Total Posts:52|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

picking and choosing from the Bible

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 4:28:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If the Bible is the word of God, then how can you decide to keep the parts you like and discard the parts you don't like?If the Bible is not the word of God, then where did you get this idea that God exists and you need to act in certain ways to appease him?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
YYW
Posts: 36,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 4:29:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 4:28:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
If the Bible is the word of God, then how can you decide to keep the parts you like and discard the parts you don't like?If the Bible is not the word of God, then where did you get this idea that God exists and you need to act in certain ways to appease him?

What do you mean by "picking and choosing"? I just want to be sure that I understand what you're saying before I respond.
Tsar of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 4:32:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 4:29:54 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:28:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
If the Bible is the word of God, then how can you decide to keep the parts you like and discard the parts you don't like?If the Bible is not the word of God, then where did you get this idea that God exists and you need to act in certain ways to appease him?

What do you mean by "picking and choosing"? I just want to be sure that I understand what you're saying before I respond.

Ignoring passages like those in the Old Testament involving stoning children, and embracing others.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
YYW
Posts: 36,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 4:34:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 4:32:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:29:54 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:28:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
If the Bible is the word of God, then how can you decide to keep the parts you like and discard the parts you don't like?If the Bible is not the word of God, then where did you get this idea that God exists and you need to act in certain ways to appease him?

What do you mean by "picking and choosing"? I just want to be sure that I understand what you're saying before I respond.

Ignoring passages like those in the Old Testament involving stoning children, and embracing others.

So, do you understand how the old and the new testaments work?
Tsar of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 4:35:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 4:34:11 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:32:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:29:54 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:28:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
If the Bible is the word of God, then how can you decide to keep the parts you like and discard the parts you don't like?If the Bible is not the word of God, then where did you get this idea that God exists and you need to act in certain ways to appease him?

What do you mean by "picking and choosing"? I just want to be sure that I understand what you're saying before I respond.

Ignoring passages like those in the Old Testament involving stoning children, and embracing others.

So, do you understand how the old and the new testaments work?

How do they work?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 4:35:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 4:32:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:29:54 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:28:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
If the Bible is the word of God, then how can you decide to keep the parts you like and discard the parts you don't like?If the Bible is not the word of God, then where did you get this idea that God exists and you need to act in certain ways to appease him?

What do you mean by "picking and choosing"? I just want to be sure that I understand what you're saying before I respond.

Ignoring passages like those in the Old Testament involving stoning children, and embracing others.

I've heard a few different reasons, the most tenable of which is that the OT wasn't strictly God-inspired, but it more of a historical text chronicling the journey of the Jews, recording prophecies, cataloging Jewish tradition, etc.

One interpretation which always eggs me is the relativistic thesis, i.e., that OT laws were 'right' for the Jews in their time but changed with the arrival of Jesus. I think looking at the OT as an historical chronicle with a few useful lessons is hella better though.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 4:46:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 4:35:54 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:32:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:29:54 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:28:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
If the Bible is the word of God, then how can you decide to keep the parts you like and discard the parts you don't like?If the Bible is not the word of God, then where did you get this idea that God exists and you need to act in certain ways to appease him?

What do you mean by "picking and choosing"? I just want to be sure that I understand what you're saying before I respond.

Ignoring passages like those in the Old Testament involving stoning children, and embracing others.

I've heard a few different reasons, the most tenable of which is that the OT wasn't strictly God-inspired, but it more of a historical text chronicling the journey of the Jews, recording prophecies, cataloging Jewish tradition, etc.

One interpretation which always eggs me is the relativistic thesis, i.e., that OT laws were 'right' for the Jews in their time but changed with the arrival of Jesus. I think looking at the OT as an historical chronicle with a few useful lessons is hella better though.

Both are absurd. They're essentially disqualifying teachings when they cease to be palatable. If the Bible is derived from some divine inspiration then it's derived from divine inspiration; how can you then parse what is and isn't inspired by God from a "non-inspired" vantage point?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
YYW
Posts: 36,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 4:50:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 4:35:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:34:11 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:32:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:29:54 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:28:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
If the Bible is the word of God, then how can you decide to keep the parts you like and discard the parts you don't like?If the Bible is not the word of God, then where did you get this idea that God exists and you need to act in certain ways to appease him?

What do you mean by "picking and choosing"? I just want to be sure that I understand what you're saying before I respond.

Ignoring passages like those in the Old Testament involving stoning children, and embracing others.

So, do you understand how the old and the new testaments work?

How do they work?

Old and new testament law, firstly, are complex -but should not be necessarily understood as sources of human law.

There are many instances in the old testament of egregiously violent punishments -especially by contemporary standards- carried out by people, against other people, in the name of God. That may have been a prudent standard of justice in biblical times, but none claim it is so now because society has changed.

There are verses in the bible which reflect the idea of societal change over time, and embrace it, such as found in the 16th chapter of John, verses 12-13:

"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit, when he is come which is the spirit of truth, he will lead you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, shall he speak, and he will show you the things to come."

In this case, Jesus is talking about the coming guidance of the Holy Spirit and it's influencing mankind's development. It would seem that Jesus understood that men are reluctant to abandon their practices, but that over generations "things to come" would be revealed as man grew more over time. That is not to say that the Old Testament is any less God's word, but that God continues to guide man in the direction of progress.
Tsar of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 4:57:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 4:50:56 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:35:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:34:11 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:32:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:29:54 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:28:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
If the Bible is the word of God, then how can you decide to keep the parts you like and discard the parts you don't like?If the Bible is not the word of God, then where did you get this idea that God exists and you need to act in certain ways to appease him?

What do you mean by "picking and choosing"? I just want to be sure that I understand what you're saying before I respond.

Ignoring passages like those in the Old Testament involving stoning children, and embracing others.

So, do you understand how the old and the new testaments work?

How do they work?

Old and new testament law, firstly, are complex -but should not be necessarily understood as sources of human law.

There are many instances in the old testament of egregiously violent punishments -especially by contemporary standards- carried out by people, against other people, in the name of God. That may have been a prudent standard of justice in biblical times, but none claim it is so now because society has changed.

There are verses in the bible which reflect the idea of societal change over time, and embrace it, such as found in the 16th chapter of John, verses 12-13:

"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit, when he is come which is the spirit of truth, he will lead you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, shall he speak, and he will show you the things to come."

In this case, Jesus is talking about the coming guidance of the Holy Spirit and it's influencing mankind's development. It would seem that Jesus understood that men are reluctant to abandon their practices, but that over generations "things to come" would be revealed as man grew more over time. That is not to say that the Old Testament is any less God's word, but that God continues to guide man in the direction of progress.

What does this have to do with my argument? I'm well aware that Christians can quite easily submit that society has changed, but that doesn't address the incongruity between a holy book purporting objective facts about the universe, and the abandonment of some of those facts by its followers. Either the Bible is God's word, and everything within it is indisputable, or the Bible is not God's word and nothing is guaranteed correct - in which case, why are we reading this thing to teach us about life when it has been eviscerated of all holy authority?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
YYW
Posts: 36,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 5:10:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 4:57:56 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:50:56 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:35:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:34:11 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:32:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:29:54 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:28:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
If the Bible is the word of God, then how can you decide to keep the parts you like and discard the parts you don't like?If the Bible is not the word of God, then where did you get this idea that God exists and you need to act in certain ways to appease him?

What do you mean by "picking and choosing"? I just want to be sure that I understand what you're saying before I respond.

Ignoring passages like those in the Old Testament involving stoning children, and embracing others.

So, do you understand how the old and the new testaments work?

How do they work?

Old and new testament law, firstly, are complex -but should not be necessarily understood as sources of human law.

There are many instances in the old testament of egregiously violent punishments -especially by contemporary standards- carried out by people, against other people, in the name of God. That may have been a prudent standard of justice in biblical times, but none claim it is so now because society has changed.

There are verses in the bible which reflect the idea of societal change over time, and embrace it, such as found in the 16th chapter of John, verses 12-13:

"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit, when he is come which is the spirit of truth, he will lead you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, shall he speak, and he will show you the things to come."

In this case, Jesus is talking about the coming guidance of the Holy Spirit and it's influencing mankind's development. It would seem that Jesus understood that men are reluctant to abandon their practices, but that over generations "things to come" would be revealed as man grew more over time. That is not to say that the Old Testament is any less God's word, but that God continues to guide man in the direction of progress.

What does this have to do with my argument?

Well, I thought it was clear... but I'll explain. The implication is that the bible makes room for the possibility of societal progression -ergo, one isn't picking and choosing by ignoring "old testament" consequences like stoning for wearing linen and cotton together.

I'm well aware that Christians can quite easily submit that society has changed, but that doesn't address the incongruity between a holy book purporting objective facts about the universe, and the abandonment of some of those facts by its followers.

You're not understanding the broader significance here, Ike.

Either the Bible is God's word, and everything within it is indisputable, or the Bible is not God's word and nothing is guaranteed correct - in which case, why are we reading this thing to teach us about life when it has been eviscerated of all holy authority?

The bible is the word of God, but not enforcing old testament law is not "eviscerating all holy authority" as you seem to be suggesting.
Tsar of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 5:17:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 5:10:05 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:57:56 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:50:56 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:35:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:34:11 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:32:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:29:54 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:28:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
If the Bible is the word of God, then how can you decide to keep the parts you like and discard the parts you don't like?If the Bible is not the word of God, then where did you get this idea that God exists and you need to act in certain ways to appease him?

What do you mean by "picking and choosing"? I just want to be sure that I understand what you're saying before I respond.

Ignoring passages like those in the Old Testament involving stoning children, and embracing others.

So, do you understand how the old and the new testaments work?

How do they work?

Old and new testament law, firstly, are complex -but should not be necessarily understood as sources of human law.

There are many instances in the old testament of egregiously violent punishments -especially by contemporary standards- carried out by people, against other people, in the name of God. That may have been a prudent standard of justice in biblical times, but none claim it is so now because society has changed.

There are verses in the bible which reflect the idea of societal change over time, and embrace it, such as found in the 16th chapter of John, verses 12-13:

"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit, when he is come which is the spirit of truth, he will lead you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, shall he speak, and he will show you the things to come."

In this case, Jesus is talking about the coming guidance of the Holy Spirit and it's influencing mankind's development. It would seem that Jesus understood that men are reluctant to abandon their practices, but that over generations "things to come" would be revealed as man grew more over time. That is not to say that the Old Testament is any less God's word, but that God continues to guide man in the direction of progress.

What does this have to do with my argument?

Well, I thought it was clear... but I'll explain. The implication is that the bible makes room for the possibility of societal progression -ergo, one isn't picking and choosing by ignoring "old testament" consequences like stoning for wearing linen and cotton together.

I'm well aware that Christians can quite easily submit that society has changed, but that doesn't address the incongruity between a holy book purporting objective facts about the universe, and the abandonment of some of those facts by its followers.

You're not understanding the broader significance here, Ike.

Either the Bible is God's word, and everything within it is indisputable, or the Bible is not God's word and nothing is guaranteed correct - in which case, why are we reading this thing to teach us about life when it has been eviscerated of all holy authority?

The bible is the word of God, but not enforcing old testament law is not "eviscerating all holy authority" as you seem to be suggesting.

So even though we can decide when the Bible no longer "applies" at our own discretion, it's still God's word, and even though we've trashed some elements of God's word, we're still very much in line with his word...half of which we trashed. I see it now! that makes perfect sense.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
YYW
Posts: 36,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 5:25:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 5:17:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/23/2013 5:10:05 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:57:56 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:50:56 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:35:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:34:11 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:32:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:29:54 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:28:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
If the Bible is the word of God, then how can you decide to keep the parts you like and discard the parts you don't like?If the Bible is not the word of God, then where did you get this idea that God exists and you need to act in certain ways to appease him?

What do you mean by "picking and choosing"? I just want to be sure that I understand what you're saying before I respond.

Ignoring passages like those in the Old Testament involving stoning children, and embracing others.

So, do you understand how the old and the new testaments work?

How do they work?

Old and new testament law, firstly, are complex -but should not be necessarily understood as sources of human law.

There are many instances in the old testament of egregiously violent punishments -especially by contemporary standards- carried out by people, against other people, in the name of God. That may have been a prudent standard of justice in biblical times, but none claim it is so now because society has changed.

There are verses in the bible which reflect the idea of societal change over time, and embrace it, such as found in the 16th chapter of John, verses 12-13:

"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit, when he is come which is the spirit of truth, he will lead you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, shall he speak, and he will show you the things to come."

In this case, Jesus is talking about the coming guidance of the Holy Spirit and it's influencing mankind's development. It would seem that Jesus understood that men are reluctant to abandon their practices, but that over generations "things to come" would be revealed as man grew more over time. That is not to say that the Old Testament is any less God's word, but that God continues to guide man in the direction of progress.

What does this have to do with my argument?

Well, I thought it was clear... but I'll explain. The implication is that the bible makes room for the possibility of societal progression -ergo, one isn't picking and choosing by ignoring "old testament" consequences like stoning for wearing linen and cotton together.

I'm well aware that Christians can quite easily submit that society has changed, but that doesn't address the incongruity between a holy book purporting objective facts about the universe, and the abandonment of some of those facts by its followers.

You're not understanding the broader significance here, Ike.

Either the Bible is God's word, and everything within it is indisputable, or the Bible is not God's word and nothing is guaranteed correct - in which case, why are we reading this thing to teach us about life when it has been eviscerated of all holy authority?

The bible is the word of God, but not enforcing old testament law is not "eviscerating all holy authority" as you seem to be suggesting.

So even though we can decide when the Bible no longer "applies" at our own discretion, it's still God's word,

Applicability isn't the question. Enforcement is. And, no matter how mankind changes, the Bible is still the word of God.

and even though we've trashed some elements of God's word,

Not enforcing old testament law is not "trashing some elements of God's word." Try to avoid grandiose language, Ike.

we're still very much in line with his word...half of which we trashed.

I'd be lying to you if I said that Christianity hadn't changed profoundly -even over the last 20 years. It has, but that does not mean that the word of God is "trashed." That's the central problem with fundamentalist evangelicals -they think that change of any kind is somehow at the expense of Christianity's legitimacy. It's a fallacious thinking, though, because if change is at the expense of Christianity's legitimacy then that would require that Christians perfectly understood God's word, perfectly followed God's law and were in sum infallible. Given that mankind has fallen, we accept that we are fallen and do not pretend otherwise. That's essentially why fundamentalist Christianity is so pretentious: it pretends to be more "holy" than anything else -which is an affront to the most basic premise of Christianity: that we are all sinners and require redemption.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 5:46:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 5:25:10 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/23/2013 5:17:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/23/2013 5:10:05 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:57:56 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:50:56 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:35:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:34:11 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:32:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:29:54 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:28:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
If the Bible is the word of God, then how can you decide to keep the parts you like and discard the parts you don't like?If the Bible is not the word of God, then where did you get this idea that God exists and you need to act in certain ways to appease him?

What do you mean by "picking and choosing"? I just want to be sure that I understand what you're saying before I respond.

Ignoring passages like those in the Old Testament involving stoning children, and embracing others.

So, do you understand how the old and the new testaments work?

How do they work?

Old and new testament law, firstly, are complex -but should not be necessarily understood as sources of human law.

There are many instances in the old testament of egregiously violent punishments -especially by contemporary standards- carried out by people, against other people, in the name of God. That may have been a prudent standard of justice in biblical times, but none claim it is so now because society has changed.

There are verses in the bible which reflect the idea of societal change over time, and embrace it, such as found in the 16th chapter of John, verses 12-13:

"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit, when he is come which is the spirit of truth, he will lead you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, shall he speak, and he will show you the things to come."

In this case, Jesus is talking about the coming guidance of the Holy Spirit and it's influencing mankind's development. It would seem that Jesus understood that men are reluctant to abandon their practices, but that over generations "things to come" would be revealed as man grew more over time. That is not to say that the Old Testament is any less God's word, but that God continues to guide man in the direction of progress.

What does this have to do with my argument?

Well, I thought it was clear... but I'll explain. The implication is that the bible makes room for the possibility of societal progression -ergo, one isn't picking and choosing by ignoring "old testament" consequences like stoning for wearing linen and cotton together.

I'm well aware that Christians can quite easily submit that society has changed, but that doesn't address the incongruity between a holy book purporting objective facts about the universe, and the abandonment of some of those facts by its followers.

You're not understanding the broader significance here, Ike.

Either the Bible is God's word, and everything within it is indisputable, or the Bible is not God's word and nothing is guaranteed correct - in which case, why are we reading this thing to teach us about life when it has been eviscerated of all holy authority?

The bible is the word of God, but not enforcing old testament law is not "eviscerating all holy authority" as you seem to be suggesting.

So even though we can decide when the Bible no longer "applies" at our own discretion, it's still God's word,

Applicability isn't the question. Enforcement is. And, no matter how mankind changes, the Bible is still the word of God.

and even though we've trashed some elements of God's word,

Not enforcing old testament law is not "trashing some elements of God's word." Try to avoid grandiose language, Ike.

we're still very much in line with his word...half of which we trashed.

I'd be lying to you if I said that Christianity hadn't changed profoundly -even over the last 20 years. It has, but that does not mean that the word of God is "trashed." That's the central problem with fundamentalist evangelicals -they think that change of any kind is somehow at the expense of Christianity's legitimacy. It's a fallacious thinking, though, because if change is at the expense of Christianity's legitimacy then that would require that [the version/interpretation/doctrine which was deviated from was an example of where] Christians perfectly understood God's word, perfectly followed God's law and were in sum infallible. [Of course, such a notion is absurd because it would mean that Christians were not in need of redemption, because they had not fallen.] Given that mankind has fallen, we accept that we are fallen and do not pretend otherwise. That's essentially why fundamentalist Christianity is so pretentious: it pretends to be more "holy" than anything else -which is an affront to the most basic premise of Christianity: that we are all sinners and require redemption.

Edited for clarity.
Tsar of DDO
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 5:48:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And (remember) when We made a covenant with the Children of Israel, (saying): Worship none save Allah (only), and be good to parents and to kindred and to orphans and the needy, and speak kindly to mankind; and establish worship and pay the poor-due. Then, after that, ye slid back, save a few of you, being averse. (83) And when We made with you a covenant (saying): Shed not the blood of your people nor turn (a party of) your people out of your dwellings. Then ye ratified (Our covenant) and ye were witnesses (thereto). (84) Yet ye it is who slay each other and drive out a party of your people from their homes, supporting one another against them by sin and transgression-and if they came to you as captives ye would ransom them, whereas their expulsion was itself unlawful for you - Believe ye in part of the Scripture and disbelieve ye in part thereof? And what is the reward of those who do so save ignominy in the life of the world, and on the Day of Resurrection they will be consigned to the most grievous doom. For Allah is not unaware of what ye do. (85) Quran/2
YYW
Posts: 36,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 5:52:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 5:48:56 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
And (remember) when We made a covenant with the Children of Israel, (saying): Worship none save Allah (only), and be good to parents and to kindred and to orphans and the needy, and speak kindly to mankind; and establish worship and pay the poor-due. Then, after that, ye slid back, save a few of you, being averse. (83) And when We made with you a covenant (saying): Shed not the blood of your people nor turn (a party of) your people out of your dwellings. Then ye ratified (Our covenant) and ye were witnesses (thereto). (84) Yet ye it is who slay each other and drive out a party of your people from their homes, supporting one another against them by sin and transgression-and if they came to you as captives ye would ransom them, whereas their expulsion was itself unlawful for you - Believe ye in part of the Scripture and disbelieve ye in part thereof? And what is the reward of those who do so save ignominy in the life of the world, and on the Day of Resurrection they will be consigned to the most grievous doom. For Allah is not unaware of what ye do. (85) Quran/2

This thread... not about Islam.
Tsar of DDO
Harbinger
Posts: 778
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 10:56:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 4:28:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
If the Bible is the word of God, then how can you decide to keep the parts you like and discard the parts you don't like?

I love them all. They are all just and righteous. But I think you mean not follow the Old now and only follow the New? I think.

The reason is because man breaks God's Laws. Not just Biblical described Laws but Laws of God both in earth and in heaven. Like Adam and Eve broke the Law by disobeying God's commandment. The tree was most likely eatable but God said not to as a test. A test to listen to Him and His counsel. The tree could have been unsafe to eat but it is more the commandment that was broken. If you notice after that God kills animals to cloth Adam and Eve. Certain animals we are sacrificed have pure values which can cleanse sin. This is the only way to cleanse sin even today. People were stoned and commanded to be stoned because they broke the Law of God, this was they only way to keep others from being around sin and to cleanse the sinner of their sin and they could be forgiven. As today, Jesus Christ shed His blood and died for all men so that they do not have to sacrifice animals or themselves because of sins, they are cleansed in Jesus Christ only if they accept that sacrifice. So, we do not reject or disreguard the Old Laws, Jesus has fulfilled them and gave a new covenant with men by His grace and blood.

If the Bible is not the word of God,

They whole Bible is the Word of God.

then where did you get this idea that God exists and you need to act in certain ways to appease him?

Because it is fact. Where do you get the idea we do not hold the OT highly or that God does not exist or that we do not have personal relationships with that God?
Psalm 118:8, "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man."
errya
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 12:57:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 4:46:57 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:35:54 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:32:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:29:54 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:28:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
If the Bible is the word of God, then how can you decide to keep the parts you like and discard the parts you don't like?If the Bible is not the word of God, then where did you get this idea that God exists and you need to act in certain ways to appease him?

What do you mean by "picking and choosing"? I just want to be sure that I understand what you're saying before I respond.

Ignoring passages like those in the Old Testament involving stoning children, and embracing others.

I've heard a few different reasons, the most tenable of which is that the OT wasn't strictly God-inspired, but it more of a historical text chronicling the journey of the Jews, recording prophecies, cataloging Jewish tradition, etc.

One interpretation which always eggs me is the relativistic thesis, i.e., that OT laws were 'right' for the Jews in their time but changed with the arrival of Jesus. I think looking at the OT as an historical chronicle with a few useful lessons is hella better though.

Both are absurd. They're essentially disqualifying teachings when they cease to be palatable. If the Bible is derived from some divine inspiration then it's derived from divine inspiration; how can you then parse what is and isn't inspired by God from a "non-inspired" vantage point?

It's not doing that. Almost all of the minor commands (Major ones would be deadly sins, the 10 commandments) were addressed directly to the Jews,and not to all humankind. So a lot of it is the word of God, but only for the Jews, not for Christians.
The Most Noble Lord Horatio Nelson, Viscount and Baron Nelson, of the Nile and of Burnham Thorpe in the County of Norfolk, Baron Nelson of the Nile and of Hilborough in the said County, Knight of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Vice Admiral of the White Squadron of the Fleet, Commander in Chief of his Majesty's Ships and Vessels in the Mediterranean, Duke of Bront" in the Kingdom of Sicily, Knight Grand Cross of the Sicilian Order of St Ferdinand and of Merit, Member of the Ottoman Ord...
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 2:03:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also I didn't know YYW was ACTUALLY Christian, whoa...

But it does actually seem to me that a high percentage of gay people are also Christian, funnily enough. I guess the whole Heaven/Hell thing catches them tighter than the rest of us...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 3:43:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Bible, the word of God, is not literal.

Done, problems solved.

It's really not a big stretch to see a story filled with allegory, metaphor, and symbolism as non-literal. It still can be the Word of God - only bits can be Word of God, really, if none at all but just inspired, while still being a book relevant.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Harbinger
Posts: 778
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 4:54:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 3:43:24 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
The Bible, the word of God, is not literal.

Yes it is and that is only for the weak minded to say such things. There is a spiritual World all around you.

Done, problems solved.

That is what is comfortable for you. Your problem is not solved because you simply want to be that way.

It's really not a big stretch to see a story filled with allegory, metaphor, and symbolism as non-literal.

It is not a stretch for a non-believer to believe such nonsense.

It still can be the Word of God

Oh, it is.

- only bits can be Word of God

Umm. No..every last Word has happened, it is real, and its truth awaits all.

, really, if none at all but just inspired, while still being a book relevant.

You say all that above and then say it is relevant. Check your soul.
Psalm 118:8, "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 6:40:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 3:43:24 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
The Bible, the word of God, is not literal.

Done, problems solved.

It's really not a big stretch to see a story filled with allegory, metaphor, and symbolism as non-literal. It still can be the Word of God - only bits can be Word of God, really, if none at all but just inspired, while still being a book relevant.

What's the symbolism for stoning children? What's the evidence that the Bible is metaphorical? Is it supposed to be coincidence that the culture purported by the Bible coexisted in society with its gradual inception?

Where's the evidence that the Bible was not meant to be taken literally, aside from the hasty, reparative interpretation christians asserted for modern relevance? You can't just come up with a "perhaps" and then say "problem solved".

And since you've taken it upon yourself to defend this inconsistency with such impunity, I'd like for you to answer these questions.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 7:21:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The stoning children is to refer to dead baby jokes which were once okay but now we need to stop. Dead babies are no longer funny God is telling us there.
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 7:22:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The stoning children was obviously also a dead baby joke and proof the bible was not meant to be taken literally.
Harbinger
Posts: 778
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 7:38:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 7:22:26 AM, benevolent wrote:
The stoning children was obviously also a dead baby joke and proof the bible was not meant to be taken literally.

One thing is for certain, that above post is a joke.
Psalm 118:8, "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man."
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 7:40:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Harbinger, you're still religious, only applying my arguments to the non-religious now, not taking them on board as regards yourself at all. know who I am? Let's not point fingers as regards jokes now.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 7:45:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
And what does a text being "The Word of God" entail, exactly? That the text is LITERALLY the words of God as conveyed through humans? Or...? Try not to beg any questions against different theories of divne inspiration, plox....
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Harbinger
Posts: 778
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 7:47:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 7:40:13 AM, benevolent wrote:
Harbinger, you're still religious, only applying my arguments to the non-religious now, not taking them on board as regards yourself at all. know who I am? Let's not point fingers as regards jokes now.

Let's make some sense of this spill, can we?
Psalm 118:8, "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man."
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 7:55:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 7:45:56 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
And what does a text being "The Word of God" entail, exactly? That the text is LITERALLY the words of God as conveyed through humans? Or...? Try not to beg any questions against different theories of divne inspiration, plox....

God had actually said "scones for babies" which was mistaken for "stone the babies".