(January 5, 2009 at 10:49 pm)FutureAndAHope Wrote:

(January 5, 2009 at 3:35 pm)bozo Wrote: As to what divine guidance you say you receive, let's just say I think you are deluded.

I'm not sure you undestood my example but it was certainly not delusion. I was wondering if I should sue someone, I prayed about it, opened up my bible randomly selected a verse by sticking my finger on it, and it was the only verse in the whole bible on law suits, and it said "It is wrong for you to take out law suits against one another". How many verses are there in the whole bible 100,000's at least. You are deluded if you attribute that to anything other than God.

So you think that God is more probable than that being a coincidence? Certainly not. God is more complex and improbable than the universe itself.

God is practically infinitely improbable. It could land on that verse billions of times and its still not as improbable as God.

And it doesn't even point to God anyway! How could that not be proof of Zeus or the FSM just as easily?

Even the truth of that one verse would not confirm the truth of the rest of the bible. Especially with all the contradictions!

How do you know it wasn't Zeus or the FSM that inspired the writings of the bible? Or (or and/or) that God is a liar?

Or that God prefers atheists over believers?

A verse in the bible does not prove God.

God saying he exists in the bible. And then even if every single time you landed on that verse you mentioned. How on earth would that prove that God exists? Or if he exists (and in practice he just doesn't) - that he was telling the truth?

God is extremely improbable and he almost certainly doesn't exist. Its more probable for the universe to come out of nowhere than God to be there right from the start! If you need God to explain the universe (when the explanation he 'gives' causes much more of a problem than an explanation) why on earth don't you need something to explain God?

How do you decide that God doesn't need an explanation but everything else does? You decide - oh well God explains himself?

Yet you wouldn't (and rightly you wouldn't) say the universe explains itself would you? So why on earth do you make an exception for God?

Next you'll be telling me the bible interprets itself.
evf

(January 6, 2009 at 1:20 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Next you'll be telling me the bible interprets itself.
evf

Wait.....it's not?

Well either you take it literally or you don't. There has to be a mind to interpret it lol.

Different people make sense of it differently. It of course doesn't interpret itself. There has to be interpreters.

I know you might have just been joking (lol) but in case you thought interpreting itself would mean a literal interpretation I don't know. But even that is a interpretation by people. How couldn't it be? Its just a literal interpretation and its more consistent than cherry-picking and only being literal when you want to or 'think you should'. There has to be an interpretor things don't interpret themselves. Even the literal interpretation. Its more consistent but it still needs an interpreter lol. And if you pick and choose and cherry-pick you can't then say that the bible interprets itself when you are interpreting it yourself, for example, etc.

Even though you were probably just joking! I wanted to say some more on the matter anyway.

And also in case you misunderstood me and were thinking of the literal interpretation as being a way the bible interprets itself or something. And those who aren't total literal fundamentalists certainly (I do not think, I don't see how) can't claim that the bible interprets itself.
evf

(January 4, 2009 at 10:17 am)Demonaura Wrote: His book commands him to kill me, specifically and clearly with no room for interpretation.

The bible does not command that you be killed at all. Jesus who is God said "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you or despitefully use you".

Death penalties in the bible were to scare people into submission. The penalties were rearly carried out. David committed adultery, for which the penalty was death, God sent a prophet to him to rebuke him, but he did not kill him, he let him off. Jesus also did not stone to death a woman caught in adultery in the New Testiment. He said to those who demanded here death, "let the one with out sin cast the first stone at her." No one was with out sin so they all left.

God loves people, he does not kill them. Only miss information would twist the bible as justification for death or war.

Of course they were carried out, theres plenty in the history books for that one. People these days just can't imagine the mindset of the middle ages and how desperate people were. And you're trying to tell me that "gods word" includes idle threats to scare you into doing what is 'right'? Is doing the right thing not reason enough?

You can point to examples of mercy but, all it does is add one more contradictions to the bible.

The passage is very specific, so aside from telling me that it was an idle threat ment to bully and scare people into submission (benevolent? HA!) I don't suppose theres anything else you'd like to say about:

He that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. -- Leviticus 24:16

Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death. -- Exodus 31:14 (killing those who work Sundays)

He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. -- Exodus 21:17 (killing those who curse their parents)

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. -- Leviticus 20:13 (killing homosexuals)

He that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. -- Exodus 21:16 (Killing those who steal/sell SLAVES. Slavery is mean btw, and mean people suck)

He that sacrificeth unto any god save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed. -- Exodus 22:20 (Destroying someone for the simple act of not worshiping YOUR god.)


I assume you get the point?

And yes I am a little touchy on this one.

EDIT: I realise of course it's not a command to kill the person yourself. Escept the first which specifies that the people are supposed to kill the person.

Demonaura, your reply has shown that FutureAndAHope was not correct in his earlier post. I have a big problem with these killings that we see commanded in the OT. Some would say that 'do not murder' is not the same as killing someone. For instance, in a war situation, when one soldier kills another, it is not regarded as murder, although of course all killing is morally wrong or objectionable. Just as we humans pass judgement to take someone's life e.g in a war situation, capital punishment, so too does God (so it is claimed) exercise the right to take a human's life. On occasions (if we are to believe the OT accounts) humans have been the executioners on behalf of God's rulings. I do have a problem with this because of the contrast in the teachings of Christ. He does not command anyone to kill anyone, but rather the opposite: love your enemies etc. No Christian is commanded to kill anyone.

No Christian is commanded to kill anyone? Maybe not by Jesus but Christians are supposed to follow the whole Bible aren't they? { thinking }

I seem to remember passages in the bible where it talks about killing your wife on your wedding night if you find out she is not a virgin and the stoning of children who misbehave.

What about these little pieces of wisdom from that great book?

Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Kill Witches

You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

Kill Homosexuals

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Kill Fortunetellers

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Death for Hitting Dad

Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

Death for Cursing Parents

1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)

2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

Death for Adultery

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

Source


Either Christians are committed to follow the teachings of the Bible or they are not. And if the bible teaches these things then surely it is a form of commandment, even if it is only by example? Does this mean that Jesus is rejecting the teachings of the OT?

From Matthew: '767. Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. 5:17' -SAB

And on many other occasions I've heard Jesus does not object to any of the OT at all. He says he has come not to destroy the OT law but to fulfil it.

Also from Matthew: 'Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword." 10:34-36' - SAB

From Luke:
And In the parable of the talents, Jesus says that God takes what is not rightly his, and reaps what he didn't sow. The parable ends with the words: "bring them [those who preferred not to be ruled by him] hither, and slay them before me." 19:22-27 - SAB.

19:27 "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." - From Luke.

Darwinian, this is how I understand this problem of killings or murders. In the OT which you quote from, God used humans to execute His judgements. (I don't know why He chose to do that??) At other times He killed people Himself via angels usually. Jesus, if He is who He claims to be, is the Creator of the universe and all life. He would view these killings as 'just' , in the same way he talks of people being destroyed at the 'End'. The contrast in how Jesus (when He was on the Earth) dealt with 'crimes' that 'deserved' the death penalty e.g the woman caught in adultery and his famous words: 'he who is without sin cast the first stone', demonstrates a desire to extend mercy and forgiveness even though you are still guilty of the said crime and this is in stark contrast to how things were done up to His establishing the New Covenant. Jesus seems to be saying: love your enemies etc, pray for those who want to hurt you etc, leave the 'judging' to me. When I return I will sort things out. The 'return' is going to involve millions of deaths in the battle of Armageddon, but these temporary deaths will be put into context, when people are resurrected to everlasting life.

The death penalty still stands. We still all die. The 'taking' of human life or DEATH seems to be the catalyst of the whole Bible. From the very beginning it is claimed that God decreed the death sentence on humans because of 'sin', so if this is true then our eventual deaths are a 'death penalty' just as if God struck us down. It's the reversal of this death process or rather the workings out of God's plan to reverse it (in which He allegedly took part in the death process), that makes up the bible. Death, killings, murder are not always going to be a reality, so the Bible claims. 'Everlasting Life' is the gift we can receive from God through Jesus, so the Bible claims.

---

(January 8, 2009 at 9:38 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: From Matthew: '767. Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. 5:17' -SAB

And on many other occasions I've heard Jesus does not object to any of the OT at all. He says he has come not to destroy the OT law but to fulfil it.

Also from Matthew: 'Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword." 10:34-36' - SAB

From Luke:
And In the parable of the talents, Jesus says that God takes what is not rightly his, and reaps what he didn't sow. The parable ends with the words: "bring them [those who preferred not to be ruled by him] hither, and slay them before me." 19:22-27 - SAB.

19:27 "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." - From Luke.

Evf, I think I've shown above, how Jesus accepted the Mosaic Covenant and all its laws and how He 'fulfilled' the Mosaic Covenant with a new covenant that involved his own shed blood and death, mercy, forgiveness and how we leave judgments to God and live our lives like Christ did, loving and forgiving others.

When Jesus mentions that families will be destroyed as a result of Him, He is talking about the unavoidable consequences of families that don't all accept Him as the saviour. Back then, the Romans killed the Christians, so can you image a family where some didn't believe and carried on living, and some did believe and so were killed? These 'divisions' are human reactions and obviously cause heartache, but it isn't something that Jesus 'wanted' to happen.

You cite a part of the parable in Luke: ''you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.'' I think we need to get this into context with the rest of the parable. If we suppose that this King represents Jesus, then in a way, some of the planting and sowing, is being done by his followers. He assigns work or responsibilities to people and expects them to do what is required of them. And of course we are back to the death penalty which we know Jesus is in agreement with.

I admit I do see that particular issue in an odd way. After making that post I actually talked with Matt Dillahunty from the ACA for a little advice on such passages and how they tend to be interpereted.

Indeed they are interpereted in many ways, and can be interpereted in ANY way but, using other parts of the bible to define the bible itself I find it resonable to read these passages and see the christians are expected to do gods will, which in the case of the many verses mentioned above, is murder.

But I did go off my handle just a little lol.

Also CR, you make a very good point I think. If I'm understanding it right then basically, if I commit these sins (such as cursing gods name) then it may not be a christians job to do the deed but, to trust that god will judge and shorten my lifespan himself if he concludes I deserve it.

However I have seen nothing out there to even hint that god influences us at all, all religion influence we have seems to be the work of mortal men and women. Thus I will still conclude that if there is a god, it is up to mortals to spread his word and will.