Biblical Morality

[Kyuuketsuki]

Damned RatCatchers!!!! I got 8%

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

0%.

Well, you learn something everyday, and today I learnt that I'm not an incredibly immoral barbarian! Yippee!

[fr0d0]

And of course you ignored my statement that the bible has slavery, murder, rape, incest, and genocide. We, or at least most of us, seem to know that those things are immoral but the bible doesn't follow. If you want a wife you rape her and then pay her father to marry her. Is that moral? Come on, yo
u know it's not because we've moved past that archaic morality. If you claim a book is absolutely true and the infallible word of god, then you MUST think all the above is correct and moral.

hock:

Have you been on the wine gums? You'd have to be incredibly naive to believe what you just said IMHO.

As for contradictions, if you assert that there are none that "hold water" than you either haven't done any serious of study of the bible and blindly assert it's all true, or you conveniently ignore any contradictions that conflict with your view, which is
the height of stupidity.

Apologies. I didn't realise that I was addressing such a learned bible scholar.

Seriously, you are coming here to an atheist forum and from what I see all your response are "No it's not!". How about some evidence to back up your statements. Oh, that's right, you don't think evidence has anything to say about god. So why are you here? Do you seriously think you could convince anyone of anything with your simple assertions?

I posted a simple logical idea for people to refute. Apologies if I was assuming this to be a place of free thinking and logical discourse. That must be somewhere else..

[Edwardo Piet]

There is no substance to anything you say about God, evidence or faith it seems. The only alternative to evidence that you suggested you won't actually display. Waste of time so far I think.

[fr0d0]

There is no substance to anything you say about God, evidence or faith it seems. The only alternative to evidence that you suggested you won't actually display. Waste of time so far I think.

Blimey I've known less aggressive raging evangelists than you EvF. Way to go!

[Even Adam]

Blimey I've known less aggressive raging evangelists than you EvF. Way to go!

How about responding to the substance of the post, rather than the manner in which you perceived it to have been written?

[fr0d0]

How about responding to the substance of the post, rather than the manner in which you perceived it to have been written?

Because he's referring to a topic where I've answered him clearly several times, and he's seeking to undermine me here.

I have no problem discussing my belief or lack of belief, I'm just not up for being bullied into it.

[Eilonnwy]

What I said is not absurd. Here is the proof:

22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

So if you rape a woman you have to then pay her father to marry her.

If you claim that the bible is the source of infallible truth and complete morality then by your own claim you must agree with it. If you don't, then it is not infallible, it is not completely moral. It is as simple as that, I'm sorry you have a hard time understanding it.

[Edwardo Piet]

How about responding to the substance of the post, rather than the manner in which you perceived it to have been written?

Because he's referring to a topic where I've answered him clearly several times, and he's seeking to undermine me here.

I have no problem discussing my belief or lack of belief, I'm just not up for being bullied into it.

Yep you answered me there alright. And I answered you. Evidence is rational. But you say its irrational regards to God. Yet your only alternative you won't display.

What are we talking about exactly then?

Impotent topic that goes nowhere? (I'm talking about your topic not this one, I didn't bring it up first).

Now if you want to carry on with this innane banter (or perhaps even display an alternative or somehow get somewhere) then it should be done back there.

And I'm not undermining you, I was responding to what you said. In context.

[fr0d0]

What I said is not absurd. Here is the proof:

22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

So if you rape a woman you have to then pay her father to marry her.

If you claim that the bible is the source of infallible truth and complete morality then by your own claim you must agree with it. If you don't, then it is not infallible, it is not completely moral. It is as simple as that, I'm sorry you have a hard time understanding it.

That's not proof! It's a cultural directive relevant to it's time, and of relevance to us now if we understand it's meaning to them then, which we do.

Like I said, none of those so called debunks hold water.

---

And I'm not undermining you, I was responding to what you said. In context.

You are trying to undermine/ bully me! The question is of no relevance there, and just a snide snipe here. Rail it in a bit.