Readings from the "Holy Book"

Previous page 1 ... 3 4 56 7 ... 17 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
Reply #120 - January 13, 2009, 11:08 AM

Quote from: sparky on January 13, 2009, 10:15 AM
Quote from: osmanthus on January 12, 2009, 10:47 PM
Hassan was not trolling at all. He was responding with the references you asked for. If anyone is trolling it is you, Sparky.

Seriously? You don't consider posting long lists of quotes from other sites with no argument or discussion not to be trolling? I said that he should provide references for quotes that he gives in the video - because it's generally good practice to show where you got your material. I didn't ask him to copy and paste long lists of references from other sites. This is the trolling.

What have I done that is trolling? I've given Hassan some critical feedback. I've responded to the points raised. I haven't insulted anyone. What have I done that would make you say this?

He provided what you asked for. In other words he posted that list at your request. You then turn around and call him a troll so yes, you have insulted someone. This combination of doing a U-turn and combining it with an insult is why I said that you were the one trolling if anyone was.

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- a.ghazali
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
Reply #121 - January 13, 2009, 11:16 AM

Vengeance on the Midianites

The LORD said to Moses, "Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people."

So Moses said to the people, "Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites and to carry out the LORD's vengeance on them. Send into battle a thousand men from each of the tribes of Israel."

So twelve thousand men armed for battle, a thousand from each tribe, were supplied from the clans of Israel. Moses sent them into battle, a thousand from each tribe, along with Phinehas son of Eleazar, the priest, who took with him articles from the sanctuary and the trumpets for signaling.

They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. They took all the plunder and spoils and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest.

Moses was angry with the officers of the army. "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man (virgin).

The LORD said to Moses, "You and the priest and the family heads of the community are to count all the virgins and animals that were captured. Divide the spoils between the soldiers who took part in the battle and the rest of the community. From the soldiers who fought in the battle, set apart as tribute for the LORD one out of every five hundred, whether virgin, cattle, donkeys, sheep or goats.

So Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses.

The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was 675,000 sheep, 72,000 cattle, 61,000 donkeys and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man.

The Lord's share of the booty was as follows:
Sheep - 675
Cattle - 72;
Donkeys - 61;
Virgins - 32.

Moses gave to Eleazar the priest, the LORD's part, as the LORD commanded Moses.

Then the commanders went to Moses and said to him, "We have brought as an offering to the LORD the gold articles each of us acquired to make atonement for ourselves before the LORD."

Moses and Eleazar accepted the gold and presented them as a gift to the LORD weighed 16,750 shekels.

===================

OK Sparky this story would bother any sane person.

This is taken from the Bible Numbers Chapter 31. (The New International Version)

The context is that the Israelites felt hard done by the Midianites so God told Moses to take vengence against them and kill the lot except the virgins (of course).

I know you will say God sanctioned the slaughter and its God's judgement which is supreme. So who are we to question God?

But do you think a God would need to stoop to such a level, seeking vengence, ensuring every man, woman and child is killed except the virgins, and that he would need a share in the booty which included 32 virgins for himself?

I have researched, try to contextualise, looked at God's revealed nature, if such an event would be acceptable today, tried to remain emotionally neutral, and not be irrational.

But somehow it still does not sit to well with my conscience to accept such a God.

So could you please assist me and others to overcome this hurdle preventing us from understanding your Supreme loving God.

Knowing Islam is the only true religion we do not allow propagation of any other religion. How can we allow building of churches and temples when their religion is wrong? Thus we will not allow such wrong things in our countries. - Zakir Naik
- Saif Rahman
- Ex-Muslim
- Je suis Haram
- offline
Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
Reply #122 - January 13, 2009, 11:20 AM

Quote from: a.ghazali on January 13, 2009, 11:07 AM
Quote from: sparky on January 12, 2009, 10:05 PM
...he doesn't really interpret the passages apart from a one-line 'impression' (which is often plain wrong - i.e. 'kill the unbelievers' - they were idolaters not unbelievers)

So are you saying its OK to kill them if they were idolaters?

I hope that is not what he is saying. Forgive me if I am wrong, but is he simply putting up smokescreens everywhere, in order to avoid questions that he cannot answer. If it was the first time I would give him the benefit of the doubt, but sadly it is not.

P.S Please Sparky do not ask me to show you the references for this claim

My Book
My Blog
- sparky
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
Reply #123 - January 13, 2009, 11:33 AM

Quote from: osmanthus on January 13, 2009, 11:08 AM
Quote from: sparky on January 13, 2009, 10:15 AM
Quote from: osmanthus on January 12, 2009, 10:47 PM
Hassan was not trolling at all. He was responding with the references you asked for. If anyone is trolling it is you, Sparky.

Seriously? You don't consider posting long lists of quotes from other sites with no argument or discussion not to be trolling? I said that he should provide references for quotes that he gives in the video - because it's generally good practice to show where you got your material. I didn't ask him to copy and paste long lists of references from other sites. This is the trolling.

What have I done that is trolling? I've given Hassan some critical feedback. I've responded to the points raised. I haven't insulted anyone. What have I done that would make you say this?

He provided what you asked for. In other words he posted that list at your request. You then turn around and call him a troll so yes, you have insulted someone. This combination of doing a U-turn and combining it with an insult is why I said that you were the one trolling if anyone was.

What I asked for is clear. It was for references to be given in the video for the quotes that were used in the video. This was provided later and posted in the thread at the bottom of page 5. On page 6, Hassan went on to post two long lists of quotes that were not asked for, not discussed, not mentioned in his video and, mostly, not even relevant to the subject matter of his video. It was these that I referred to as trolling.

Do you or do you not consider copying and pasting long lists of unrelated text as trolling?

So there is no U-turn and no insult.
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
Reply #124 - January 13, 2009, 11:42 AM

Well Sparky they were relevant to the subject matter of his video. I've rechecked and yes, the later list is not the list of references that he quoted in the video (that is on page 5 as you said) but the list on page 6 is definitely on the same topic. That's why Hass posted it.

So you can't reasonably claim that the list was "unrelated". I wouldn't say it was trolling at all. I'd say he was providing yet more evidence re the nature of this supposed god of yours. I'd also still say that calling someone a troll when they post things from your favourite book that you find inconvenient does constitute being insulting.

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- sparky
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
Reply #125 - January 13, 2009, 12:19 PM

Quote from: IsLame
Didn't think it was necessary as many quotes have already been provided (with sources), and we already know the type of things that come out of the quran.

It was your accusation. You should either back it up or withdraw it.

Quote from: IsLame
In a vain attempt to get you to answer the question, here is a quote that an Al-Qaeda sympathiser would use;

But if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith. But if they cease, God is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
And fight them on until there is no more persecution. And the religion becomes Gods.
(The Qur'an, Surah 2:190-193).

From Surah 2, who is this command given to? who is 'you'? who is 'them'?
What argument would an AQ sympathiser make? Would he say that it the duty of all muslims to fight against those who are oppressing muslims - i.e. the US, UK etc.? What can you derive from the text that says that their interpretation is incorrect?

Quote
Deuteronomy 7:1-2 When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations . . . then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.

20:10-17 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace.
If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you.
If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city.
When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it.
As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. . . .
This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

Which is a command to the Israelites to fight against a particular group of people (those in the land) at a particular time (when they are entering the land). The context is right there in the text. There is no generic command for the Israelites to fight with anyone they want or anyone that fights against them. There is no generic command that anyone who believes in God should fight against those who fight against them and I have not been arguing that there is. There is no reason to assume that this command applied to anyone else other than those it was given to at that time for that purpose.

So in what way are the arguments I am making like those of an Al Qaeda sympathiser?

Quote from: IsLame
If anything, I would say the Quran is taking a softer approach, but they are both talking about, what in effect, is ethnic cleansing.

The Quran is, apparently, giving a command to all muslims. The bible is giving a command to the Israelites in a particular time and place. The implications for the people believing that these commands are from God is massively different.

Quote from: IsLame
The only wrong of those being murdered is they happen to live where they live and believe what they believe.

Really? And you know that how? Please provide some evidence to support this conclusion.

Quote from: IsLame
And you still accept Christianity as the truth?

Yep.
- sparky
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
Reply #126 - January 13, 2009, 12:20 PM

Quote from: a.ghazali on January 13, 2009, 11:07 AM
Quote from: sparky on January 12, 2009, 10:05 PM
...he doesn't really interpret the passages apart from a one-line 'impression' (which is often plain wrong - i.e. 'kill the unbelievers' - they were idolaters not unbelievers)

So are you saying its OK to kill them if they were idolaters?

No, I'm saying that his interpretation is wrong, just like I said.
- cosmicdancer
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
Reply #127 - January 13, 2009, 12:27 PM

Quote from: sparky on January 12, 2009, 10:12 PM

As for telling you the 'correct meaning'. I now have the quotes in one place and your interpretations in another. I don't really want to keep playing the video to try to pick up how you are interpreting them. If you really have a problem with a verse, present an argument about what it is and why it gives you a problem and we can talk about it.

OK, Sparky, I have some questions about this verse:

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

Is it morally right to kill homosexuals because they are homosexuals?

Was it ever right in it's context?

Should we assume from this verse that homosexuality is morally wrong?

Is it morally wrong for all time or depending on it's context? (i.e. time and/or place?)
- Calm
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
Reply #128 - January 13, 2009, 12:30 PM

I haven't gone through whole thread. Hassan was obviously not trolling.
Just one thing on side of Sparky,

You will find violent verses in many scriptures. The importance is how the followers are supposed to interpret them. One credit to Christianity is, over the period of centuries, they have worked to take spiritual aspects and leave the aspects which is related to laws and human understanding of the time when scriptures were written.

Where as for traditional fundie Muslims(you will find many of Ummah), any attempt to let go literal meaning and continuing spiritual meaning or having a different interpretation is Bidah.

The number of fundie Christians who think stonning should be practised is quite fringe as comapred to the number of fundie Muslims who some how convince their mind that stonning is acceptable because it is Allah's command.

Does not make any religion right for me, does not make any scriptures better in comparison to Quran etc, this is just the obvious difference at the moment.
- sparky
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
Reply #129 - January 13, 2009, 12:33 PM

Quote from: osmanthus on January 13, 2009, 11:42 AM
Well Sparky they were relevant to the subject matter of his video. I've rechecked and yes, the later list is not the list of references that he quoted in the video (that is on page 5 as you said) but the list on page 6 is definitely on the same topic. That's why Hass posted it.

So you can't reasonably claim that the list was "unrelated". I wouldn't say it was trolling at all. I'd say he was providing yet more evidence re the nature of this supposed god of yours. I'd also still say that calling someone a troll when they post things from your favourite book that you find inconvenient does constitute being insulting.

There are two lists on page 6 (did you read my post?). The first includes verses about biblical contradictions, scientific errors, Jesus second coming which are nothing to do with the subject of the video. Hassan posted it because he was resorting to troll behaviour rather than wanting to engage in a discussion. If it was a discussion he wanted, the additional verses clearly added nothing to those he had already posted on page 5.

The second list simply shows verses that talk about killing - whether God orders it or not - and therefore say nothing about the 'nature' of God. The video is about the OT showing that God is not the God of love and, in fact, 'just as psycho' as the God of the Quran.

As a result, most of these verses are completely off topic.

I called him a troll because his behaviour fits the definition:

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

I'm happy to say that I should have said 'Hassan is engaging in troll-like behaviour' rather than 'he is a troll' so that it might appear less insulting. I apologise for any insult.
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
Reply #130 - January 13, 2009, 12:53 PM

I still say he wasn't and that you are merely blustering in an attempt to distract attention from your uncomfortable position. Keep digging. You'll hit China this week at the current rate.

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- Saif Rahman
- Ex-Muslim
- Je suis Haram
- offline
Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
Reply #131 - January 13, 2009, 12:56 PM

You justification, has keenfully missed out key elements from these quotes - here they are again in bold

i) Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.

ii) This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.[/quote]

Similar stuff to the Quran, you just choose to interpret them differently. You also fail to explain why it is OK to kill people in this context. A vital, and repeated, element of our arguments, dont you think.

The only fault of Islam is that its believers actually believe in what it says. You dont believe in Christianity, just your own version of it.

I also believe in Islam, just one without the prophet, the Quran, and God itself (I like the bits about kindness so will keep them).

My Book
My Blog
- cosmicdancer
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
Reply #132 - January 13, 2009, 01:41 PM

Quote from: sparky on January 13, 2009, 09:59 AM
The person who says 'it is just to stone someone for adultery' is just as 'right' as the person who says 'it is unjust'. Both are expressing nothing more than their personal preferences.

I understand your criticisms of Moral Relativism, Sparky, but what I don't understand yet is your position?

Does your faith say stoning adulterers is right or wrong?

From my own understanding it appears the Bible (did in the past at least) stipulate stoning adulterers.

I understand that Stoning Adulterers is no longer stipulated or condoned, but I would be interested to know why it changed? Why did God consider stoning adulterers OK then, but not now?
- Soren
- Member
- atheist
- offline
Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
Reply #133 - January 13, 2009, 01:48 PM

Quote from: sparky on January 13, 2009, 12:33 PM
I'm happy to say that I should have said 'Hassan is engaging in troll-like behaviour' rather than 'he is a troll' so that it might appear less insulting. I apologise for any insult.

you asked for the context and references and Hassan gave it to you?
- sparky
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
Reply #134 - January 13, 2009, 01:49 PM

Quote from: a.ghazali
OK Sparky this story would bother any sane person.

Really.

Quote from: a.ghazali
This is taken from the Bible Numbers Chapter 31. (The New International Version)

Well done!

Quote from: a.ghazali
I know you will say God sanctioned the slaughter and its God's judgement which is supreme. So who are we to question God?

I wouldn't say that. It's fine to question whether the different things that are recorded about God are consistent with each other.

Quote from: a.ghazali
But do you think a God would need to stoop to such a level, seeking vengence, ensuring every man, woman and child is killed except the virgins, and that he would need a share in the booty which included 32 virgins for himself?

Vengeance just means punishment for a offense committed. So the Midianites had offended God and he was commanding the Israelites to carry out his punishment against them. I have no problem with the idea of God taking vengeance. In fact, believing that the right to vengeance only belongs to God - is what means I don't have to take vengeance myself.

The form of his judgement seems to reflect his assessment of what was necessary to protect the Israelites from idolatrous influences and to punish what they had done to offend God. I don't have any basis on which to say that this was assessment was wrong in some way.

The 'share' in the booty just reflects provision for the priestly tribe of the levites. I don't know what the problem is with that.

Quote from: a.ghazali
I have researched, try to contextualise, looked at God's revealed nature, if such an event would be acceptable today, tried to remain emotionally neutral, and not be irrational.

The point isn't about being emotionally neutral. If something is offensive, by all means be offended. The point is the appeals to emotion are logical fallacies. Whether you like something does not indicate whether it is true or not.
Quote from: a.ghazali
But somehow it still does not sit to well with my conscience to accept such a God.

God doesn't have to be attractive to you to be true. But as I read this passage, I have no means to say that what God commanded was not for the best - in terms of what God aimed to achieve through the Israelites.
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
Reply #135 - January 13, 2009, 01:57 PM

Quote from: sparky on January 13, 2009, 01:49 PM
Quote from: a.ghazali
OK Sparky this story would bother any sane person.

Really.

Yes. Really.

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- sparky
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
Reply #136 - January 13, 2009, 01:58 PM

Quote from: osmanthus on January 13, 2009, 12:53 PM
I still say he wasn't and that you are merely blustering in an attempt to distract attention from your uncomfortable position. Keep digging. You'll hit China this week at the current rate.

And yet you cannot give a reason. I have shown you that the vast majority of the verses were off topic (verses which you don't even appear to have noticed before you called me a troll). I have shown you that there was no attempt to discuss the verses. I have shown you that they added nothing to the discussion. I have shown you that this behaviour fits with the definition of trolling.

I have also responded to virtually every sensible question that has been asked of me so your accusation of blustering is about as empty as your calling me a troll.

As a mod, you're a disgrace.

And, I have to confess, I'm surprised.
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
Reply #137 - January 13, 2009, 02:03 PM

They weren't off topic at all Sparky. They were all about the same topic as the original video. You seem to be the only person here who cannot or will not see this. If you want to discuss them then go ahead.

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- cosmicdancer
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
Reply #138 - January 13, 2009, 02:04 PM

Quote from: sparky on January 13, 2009, 01:58 PM
I have also responded to virtually every sensible question that has been asked of me

I would genuinely and sincerely like an answer to these questions, Sparky about this verse:

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

Is it morally right to kill homosexuals because they are homosexuals?

Was it ever right in it's context?

Should we assume from this verse that homosexuality is morally wrong?

Is it morally wrong for all time or depending on it's context? (i.e. time and/or place?)
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
Reply #139 - January 13, 2009, 02:05 PM

Basically you have shown nothing. You have simply claimed to have shown something.

Hass posted a list which extended the points he made in the video and you called him a troll for it. That is why I said that he was not trolling and if anyone was it would be you.

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- sparky
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
Reply #140 - January 13, 2009, 02:06 PM

Quote from: IsLame on January 13, 2009, 12:56 PM
Quote from: IsLame
You justification, has keenfully missed out key elements from these quotes - here they are again in bold

i) Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.

ii) This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

Similar stuff to the Quran, you just choose to interpret them differently. You also fail to explain why it is OK to kill people in this context. A vital, and repeated, element of our arguments, dont you think.

The only fault of Islam is that its believers actually believe in what it says. You dont believe in Christianity, just your own version of it.

I also believe in Islam, just one without the prophet, the Quran, and God itself (I like the bits about kindness so will keep them).

I can't help you if you choose to be deliberately ignorant. The difference to the Quran I have already explained to you. The bible story makes it clear that the command is specific and limited. There are no such limits in the Quran. Hence it is difficult to refute the AQ sympathisers and easy to refute those who might take the bible story to mean that God wants us to go around killing people. This is even without reference to the New Testament material that tells us to love our enemies.

Why is it ok for the Israelites to kill people that God had commanded them to kill? Because God commanded them to do it!
- Calm
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
Reply #141 - January 13, 2009, 02:07 PM

Sparky,
correct the quotes....
For one second, I thought you had metamorphism
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
Reply #142 - January 13, 2009, 02:11 PM

Quote from: sparky on January 13, 2009, 02:06 PM
Why is it ok for the Israelites to kill people that God had commanded them to kill? Because God commanded them to do it!

Lovely. And of course you can prove this?

Mind you the problem isn't as great as it may seem since the OT contains almost no historical content at all and is primarily mythology, which means nobody got killed anyway. It's still an extremely nasty story though. It brings to mind things like the Holocaust and the Rwanda massacres.

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- BerberElla
- Class A'sexual
- Creator Goddess
- offline
Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
Reply #143 - January 13, 2009, 02:18 PM

Quote from: sparky on January 13, 2009, 01:58 PM
Quote from: osmanthus on January 13, 2009, 12:53 PM
I still say he wasn't and that you are merely blustering in an attempt to distract attention from your uncomfortable position. Keep digging. You'll hit China this week at the current rate.

And yet you cannot give a reason. I have shown you that the vast majority of the verses were off topic (verses which you don't even appear to have noticed before you called me a troll). I have shown you that there was no attempt to discuss the verses. I have shown you that they added nothing to the discussion. I have shown you that this behaviour fits with the definition of trolling.

I have also responded to virtually every sensible question that has been asked of me so your accusation of blustering is about as empty as your calling me a troll.

As a mod, you're a disgrace.

And, I have to confess, I'm surprised.

You are surprised the the OP of a thread titled "readings from the holy book" posted actual "readings from the holy book"?

Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
- sparky
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
Reply #144 - January 13, 2009, 02:36 PM

Quote from: Hassan on January 13, 2009, 01:41 PM
Quote from: sparky on January 13, 2009, 09:59 AM
The person who says 'it is just to stone someone for adultery' is just as 'right' as the person who says 'it is unjust'. Both are expressing nothing more than their personal preferences.

I understand your criticisms of Moral Relativism, Sparky, but what I don't understand yet is your position?

Does your faith say stoning adulterers is right or wrong?

From my own understanding it appears the Bible (did in the past at least) stipulate stoning adulterers.

I understand that Stoning Adulterers is no longer stipulated or condoned, but I would be interested to know why it changed? Why did God consider stoning adulterers OK then, but not now?

God gave commands to the Israelites for the purpose of preserving them as a people through which he would carry out his promise to Abraham to bless the world through them - i.e. through the Messiah. Once the Messiah had come, that purpose had been fulfilled. Jesus talks about being the 'fulfillment' of the law. Jesus said 'my kingdom is not of this world'. Hence the aim of the Christian is not to create a 'heaven on earth' national state but to live according to the reality of Christ's spiritual kingdom - a kingdom characterised by love.

The problem with 'look here, God wants Christians to stone adulterers - it says so in Leviticus' is that it anachronistically takes a command given to one group of people at one time for one purpose and applies it generally without any justification.

In addition, you are also taking something intended as a societal law and making it a moral standard. Jesus says that he hates divorce but divorce was permitted in the Old Testament law because to permit it resulted in less evil being done that prohibiting it would have in the context of a sinful people. As a result, some things might have been commanded because they were pragmatically the 'best' option for the society at the time even though they didn't describe the morally ideal behaviour.

So in this case, the meaning of the passage is 'the Israelites were commanded to stone adulterers'.

Given this, Christians can learn moral principles from the OT law that might relate to how they live their lives as individuals. In this case, 'adultery is morally wrong' might be one - especially as it is reinforced numerous times in the New Testament. But, as far as I can see, the bible is largely silent on what kind of societal laws Christians should advocate for given that Jesus is not expecting (or wanting) us to set up Christian 'kingdoms'.
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
Reply #145 - January 13, 2009, 02:39 PM

Sparky, how did "preserving the Israelites" require stoning homosexuals? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- Saif Rahman
- Ex-Muslim
- Je suis Haram
- offline
Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
Reply #146 - January 13, 2009, 02:40 PM

Quote from: sparky on January 13, 2009, 02:06 PM
Why is it ok for the Israelites to kill people that God had commanded them to kill? Because God commanded them to do it!

[/quote]
NB: This quote is not from Al-Qaeda, it is actually from Sparky

9/11 was due to certain religious fundamentalists doing what they felt God had ordained them to do. We can't question this act though, as according to Sparky, their God had commanded them to do it.

Unless, of course, it comes from any source other than the Bible.

My Book
My Blog
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
Reply #147 - January 13, 2009, 02:41 PM

^ ^ ^ This.

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- sparky
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
Reply #148 - January 13, 2009, 02:41 PM

Quote from: osmanthus on January 13, 2009, 02:11 PM
Quote from: sparky on January 13, 2009, 02:06 PM
Why is it ok for the Israelites to kill people that God had commanded them to kill? Because God commanded them to do it!

Lovely. And of course you can prove this?

Mind you the problem isn't as great as it may seem since the OT contains almost no historical content at all and is primarily mythology, which means nobody got killed anyway. It's still an extremely nasty story though. It brings to mind things like the Holocaust and the Rwanda massacres.

Don't be dense. In the context of this discussion, it's assumed that God commanded them to do it. Otherwise it's a discussion about nothing at all.
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: Readings from the "Holy Book"
Reply #149 - January 13, 2009, 02:44 PM

Quote from: sparky on January 13, 2009, 02:41 PM
Quote from: osmanthus on January 13, 2009, 02:11 PM
Quote from: sparky on January 13, 2009, 02:06 PM
Why is it ok for the Israelites to kill people that God had commanded them to kill? Because God commanded them to do it!

Lovely. And of course you can prove this?

Mind you the problem isn't as great as it may seem since the OT contains almost no historical content at all and is primarily mythology, which means nobody got killed anyway. It's still an extremely nasty story though. It brings to mind things like the Holocaust and the Rwanda massacres.

Don't be dense. In the context of this discussion, it's assumed that God commanded them to do it. Otherwise it's a discussion about nothing at all.

You seem to be missing the point again. You are the one who makes the assumption that a putative deity really did give the orders. Other people are not so certain of this and think that perhaps people just made it up. The barbarity of it is one of the things that makes them think this. I notice that once again you are resorting to insults. Keep digging, Sparky.

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
Previous page 1 ... 3 4 56 7 ... 17 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »