam & Eve for eating of the Tree of Knowledge, thankful that they had not yet eaten of the Tree of Life, or they "would have become one of Us".
Oddly this means that Christians can pray to other gods, it's allowed, as long as the Judeo/Christian god is worshiped first and foremost. This is because throughout history, minor cults and religions, such as the Hebrews and early Christians most certainly were, were required to give reverence to whatever religion ruled the area they were living in, such as Egypt and Rome. Many would say their "proper" prayers to the gods of their rulers, but still maintain their faith in their own God, since to do otherwise would end up with you getting fed to Lions or worse. This is maintained by Christ when he says "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and render unto God that which is God's".
Most of the "contradictions" are not contradictions at all, but a gradual change in the way the people approached their religion and faith (two separate things). There's good and bad in this, as with all changes in life. For instance, we no longer have much in the way of pagan sacrifices of people, but at the same time, we don't have many women dancing naked around bonfires these days either (mores the pity...).
You have to keep in mind that the events of the Bible take place over thousands of years, with multiple writers having a hand in. Now, the church did try to rectify the problem of people putting in their own spin by making it so the copies of the bible were split up between writers (with writers individually only writing a third of a page each, and in separate locations where they could not contact each other), but there's still going to be changes over time. That's evolution of the mind. unless of course you don't believe in evolution? I do, but then, I'm more of a deist (um, basically God laid down all the universal laws at the beginning, and, for the most part, removed Himself from human affairs, allowing us free will, aside from the times of necessity when he had to play a hand here or there.)
We'll take slavery as a for instance here. If you stood up in a crowd of Virginians right now, and talked about how slavery is wrong, and an abomination, both against God, and the ideals of the United States of America, people would likely shrug, or otherwise treat you like you were crazy, because of course slavery is wrong. However, translate that back in 1859 in the same location, and you're likely to take an ass-whuppin' for it. It's not a contradiction, it's different people and times having different thoughts than those of a previous time.
Oh no, you mean Christians are human beings too? Oh, the humanity!!! That would mean we can be guilty of sins such as a Pride!
With that obvious sarcasm over with, let's address your "Well, they started it" line of argument. Name one person on this board who has started a thread whose subject works out to "Atheism is bullshit!", now compare your numbers to theirs with regards to Christianity. And let's be clear, it's only Christianity you have a problem with, as you have started no threads on here about Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Islam, Wicca, Asatru, Judaism, or any other religious belief, just Christianity again, and again, and again.
Firstly the lack of threads saying 'Atheism is tosh' is because atheism is a state of none belief. There are no doctrines, no dogmatisms, to such an extent that a thread on 'atheism is tosh' would be word for word the same as a thread saying 'the lack of belief in Faires/Unicorns/Thor is tosh' I'm sure thats clear.
I have commented countless times on the fact that this is a christian board so my posts are on religion are almost all directed towards Christianity (except for those i want to deal with say an afterlife to which i prefix the topic by saying i do not want the discussion to be about any one religion, but rather focus on an idea that may lie in none, some or all religions). The only real pro-muslim poster on the board is Abso and he has plenty of people to deal with when he posts without me jumping on him aswell. and PLEASE if there are any Wiccans on the board PLEASE make yourself known to me, there is some nonsense if ever there was any, and indeed when i lived in england a few years ago i lived close to a place called Glastonberry that is well known as a Wiccan hub and i knew people who were Wiccan and they were well aware of the idiocy i viewed there practices with. However, is there anyone who is going to debate against me on this board against the notion that Wicca is trifle?
Most of the commandments are pretty common sense, Don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal, don't swear, honor your parents. As far as the first one, Note the way it reads, "Thou Shalt Have no other gods before me". Now, even most Christians miss this just as the miss the part in genesis where God flat out says that there are others like him, when reprimanded Adam & Eve for eating of the Tree of Knowledge, thankful that they had not yet eaten of the Tree of Life, or they "would have become one of Us".
Oddly this means that Christians can pray to other gods, it's allowed, as long as the Judeo/Christian god is worshiped first and foremost. This is because throughout history, minor cults and religions, such as the Hebrews and early Christians most certainly were, were required to give reverence to whatever religion ruled the area they were living in, such as Egypt and Rome. Many would say their "proper" prayers to the gods of their rulers, but still maintain their faith in their own God, since to do otherwise would end up with you getting fed to Lions or worse. This is maintained by Christ when he says "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and render unto God that which is God's".
This is one of the most interesting posts i've ever read about Christianity on this forum (not being sarcastic, incase it sounds so.)
Most of the "contradictions" are not contradictions at all, but a gradual change in the way the people approached their religion and faith (two separate things). There's good and bad in this, as with all changes in life. For instance, we no longer have much in the way of pagan sacrifices of people, but at the same time, we don't have many women dancing naked around bonfires these days either (mores the pity...).
You have to keep in mind that the events of the Bible take place over thousands of years, with multiple writers having a hand in. Now, the church did try to rectify the problem of people putting in their own spin by making it so the copies of the bible were split up between writers (with writers individually only writing a third of a page each, and in separate locations where they could not contact each other), but there's still going to be changes over time. That's evolution of the mind. unless of course you don't believe in evolution? I do, but then, I'm more of a deist (um, basically God laid down all the universal laws at the beginning, and, for the most part, removed Himself from human affairs, allowing us free will, aside from the times of necessity when he had to play a hand here or there.)
We'll take slavery as a for instance here. If you stood up in a crowd of Virginians right now, and talked about how slavery is wrong, and an abomination, both against God, and the ideals of the United States of America, people would likely shrug, or otherwise treat you like you were crazy, because of course slavery is wrong. However, translate that back in 1859 in the same location, and you're likely to take an ass-whuppin' for it. It's not a contradiction, it's different people and times having different thoughts than those of a previous time.
If the morals of the bible are subject to change over time, then what use is it as a moral code? Its morals are merely dictated by the age and society in which is happens to be.
DragonStryk72
10-20-2011, 12:41 PM
Firstly the lack of threads saying 'Atheism is tosh' is because atheism is a state of none belief. There are no doctrines, no dogmatisms, to such an extent that a thread on 'atheism is tosh' would be word for word the same as a thread saying 'the lack of belief in Faires/Unicorns/Thor is tosh' I'm sure thats clear.
Wait, you think it's unassailable? I just haven't commented on this, but how the hell do you explain the universe? It's scientifically impossible for the universe to exist, let alone life on our own planet, or hell, intelligent life. They exist, sure, but science tells us that the chances are a scientific impossibility. Then there's the creation of the universe itself. How did the gasses that cause the Big Bang come together? How did they get there in the first place? Even rudimentary science tells us that it requires an outside force to move matter, or to stop it from moving. According to atheism, we have to abandon scientific thought on the subject, because it just sorta happened? Be careful what you claim is the truth, Noir.
I have commented countless times on the fact that this is a christian board so my posts are on religion are almost all directed towards Christianity (except for those i want to deal with say an afterlife to which i prefix the topic by saying i do not want the discussion to be about any one religion, but rather focus on an idea that may lie in none, some or all religions). The only real pro-muslim poster on the board is Abso and he has plenty of people to deal with when he posts without me jumping on him aswell. and PLEASE if there are any Wiccans on the board PLEASE make yourself known to me, there is some nonsense if ever there was any, and indeed when i lived in england a few years ago i lived close to a place called Glastonberry that is well known as a Wiccan hub and i knew people who were Wiccan and they were well aware of the idiocy i viewed there practices with. However, is there anyone who is going to debate against me on this board against the notion that Wicca is trifle?
They could be right, who knows? Certainly their philosophy harms no one, but no, I don't have faith in Wicca. I just don't dismiss it out of hand. Same way with most religions, and I even see many points where the faiths have common ground.
This is one of the most interesting posts i've ever read about Christianity on this forum (not being sarcastic, incase it sounds so.)
If the morals of the bible are subject to change over time, then what use is it as a moral code? Its morals are merely dictated by the age and society in which is happens to be.
Actually, it does matter Noir, but you have to remember the morals and ethics of the times. It's not just the writers and the message that changed over time, it's the audience. Christianity, and Judaism before it, have tried to adapt themselves for the greater understanding of those around them. This is why many Pagan holidays such as Yuletide, Samhain, and Beltaine were adapted by the church, so that those converting could feel more comfortable.
At the time of the 10 commandments, the world was a much different place, and the commandments were one of the first western thoughts on codified morals. At the time, you had most people believing in polytheistic pantheons of gods, such as the Egyptians most directly, so the idea back then of worshiping just one god would have been considered highly radical, and indeed, the Hebrews were repeatedly persecuted for it. Again, nowadays, it's nearly the opposite, with those who believe in the polytheism (Asatru and such) being laughed off. Actually, Judaism was one of the first religions NOT to advocate for human sacrifices.
Imagine walking into a forum in the early sixties and decrying for racial equality in education. The audience back then, if not black, would likely have pilloried you, but nowadays, we have essential racial equality, so you'd be looked at by the audience in the same way as though you were decrying that the sky was blue, and people shouldn't murder each other. I believe that it is the same way with our understanding of God, that it continues to grow and evolve, sometimes in good ways (The church ceding temporal power), and in bad ways (Church's silent consent of the slave trade, and policy of non-involvement during WWII).
Now, a lot of people blame the Church for the Spanish Inquisition, but actually, it worried the Church, because it was looking more and more like Spain was going to form its own church, much like England had done. The simple problem was that the church didn't have the actual power needed to stop the Spanish Inquisition, as it was being back by Spain itself, which was pretty damned powerful back then, and so they sort of had to take it on the chin for a long time.
logroller
10-20-2011, 03:26 PM
If the morals of the bible are subject to change over time, then what use is it as a moral code? Its morals are merely dictated by the age and society in which is happens to be.
I think you touched on a point here that is worth clarification and elaboration.
Just because the codified morals have changed, it does not discount the value of past practices and beliefs; just as the scientific practices of years gone by were not in vain-- for they both serve humanity's attempt to refine our behaviors and capabilities-- whereas "reinventing the wheel" for each generation would retard that attempt~hence we record these experiences.
As for the existence of God, I can only offer an excuse of ignorance. For I cannot explain how mankind has became self-aware and capable of love and compassion. I can try; perhaps because we have found we are more successful when we practice such behavior-- but this doesn't explain why societies have engaged in behavior to the contrary. As i expand my consideration outward, neither can I explain why the universe exists, or even if it does, beyond what is in my immediate vicinity. It is this belief in what lies beyond our own physical realm that allows man the endeavor to greatness.
If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?
Having not been there, I know not. I do, however, have knowledge of similar experiences (I have seen a tree fall, and it did make a sound); which leads me to believe it did make a sound. -- this Noir-- is an act of faith. i can offer scientific explanation; that energy is neither created or destroyed, merely changing to a less useful form-- but this fails to explain the origination of all that is-- the un-caused cause-- our God.
If you can offer an explanation, to the age-old question - WHY? - without at some point admonishing, simply-- 'because It is.' --then I won't use God as a foundation-- but why????;)
LuvRPgrl
10-22-2011, 06:24 PM
...wow xD
I don't know what on earth that was about lol, but I assure you I had a lovely childhood ^,^
Anyways, back on topic, regarding 'thou shall not murder' do you think murder is an absouloute term or one defined by the state and thus changeable?
Neither.
LuvRPgrl
10-22-2011, 06:29 PM
But by saying that (capital punishment is not murder) you are allowing the State to change the meaning of what god said, by redefing whatever murders it likes as capital punishment (like my suggestion of the over 65s...)
Its my understanding that God laid out the terms for when capital punishment is legit and when it isnt.
Ironically, it is the very contradictions that prove the Bible wasnt just made up. I mean, if you were to try and delude a mass of people by making up a story, wouldnt you be sure you dont include such "obvious contradictions"?
But when telling the truth, apparent contradictions need to be included if your desire is to be completely accurate if thats how it happened.
"
ConHog
10-22-2011, 06:30 PM
God never told anyone to murder anyone fool.
Murder is the ILLEGAL taking of someone's life. If a burning bush tells me to kill you, I think I'll view that as a sign that higher power wants that person dead and act accordingly.
LuvRPgrl
10-22-2011, 06:37 PM
God never told anyone to murder anyone fool.
Murder is the ILLEGAL taking of someone's life. If a burning bush tells me to kill you, I think I'll view that as a sign that higher power wants that person dead and act accordingly.
I think I would check his ID first.
LuvRPgrl
10-22-2011, 06:45 PM
.)
If the morals of the bible are subject to change over time, then what use is it as a moral code? Its morals are merely dictated by the age and society in which is happens to be.
Hmm, no, they are dictated by God.
Morals, laws, if you will, can have exceptions, and circumstances that make them valid, or maybe not.
Adam and eve obviously had to commit incenst, but it wasnt necc later.
My children are obviously not to drink, engage in sex, but when they become adults.
Many of the laws laid down by God, were universal, many were only to the Jews.
Lastly, God owns us. He created us. Its in his purvue to do what he desires with us, and it is neither immoral or illegal. You can disagree with how you "feel" about it, but logically, if I build a house, I have the right to burn it down, but nobody else does.
and it is very likely you will feel bad when I burn my house down.
In fact, so much so, that I dont even own my own body. I am sinning if I commit suicide, but God has the right to kill me if he wants.
DragonStryk72
10-22-2011, 09:26 PM
Hmm, no, they are dictated by God.
Morals, laws, if you will, can have exceptions, and circumstances that make them valid, or maybe not.
Adam and eve obviously had to commit incenst, but it wasnt necc later.
My children are obviously not to drink, engage in sex, but when they become adults.
Many of the laws laid down by God, were universal, many were only to the Jews.
Lastly, God owns us. He created us. Its in his purvue to do what he desires with us, and it is neither immoral or illegal. You can disagree with how you "feel" about it, but logically, if I build a house, I have the right to burn it down, but nobody else does.
and it is very likely you will feel bad when I burn my house down.
In fact, so much so, that I dont even own my own body. I am sinning if I commit suicide, but God has the right to kill me if he wants.
Not entirely correct. The Land of Nod existed at the same time as Eden, and is mention in the Bible. Adam and Eve, cast out of Eden, were essentially forced into the lands of Nod, so incest wasn't really needed, and I doubt highly that's God's creation of Eve would have resulted in incest given his views on it.
LuvRPgrl
10-23-2011, 11:52 AM
Not entirely correct. The Land of Nod existed at the same time as Eden, and is mention in the Bible. Adam and Eve, cast out of Eden, were essentially forced into the lands of Nod, so incest wasn't really needed, and I doubt highly that's God's creation of Eve would have resulted in incest given his views on it.
land of nod?
ConHog
10-23-2011, 12:42 PM
I think I would check his ID first.
Sorry, I put this in the same category as the Poltergeist house. If my house tells me to get out, I'm getting out. If a burning bush (not George) tells me to kill, I'm killing. :laugh2:
ConHog
10-23-2011, 12:44 PM
Not entirely correct. The Land of Nod existed at the same time as Eden, and is mention in the Bible. Adam and Eve, cast out of Eden, were essentially forced into the lands of Nod, so incest wasn't really needed, and I doubt highly that's God's creation of Eve would have resulted in incest given his views on it.
I have never seen a convincing argument of where another woman may have came from. I'm thinking that at some point either Cain or Abel had to have nailed dear old mom (gag)
DragonStryk72
10-23-2011, 04:05 PM
I have never seen a convincing argument of where another woman may have came from. I'm thinking that at some point either Cain or Abel had to have nailed dear old mom (gag)
Again, the Land of Nod existed in the Bible. They likely just skip mentioning it in the Bible because, well, Cain sort stole the show with his whole "brotherly love" routine. They focus in on very specific stories in Genesis, not so much with the minutiae.
LuvRPgrl
10-23-2011, 08:48 PM
Again, the Land of Nod existed in the Bible. They likely just skip mentioning it in the Bible because, well, Cain sort stole the show with his whole "brotherly love" routine. They focus in on very specific stories in Genesis, not so much with the minutiae.
Dont think for an instant that I walk lock step with conventional thinking, but please provide something that makes your claim
I will tell you though, Ive been to the land of nod many, many times, a quart of vodka, land of nod,
fj1200
10-24-2011, 09:29 AM
Dont think for an instant that I walk lock step with conventional thinking, but please provide something that makes your claim
Genesis 4:16,17.
LuvRPgrl
10-24-2011, 01:07 PM
Genesis 4:16,17.Yea, thats actually pretty interesting, especially where it says, he knew his wife, like, where did she come from?
But Im not seeing much about the land of nod except thats where he went.
LuvRPgrl
10-24-2011, 01:15 PM
Not entirely correct. The Land of Nod existed at the same time as Eden, and is mention in the Bible. Adam and Eve, cast out of Eden, were essentially forced into the lands of Nod, so incest wasn't really needed, and I doubt highly that's God's creation of Eve would have resulted in incest given his views on it.
God's issue with incest wouldnt necessarily apply at that stage in the game. Im not saying it does, or it doesnt, just that there is a good possibility. That happens all the time in nature, babies can live on mothers milk, but as things mature,,,
Seeds sprout and the plant doesnt need nourishment for a short time at the beginning, usually beginnings are much different than middles or endings, and hence, what applies to middles and endings, doesnt always apply to beginnings, hence,
the circumstances dictate alot about rules, laws, etc.
For example, on the search and seizure topic, if a guest is in your house, can a cop search them if the owner gives permission to search the house.
The answer is yes and no. Depends on circumstances.
If you are in a supermarket and slip on some mayonaisse on the floor from a broken jar of mayo, can you sue the supermarket?
Or, what if you scraped that mayo up and made a great burger out of it? (thats what my 2 year old would do, she loves gum stuck under restaurant tables:) )
fj1200
10-24-2011, 01:28 PM
Yea, thats actually pretty interesting, especially where it says, he knew his wife, like, where did she come from?
But Im not seeing much about the land of nod except thats where he went.
And started the city Enoch. I'm of the mind that there were more people in the world than just Adam and Even.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.