My honest review of Christianity

[Lek]

Yeah, interpret away all that active language: "I will bring," "I will take," "I will give," and "I will bring down," and call it "allow." Why not? I'm sure all God meant was I'll let people have free will to hurt you.

Did he also just let David and Bathsheba's son die, or did he mean it when he said: "The Lord has remitted your sin, you shall not die. However since you have spurned the enemies of the Lord by this deed, even the child about to be born to you shall die."

So David's sin is remitted in return for the life of an innocent child. God's justice. Gotta love it.

Do you think that Pharaoh in the Exodus account was really a nice guy and would have let the Israelites go if God would not have hardened his heart? God was allowing the evil in Pharaoh to harden him to the demands of Moses. We won't agree on the taking of the life of David's child either, since you don't believe that the baby went to an eternity of happiness, but that's the biblical outlook concerning that child and all the innocent children killed in the bible. Maybe it would be better if they had lived longer and died some other horrible, more painful death. Maybe by then they would have reached the age of reason and died rejecting God. If you don't believe that there is an afterlife, then you'll interpret the bible differently than if you do. If I believed we weren't guilty of turning against God and that there was no life after this one, then I might agree with you, but that's not the perspective of the scriptures.

[Aractus]

Deuteronomy 20:10-14
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

There are many more.

What does that have to do with adults having sex with prepubescent children? Nothing, that's what.

[Vivalarevolution]

Hey this is not related to anything you're talking about because I was out of touch with what you were discussing. But I wish to add my feelings on the OP's first question.
I do not feel that the bible is to be taken literally and as divinely inspired.
Moreover, I think it could be potentially dangerous if you're thoughts on the subjects in the bible are rigid. What good is a rigid mind not open to acceptance of change and constructive criticism?
And even as a faithful christian I am against telling children about 6 day creation and that they're going to hell for a sin someone in the past did ( I know your reaction . . . I'll explain what my denomination believes later.)
It was okay in the past to base your understanding of the world with what was written on papyrus. The world has changed and our worldviews also need to change with it. Believing something else than what was written in the bible doesn't mean you can't be Christian.
1) the first seven books- Genesis, exodus, leviticus, numbers, deuteronomy, Joshua, judges was a set of narratives composed over centuries. I and many others do not take this to be factual. Sure some parts may really have happened, but in my opinion it's just written to explain the glory of god and what he did do for Israel.
2) Ruth, samuels, kings, chronicles may or may not be factual, but I think they are generally considered historical right? I'm going to finish reading 1 Samuel now but I don't think I'm going to make a claim whether they really happened or not.
3) writings- I'll be honest I haven't reached here yet, but from what I've seen they just seem like pieces of literature about god (Don't mention song of Solomon)
4) haven't read latter books like Daniel yet so no clue
5) gospels are just narrations of the life of jesus by various authors intended for various recipients. Matthew is more understandable for jews while luke is more apt for gentiles. To explain why I believe the gospels, would take a whole other thread.
6) apart from pauls conversion, I don't see anything in acts which could be contradicted by known history. I could be wrong though. I'm open to correction.
7) last writings- revelations and the epistles are just basically letters that have been found and compiled. Their original existence is unquestionable. Whether their content speaks truth is another issue.

So no, I don't blindly believe the bible , nor do I hold it sacred. It just provides me with the authors' insights as how they viewed god in their time. It allows me to understand what they felt about the creator and how views changed over 1500 years. There are stories which aim to put god in a picture which is suitable for the people. Doesn't mean I think they're right though. It's just that through the writings I can see the "evolution of worship. "
You know how literature is like a window to a nation's culture. Similarly, the stories of how they comprehended god serves as an insight into the culture that jesus was born in (and how his inclusion changed all that)
But the difference between new testament and old is that there is no longer a need for writings of gods witness. Jesus served as proof to the character of god witnessed by hundreds. So authors couldn't interpret god as they wished (as they could in old testament). Here there was a definite picture which had little chance of being changed or corrupted. The letters and all just magnify the greater picture that's all.

Sorry if it's too long. I just keep writing and writing

---

And just now I've realised I posted in the wrong thread so I feel like a jackass :p

[dyresand]

Numbers 31:18. Earliest case of pedophilia in the Bible

[Jenny A]

Yeah, interpret away all that active language: "I will bring," "I will take," "I will give," and "I will bring down," and call it "allow." Why not? I'm sure all God meant was I'll let people have free will to hurt you.

Did he also just let David and Bathsheba's son die, or did he mean it when he said: "The Lord has remitted your sin, you shall not die. However since you have spurned the enemies of the Lord by this deed, even the child about to be born to you shall die."

So David's sin is remitted in return for the life of an innocent child. God's justice. Gotta love it.

Do you think that Pharaoh in the Exodus account was really a nice guy and would have let the Israelites go if God would not have hardened his heart? God was allowing the evil in Pharaoh to harden him to the demands of Moses. We won't agree on the taking of the life of David's child either, since you don't believe that the baby went to an eternity of happiness, but that's the biblical outlook concerning that child and all the innocent children killed in the bible. Maybe it would be better if they had lived longer and died some other horrible, more painful death. Maybe by then they would have reached the age of reason and died rejecting God. If you don't believe that there is an afterlife, then you'll interpret the bible differently than if you do. If I believed we weren't guilty of turning against God and that there was no life after this one, then I might agree with you, but that's not the perspective of the scriptures.

Exodus is a little different . The Bible says god hardened pharaoh's heart. It does not say and god said I will harden pharaoh's heart because you Jews have been misbehaving. You do see the difference. One is a metaphor, the other a promise of punishment.

We could discuss the Jewish view of heaven all day, but fact remains that according to the Bible, god punished a man by killing a child.

[dyresand]

Do you think that Pharaoh in the Exodus account was really a nice guy and would have let the Israelites go if God would not have hardened his heart? God was allowing the evil in Pharaoh to harden him to the demands of Moses. We won't agree on the taking of the life of David's child either, since you don't believe that the baby went to an eternity of happiness, but that's the biblical outlook concerning that child and all the innocent children killed in the bible. Maybe it would be better if they had lived longer and died some other horrible, more painful death. Maybe by then they would have reached the age of reason and died rejecting God. If you don't believe that there is an afterlife, then you'll interpret the bible differently than if you do. If I believed we weren't guilty of turning against God and that there was no life after this one, then I might agree with you, but that's not the perspective of the scriptures.

Exodus is a little different . The Bible says god hardened pharaoh's heart. It does not say and god said I will harden pharaoh's heart because you Jews have been misbehaving. You do see the difference. One is a metaphor, the other a promise of punishment.

We could discuss the Jewish view of heaven all day, but fact remains that according to the Bible, god punished a man by killing a child.

that part with the pharaoh is redundant he did that so he could be "righteous in killing the innocent." god is evil. <- if its a metaphor well its one pretty fucked up metaphor.

[Chas]

Deuteronomy 20:10-14
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

There are many more.

What does that have to do with adults having sex with prepubescent children? Nothing, that's what.

That one's just rape, I guess that's OK.

[dyresand]

What does that have to do with adults having sex with prepubescent children? Nothing, that's what.

That one's just rape, I guess that's OK.

logically speaking god is okay with rape because he gets more followers with a immoral act and says its moral.
biblical rape babies and such..

[Lek]

Numbers 31:18. Earliest case of pedophilia in the Bible

18 But keep alive for yourselves all the young girls who have not known a man intimately.

This is not talking about pedophilia. They were keeping alive the young virgins so they could eventually be brides. This isn't allowing them to rape these girls.

[Chas]

Numbers 31:18. Earliest case of pedophilia in the Bible

18 But keep alive for yourselves all the young girls who have not known a man intimately.

This is not talking about pedophilia. They were keeping alive the young virgins so they could eventually be brides. This isn't allowing them to rape these girls.

Sure they were. Uh huh. You keep telling yourself that.