What is Digg?318 Comments
- Justathought, on 10/12/2007, -122/+305All right, I'll bite. Here are my thoughts on this.
On Punishing ‘Immorality’
Yes, this standards seem too high for most people today. But, one thing to keep in mind is that God only gave those laws to the ancient nation of Israel. After miraculously taking them out of their slavery condition in Egypt, he made a special pact with them which they accepted as can be seen in Exodus 24:3:
"Then Moses came and related to the people all the words of Jehovah and all the judicial decisions, and all the people answered with one voice and said: “All the words that Jehovah has spoken we are willing to do.. . .'
If they stayed by these laws he would reward them with many blessings and they would prosper. Deuteronomy 28:1-...:
“And it must occur that if you will without fail listen to the voice of Jehovah your God by being careful to do all his commandments that I am commanding you today, Jehovah your God also will certainly put you high above all other nations of the earth. 2 And all these blessings must come upon you and overtake you, because you keep listening to the voice of Jehovah your God..."
On the other hand, if they strayed from that law they would not enjoy God's special protection and blessing. This would result in a lot of heartache and the eventual dissolution of the pact between them. Nevertheless, God's purpose would be fulfilled either way. A new pact would be formed, under different conditions, which would in fact be successful. For example, Jeremiah made mention of this in Jeremiah 31:31-32:
“Look! There are days coming,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “and I will conclude with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant; not one like the covenant that I concluded with their forefathers in the day of my taking hold of their hand to bring them forth out of the land of Egypt, ‘which covenant of mine they themselves broke, although I myself had husbandly ownership of them,’ is the utterance of Jehovah.”
The apostle Paul, under inspiration from God, was instrumental in explaining all of this, especially in its letter to the Hebrews (that is to the Christians still living in Judea at the time). He explained how the pact that God made between the nation of Israel and himself, was no longer binding. They were now free from that law, that is, free from the obligation of obeying every aspect of that law. However, a new set of of laws were giving under Christ which they needed to obey (Galatians 6:2). Those that choose to live by that new law will inherit many blessings. (Psalms 37:10,11,29; Proverbs 2:21, 22; Rev 31:3,4)
On Destroying Other People
Again, this were specific instructions given to the Israelites for a specific set of circumstances. They were to be used by God as an instrument of execution against a land that was completely corrupt. This judgment by God is similar to what God decided to do with the pre-flood world and with Sodom and Gomorrah.
On the Evil of Biblical Law
You have to read that in context. Just adding one adjacent verse helps to clarify the meaning.
Ezekiel 20:24-26:
for the reason that they did not carry out my own judicial decisions and they rejected my own statutes and they profaned my own sabbaths, and it was after the dungy idols of their forefathers that their eyes proved to be. 25 And I myself also let them have regulations that were not good and judicial decisions by which they could not keep living. 26 And I would let them become defiled by their gifts when [they] made every child opening the womb pass through [the fire], in order that I might make them desolate, in order that they might know that I am Jehovah.”’
Here God explains why he would abandon the nation of Israel to its enemies, it is because they rejected his law and decided to live by different moral standards. Yes he allowed them to do it, he did not interfere with their free will, but he did not approve of it. See for example:
(Jeremiah 32:35) Furthermore, they built the high places of Ba′al that are in the valley of the son of Hin′nom, in order to make their sons and their daughters pass through [the fire] to Mo′lech, a thing that I did not command them, neither did it come up into my heart to do this detestable thing, for the purpose of making Judah sin.’
Well, my lunch period is over. But, you get the idea. All of these "scary" quotes can be reconciled quite easily with the understanding that indeed, "God is love" (1 John 4:8). There are people set out to discredit God. But in the end, he will be sanctified and his sovereignty will be vindicated. Bye. - trunkster, on 10/12/2007, -36/+144The Old Testament can be pretty scary but most of it was for Israel during those times. The worst thing someone can do is just start reading the bible expecting to understand it, you have to know who that book is specifically written for and also use some study tools to go along.
- robbyjo, on 10/12/2007, -42/+131@polarforilla: Okay, New Testament...
The problem with these quotations is that they're taken way out of context. For example: "On Slavery & Subjugation of Women":
It's unfair to take Ephesian 5:22-24 alone without referring to verse 21, which is "Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ." (KJV) Quotation taken out of context is way misleading. Not to mention that the purpose of that passage, which is contained in verses 25-33. Even in verse 25: "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;" (KJV)
Now, tell me where on earth does this passage imply women subjugation?
The same goes to 1 Peter 2:13, 18. Way out of context. Especially taking out verse 16 (KJV): "As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God." Which means, as a master, do not abuse your privilege.
Now, tell me where on earth does this passage condone utter slavery?
These are just two examples. The rest can be beaten out similarly. I'm just tired of typing. - Quakes, on 10/12/2007, -18/+57@robbyjo
You pick two claims to refute, then leave the rest... I want to hear what you have to say about the rest.
Such as
(7) (Jesus speaking)
John 5:31 If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid.
John 8:14 Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid.
If this is somehow taken out of context, please enlighten me. There is also
(5) (Jesus speaking)
John 14:27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you.
Matthew 10:34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
and
Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Exodus 32:14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.
Please, I'm very curious to hear your conclusions when it comes to these passages. - 60days, on 10/12/2007, -18/+56Does it matter if the laws were temporary/superceded? A 'perfect' being was still commanding people to act in a horrific, brutal manner (strangely similar to the worst of human behaviour when left to its own devices). Doesn't really give them any authority on morality imo.
- dalenotchip, on 10/12/2007, -5/+43The real problem lies here.
As soon as someone points out these texts in the old testament people are quick to defend the bible saying that it was for a different people at a different time or the whole out of context argument. Yet, it is the old testament that the same people use to ban gay marriage and defend a war. - robbyjo, on 10/12/2007, -21/+56@Quake: This is pretty much a situation I really dislike. I refute two claims and others jump in claiming that there are 12378961241827562 others still unanswered. This is the final one since I've got to go to sleep. I'm no professional. I'm very certain that I'm the least capable of answering these questions.
--------------
"(7) (Jesus speaking)
John 5:31 If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid.
John 8:14 Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid."
Same goes to both: Look at the context. As for John 5:31, the context goes from verse 30 to 33 (YLT):
"I am not able of myself to do anything; according as I hear I judge, and my judgment is righteous, because I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father who sent me.
31 If I testify concerning myself, my testimony is not true;
32 another there is who is testifying concerning me, and I have known that the testimony that he doth testify concerning me is true;
33 ye have sent unto John, and he hath testified to the truth. "
I think it's pretty clear here that what the passage is telling us that Jesus is pretty much saying: "If you consider me a human, my testimony of myself isn't valid. But hey, I've got another witness that testifies for me too."
Now, as of John 8:14, the context starts from verse 13 to 18 (YLT):
"13 The Pharisees, therefore, said to him, `Thou of thyself dost testify, thy testimony is not true;'
14 Jesus answered and said to them, `And if I testify of myself--my testimony is true, because I have known whence I came, and whither I go, and ye--ye have not known whence I come, or whither I go.
15 `Ye according to the flesh do judge; I do not judge any one,
16 and even if I do judge my judgment is true, because I am not alone, but I and the Father who sent me;
17 and also in your law it hath been written, that the testimony of two men are true;
18 I am one who is testifying of myself, and the Father who sent me doth testify of me.'"
Jesus is answering the same question thrown by a pharisee. Jesus is essentially answering, "Even if I testify upon myself, my testimony is valid /because/ I am one with the Father, who sent me."
Context makes things clearer.
---------
(5) (Jesus speaking)
John 14:27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you.
Matthew 10:34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
About this: Who is "you" Jesus referring to in John 14:27? To his followers. Heck, the word "you" in chapter 14 refers to his followers (see verse 12: "Verily, verily, I say to you, he who is believing in me, the works that I do--that one also shall do..." (YLT))
Whereas in Matthew 10:34: Jesus spoke about his second coming. Pretty clear if you read the entire chapter 10.
Now, does "peace" means his followers shall be exempted from future troubles? No. You'll need to delve deeper on the peace subject. It's pretty lengthy to discuss here. The gist is that inner peace is independent from external situation because peace is from Christ.
----------
and
"Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Exodus 32:14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened."
God's nature never changes. Now, what is God's nature? Love. His love to mankind never change. On the other hand, he has a sense of justice. That's why, when he punished humans, there's a balance between justice and love. In many verses of Psalm, you'll read that God's slow to anger, quick to forgive, etc. This never changes.
In context of Numbers 23:19, what does the context say? Look from verse 16 to 23. It's clear that with verse 19, God edified his blessings upon Israel despite Balak's request to Balaam to curse Israel. That's against God's nature of Love.
So, no contradictions.
That's it. I'm tired. - bobbknight, on 10/12/2007, -35/+62Lame for pulling text out of context.
- robbyjo, on 10/12/2007, -21/+48Seriously, people, if you pick a "contradiction", better pick Young Literal Translation (YLT) or New American Standard Bible (NASB) than NIV. NIV is geared more toward readability, not accuracy. YLT and NASB are designed for more accuracy.
Also, remember that all translations WILL, inevitably, lose some meaning / insights. Double check with its original language (Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic, depending on the passage). Compare them with quotations of all theologians since some verse may have different finer insights. Why? Because theologians typically study Bible much longer than you do. If you speak up much dissonance, the chance is... you're wrong. There are some controversial passages in the Bible. Better look it up and do your home work before you pick random passages and throw some strawman arguments.
I'm getting way tired of seeing many people trying to bash Bible on the basis of controversies without bothering to understand it first. - robbyjo, on 10/12/2007, -51/+74@synystar:
Let me ask you: Does 1 + 1 = 2 ever change? Does the axioms of arithmetics ever change? Why not? Is it applicable today? Why? The same reasoning goes for the revelation of Biblical truth.
If you mean "expanding the Bible" equals to adapting the Biblical truth to the modern world, then people already are, to some extent. Whether you realize it or not.
The core message of the Bible is Love and Love never fails, as the Bible says: "The love doth never fail; and whether there be prophecies, they shall become useless; whether tongues, they shall cease; whether knowledge, it shall become useless; for in part we know, and in part we prophecy; and when that which is perfect may come, then that which is in part shall become useless." (1 Corinthians 13:8-10, YLT) Such unfailing love is the message that Jesus wanted us to believe wholeheartedly.
Now, there are always controversial issues like abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, etc. I think the problem is the perception of love of one person is different from another person. Sometimes both sides are justifiable if you even try to fit in to their shoes. The problem is, people never want to do that and judge instead. It happens both sides: Religious AND non-religious people. Right now, religious people are in the limelight and scrutinized, especially by media, creating negative sentiments. People just fail to realize that religious people are also mere mortals that are equally sinful (and therefore no better) in the eyes of God. Now, if both sides relent and recognize their shortcomings and accept each other, the entire world will be at peace.
I think, the gist of Christianity is, admit that ourselves are sinful, believe in Jesus Christ that we are pardoned of our sins, then do the unconditional love just like Christ did. Other than that, there's virtually nothing separates Christians with others. With this in mind, Christians should never judge others. Likewise, lampooning the Bible in the light of Christ's unconditional love is ridiculous. - PatrickFisher, on 10/12/2007, -22/+45@quakes
First of all, I'd like to state that I am not Christian. I do not believe in everything the bible preaches. I do, however, hate ignorance. I think that people should read a book before they comment on it and it's wrongness. I would do this same sort of thing if someone were to comment stupidly on Harry Potter without having read all of the books.
Here we go:
From http://www.carm.org/jw/John5_30.htm
"I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 31"If I alone bear witness of Myself, My testimony is not true. 32 "There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the testimony which He bears of Me is true," John 30-32 NASB
And paraphrasing the site, this says that Jesus is God, but while he is on earth, he must follow the laws of man, which say that he can not testify as God.
Now, John 8:14
"Jesus replied to [the pharisees], "Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is true because I know where I came from and where I'm going. However, you don't know where I came from or where I'm going. "
In this case, he is saying that he can testify because he is not speaking as God, but on behalf of God. He knows God (because ultimately, he is God), therefore, he can testify for God. This is very realistic. If I knew you, quake, I could tell people what you're like, what you do for a living, and what you want to do in this life, but I cannot say: "My name is Quake. I am 6' tall, and I'm a professional stripper. I want to get married and have three children."
Do you see what I mean?
The second section is even easier to explain. Jesus is promising peace of mind, and peace of spirit. He does not EVER promise peace on earth, until he "comes again".
Now, in the changing his mind thing:
from allwords.com:
relent: 1. To become less severe or unkind; to soften;
He did not really change his mind. He simply took pity with the people. God is allowed to take pity, you know. - freexe, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24robbyjo, you are clearly well studied in the Bible and it's nice to see a balance to all the bible bashing that goes on here.
Is it possible for you to give me some incite into why you have so much faith in the Bible. It was written many years after Jesus (as far as I'm aware) and seems very complex. There are also other books from the same period that are not included and so never have any publicity, do you think these are important? Do you 100% trust the scholars that chose to leave them out, we all know how power can corrupt...
Do you not think that someone like yourself could write a book with similar meaning but without all the complexity, contradictions and dare I say faith, that people of any religion could use as a book to guide them?
I'm not trying to attack you, I'm interested in a reply as I don't get a chance to talk to intelligent religious folk often. - otheus, on 10/12/2007, -14/+28The article provides a *sampling* or quotes from which one can conclude it is reasonable to reject teachings of the Bible (and can be applied to the Koran, Pearl of Great Price, etc). Since the teachings of Scripture are typically central in belief in a religion, the article goes to undermine belief in the world's major Western religions (so, NOT Hinduism or Buddhism).
The logic goes, for the respective religions, like this: "Our Book is written by an Immutable / Perfect God, therefore our Book is perfect, therefore our Book can be relied upon for the source of all morality." (Christianity, Islam, and Mormonism all add an asterisk to all previous recognized works, claiming the previous works are under an old contract, not properly translated, etc.) Therefore, finding an imperfection or an obvious immoral directive completely undermines the legitimacy and dogma of the respective religions.
The apologists and defenders of Faith then predictably pull out their obvious counter-arguments. The arguments typically fall into one of several categories: (1) "That's taken out of (scriptural) context..." (2) "There were cultural differences and people in those days...." (3) "This fell under the provenance of the old covenant / prophet and was superseded by the the new covenant / prophet...." (4) "That's a minor miscalculation / measurement / misunderstanding / mistranslation...." (5) Man wrote the words according to God's will / instruction, and he used words and described things in his language, not in the language of modern science." [this is a little different than (1) or (2)].
All of these, except perhaps #5, lead to the inevitable conclusion: to know anything about Scripture, and therefore God, you must listen to ones Spiritual Authorities. Independent study of Scripture, when it is even allowed, is tolerated as long as one doesn't get too independent. For the believer, this means one must go to church / mosque and "group Bible studies" and "Sunday school" (I'm not sure of the Islam equivalent here). For the skeptic, this means one might as well just go about figuring out how to live life on ones own.
There is another conclusion to be drawn from all this: when "fundamentalists" (of any sort) rely on their Scripture for morality they attempt to impose on others, it because they somehow have a logical double standard -- which one can demonstrate by pulling out selected quotes from these articles, hearing the fundamentalist's defense, and applying that defense in spades to *every other scriptural teaching*. If, however, the fundamentalist agrees to every "scary" dogma in Scripture, then there is every reason to believe that person is, well, a very dangerous person indeed. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16Ok, maybe a lot of people in the digg community are agnostic/athiest, and maybe they are just sick of hearing about how perfect religion is when there are so many things wrong with the way religion is used these days. The obvious example is the jihadist muslims. Not all muslims are bad or are in the process of planning on killing people to achieve martyrdom, but many of them are and when they set off an IED or blow themselves up at a bus stop, people tend to notice.
Christianity isn't immune to problems like that. Priests molesting children while still insisting on remaining "celibate", preachers who are vocal about how gay people will burn in hell and then turn out to be flaming *****. Not everyone that follows the bible is bad, but these examples create conflicts in how those of us on the outside of religion see what "faith" brings to people.
All that being said, the detractors that say that you have to take certain phrases in context (old testament or new testament) may be correct, but the most vocal members of the religious communities seem to ignore that.
Islam is supposedly a religion of peace, but comments taken out of context allow for the Jihadists to kill every day even though killing is a mortal sin.
The insane people from godhatesfags.com show up at funerals for gay people and soldiers quoting scripture as to why they are now dead and burning in hell. The phrases they use are generally out of context and taken verbatim out of a book that has been translated and interpreted dozens of times over the last two millenia.
Bill O'Reilly is always on rants about how secularists are ruining everything, but religious people need to be more worried about others that use the bible for evil instead of people that just want to be left alone. - BlackSheepx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Leviticus has all the awesome quotes huh..
- robbyjo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16To that, I shall point this PDF file from that talk page: The 101 Cleared up Contradictions in the Bible.
http://www.theapologiaproject.org/101%20Cleared%20up%20Contradictions%20in%20the%20Bible.pdf - Loonacy, on 10/12/2007, -8/+18People keep saying that these old laws were written for the times they occurred in. But what does Jesus have to say about that?
From the book of Matthew:
5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Basically: The old law is valid, I want to keep it, and it will remain until everything is done. - MikesOK, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14I read the bible too. When I got to Deuteronomy 23 I started to find the humor in it. It has to be man written, God couldn't screw anything up this much. Then Deuteronomy 25:11,12 sealed it...if the wife helps her husband out in a fight by grabbing the testicles of the other man then she must get her hand cut off with out pity. What a crock of ***** that is, like God needed a law for that! Why is this even in a "holy book"?
Study this if ya got the strength:
http://home.teleport.com/~packham/bible.htm - aplardi, on 10/12/2007, -15/+23If I were to sit here and defend or remedy every single one of those "contradictions" using every translation including an interlinear translation of the original text people who are strongly opposed enough would find what they consider to be faults if they wanted to. You can always find faults with something if you want to find them, even if they are not really there. It's a matter of perception.
If I were to sit here and add evidence to all of those contradictions and comments I could certainly find them in the Bible, however I would have to take things out of context for the most and take things that are meant to be taken as metaphors as literal sayings.
No matter what side you're on, you will find things that "prove you right" and it is as simple as that. I have been reading and learning from the Bible my entire life and I have seen many contradiction lists and heard many arguments, however I have also learned that anyone will to sincerely take a look at the Bible (for the sake of understanding it, not for the sake of "proving it wrong") will find satisfying answers to their questions. - CocaCola88, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7i'm not anti-christian i'm anti religion :D
- boatboy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10This technique is called 'proof-texting' and is a rather ignorant way to get a point across. Both atheists and theists do this all the time, but it's just plain disingenuous. You can make any text say anything if you cite this way. I could make Dawkins sound like the Pope if I did this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prooftext
Look, if you are an atheist, and honestly want to discredit Christianity, then read the Bible front to back and try to understand it's major themes, claims, etc. and discredit those. If you fear that a "waste of time" then Mere Christianity is another good starting point. If that's a waste of time, then so is posting stupid "proofs" on digg. - tweaked, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Shlep raises a good point.
Even if you apologists are correct, and there is a way to account for a good chunk of these inconsistencies and questionable passages....
Even if those who take these kinds of out-of-context passages to heart are a tiny minority of Christians, and only a minority of THEM ever act upon their mistaken beliefs...
Even if, with appropriate pastoral counselling, one can somehow reconcile all of these beliefs with each other and with the idea of scriptural infallibility...
Even if all of these things are true...
Christians STILL need to shut the ***** up about secular society and its ills. Because I mean really. Which of these worldviews seems more likely to result in the collapse of society:
SECULARISM, a worldview that bases its ethical decisions on some version of rational moral principles, and starts from a 'clean slate,' accepting only those moral and legal principles that appear to be in accord with the continued survival and success of our human race.
or CHRISTIANITY, a worldview that takes a really old and patched-together novel to be the prime source of all morality, and which has to either accept, explain away, or otherwise take into account a whole scripture's worth of anachronistic morality in order to arrive at any useful moral principles whatsoever.
I mean, you can be like robbyjo and devote yourself to explaining every single contradiction and seemingly spurious moral commandment in the bible. Probably some you will rightly account for as errors in translation, points taken out of context, etc. For others, you will make up your own explanation that suits your purposes. Both ways, you'll likely arrive at some moral truth for yourself. I'm not one of those atheists that thinks the bible could never be put to good use, of course. But I think what gets my hackles up, and those of many others, is that Christians really need to lose the whole universalist, pushy aspect of their faith. Sure, be happy reading your old novel. Probably you will find some powerful words to live by. In any case, though, stop pretending that your little hermeneutical hobby is somehow a powerful or unique source of morality. It's an old book written by dozens of authors and rife with outdated moral concepts, whose contemporary importance is owed solely to the fact that it was backed up by Rome and the Pope for a couple millennia. Personally, I've got a dozen better, newer novels, that have just as much 'universal truth' to them, and considerably more powerful words to live by -- I just don't delude myself that they're somehow magic. - matt621, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I believe you have a typo. There is no Rev 31, (stops at 22) I think you mean Rev 21:3,4
- brlittle, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10And yet, oddly, many many _many_ Christians refuse to admit that, claiming that the Bible is the literal, unadulterated word of God, to be read without interpretation or context.
- andyd273, on 10/12/2007, -10/+16@Quakes
The key here is to read the context. It's not ethical to take just one verse and say "Ha, this proves me right!"
you have to read the context that it goes in.
Case in point is the last digg-nation episode where Kevin wants someone to make him a sound file of Alex saying he'd take it in the ass.
If you only heard that one short clip, you might think he liked men, but if you listen to the context, you'll see that he's talking about getting a shot (medical) in the butt instead of the stomach... and I agree with that one.
So the point is that you really need to do your research. Find out whats really happening around the controversial verses, and it will be less confusing.
One thing to keep in mind is that the bible is translated from Hebrew and Greek, and sometimes things get lost in translation, so you sometimes have to read extra hard into what is being said and look at what was happening at that point in history to get the full context. - kroenecker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Would you rather live according to a particular viewpoint because:
a) You actually believe in it?
b) You were bullied into believing in it with fear?
How about:
If you were an intellectual powerhouse with the physique of the Hulk and the power of the President, would you rather:
a) Have friends because they actually like you?
b) Have friends because they don't want you to crush them into little tiny pieces?
If God is B, then it's time for a revolution. - spoier, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_contradictions
- samssf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I agree this is an intelligent post, but as an ex-Christian, here's what I think:
Christianity has made me who am today. It was the foundation for my character and personality, and I think it can provide many good things to kids growing up. However, from studying psychology, there are two pretty important negatives that I feel arise in many believers:
Many Christians (and other faiths) attribute all of the good things that happen in life to being the work of God. So if you achieve something great in life, like surviving in the ocean for 30 days or going from poor to wealthy (wealthy in many ways) then this is because you are blessed, not because you have good character and an awesome brain. Yet if something bad happens, it was because "there was a reason," rather than "what can I do to not screw up again."
Second, some people need to have a reason to have morals. I think human evolution and world education is going to need to step up a notch, to where people understand the ramifications of taking justice too far. For example putting more law enforcement in schools.... this does not make the kids NOT want to kill each other... it prevents them from doing it. You know what happens when people are prevented by outside influences from doing things? It creates challenge. Challenge increases desire and raises ability.
I actually believe that it is better to figure these types of things out on our own (morals) rather than analyze over and over and over and over again a book that was written by man, and is supposed to be inspired by God (the word of God). Men are men. Men have desires to explain the unexplained. There are TONS of cases where the human brain makes us "feel" like something supernatural is happening... dreams, people looking at us, etc. There are thousands of people who swear they were abducted by aliens in their sleep... but we all know this is our emotional and complex braining creating fantasy in order to fulfill a belief. People who are uneducated in this matter have a hard time comprehending and that's completely understandable. But if you study this type of phenomena, you will see that scientists can explain it just as well as the sky is blue.
Sorry I'm going a little off topic here, but the point is that we shouldn't base our do's and don'ts off of a book that was in fact written by men, and even then with the added complexity of the difference in time, culture, language, etc. It is more difficult to figure out life on our own and make mistakes, but we need to be responsible for our own actions and realized the consequences of our own actions. Only then will we start to evolved into a people with fewer crimes, more ethnic tolerance, and better tact. We REALLY need to start teaching psychology in schools so kids can learn to master their emotions.
The actual words of the bible have already been written and will not change. Science does.
And just for the record... it is understandable to want to discount science, but foolish. Many many very intelligent people on this planet have studied evolution, the Big Bang, etc. And without knowing what they know or studied what they study, it may seem like evolution is another theory by stupid scientists, when in actuality it is now regarded as fact. You really cannot argue creationism over science unless you've been to school for 6 years and studied physics. Just remember that not long ago, everyone on this planet knew that it was flat. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Ezekiel 25:17 is my favorite bible passage.. it's pretty scary...
- Racoon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5When reading religious peoples comments i can only concur with Dawkins.
Religious people seems deluded. - blistered, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Yeah, Jesus didn't like "religion" either. He came to bring "relationship", a bridge between a perfect God and sinful man.
- robbyjo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13@freexe: Sorry I didn't notice your answer earlier. But let me give you a short reply.
> There are also other books from the same period that are not included and so never have any publicity, do you think these are important?
Yes. I tend to compare them with "authoritative" Bible and see the arguments why they're not included. It's either from dubious source, obvious error, not first hand witness, etc. It's fascinating subject.
> Do you 100% trust the scholars that chose to leave them out, we all know how power can corrupt...
That's why Christian theology exists. Compare their opinions. Just like scientists nowadays.
> Do you not think that someone like yourself could write a book with similar meaning but without all the complexity, contradictions and dare I say faith, that people of any religion could use as a book to guide them?
I won't, but some people had in the history. I think most of them ended up with more contradiction / complexity than it purportedly solved. Read history about the first bible and why this prompted the teachers to canonize the bible. - larfus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This must be a record for the longest comments left for an article on digg.
- Zagorka, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@Quakes, you said
If this is somehow taken out of context, please enlighten me. There is also
(5) (Jesus speaking)
John 14:27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you.
Matthew 10:34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Jesus was speaking about peace of the soul. He meant, heaven starts from here, meaning on earth, inside our souls. When you do good works, repent and so forth, you are at peace and joy, which is a foretaste of heaven. He did not want to bring peace on earth because the earth is only temporary and it is corruptible as is our bodies. (The Pharisee's wanted a messiah that would bring glory to Israel by having them freed from Roman rule. When Jesus did not do this for them, they killed him.) His kingdom is where true peace exists.
You also said,
Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Exodus 32:14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.
This meant that God does not lie or is able to sin. But as an example, I forget where exactly this is in the bible but Abraham was pleading with God, not to destroy Sodom the sinful city. God wanted to punish them for their sinful acts but did not because Abraham out of his kind and loving heart begged Him not to. Therefore God did not want to disappoint His loving servant Abraham and did not destroy the city. God changes His mind not because he has human characteristics or because He is evil, but because He did not want to displease Abraham. So in the Exodus passage you found was most likely taken out of context and can be refuted by something similar by what I wrote above.
I don't know maybe someone else can explain this better. - nitsuj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Never mind.. Continue to believe that all you see around you came from a random explosion in space.. On the face of it, its ridiculous.."
Yes, so ridiculous that when we see images from the Hubble telescope that is *exactly* what we observe. And it wasn't an explosion, it was an expansion.
"ENTROPY, the 2nd law of Thermodynamics precludes this."
Please explain exactly how it is precluded. Do you even know what that law is and what it means? You may also want to consider the relation between these laws and your supposed 'creator'. If you want to bring up thermodynamics then you can explain exactly how your God doesn't violate these laws. Even claiming your God is outside the universe and hence outside the rule of these laws doesn't help. He/it would still have to have means of affecting what happens in the universe and this would violate them.
"Until someone can demonstrate the explosion of gold, glass, steel and the other raw materials of a watch, and hand me a ROLEX, I'm not going to believe you can get order from chaos."
How about I hand you naturally formed crystal structures, or how about you look at a snowflake greatly magnified? These examples are formed due to physical laws and are clear examples of order from chaos. - stewieh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@freexe
Please allow me to take up reply to some of the questions you asked to PatrickFisher and robbyjo.
>Books in the Bible
I think this question came up a lot after the Da Vinci Code. It's a question about how the canon was formed. Looking at any of the Da Vinci Code debunking sites can help you help out there. Here's my take aTestament. The gospels included in NT (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are primarily _biography_. This isn't just fringe opinion. There's a work (I forgot the name) that compares the form of biography (as practiced in those days) and compare them to the gospels in NT, and they fit. They are, of course, much more than just biography, but they are not less. As the original apostles, disciples and eyewitnesses start dying out, these accounts came to be written, to tell the world what Jesus was like and what he did. They're actually written pretty early, like around AD 100. (Paul's letters were written even earlier, around AD 50). if you compare the other books to the canonical gospels, they are just too different in tone (since they were written by the Gnostics), and doesn't provide biographical detail. For example, Thomas is just a list of sayings and has the following, which parallels Luke 15: 3-7, but with an exclusivist spin taken from Gnosticism: '107. Jesus said, "The kingdom is like a shepherd who had a hundred sheep. One of them, the largest, went astray. He left the ninety-nine and looked for the one until he found it. After he had toiled, he said to the sheep, I love you more than the ninety-nine."' No portrait of Jesus is given, but rather an exclusivist worldview. That's why these books were not included.
>Theology
Theology is trying to understand the God, his relationship with human beings, and what are the implications, from both "primary" sources (for lack of better word) such as the Bible, but also in conjunction with our current situation, such as modernism, post-modernism, etc. So it's not just "using Christianity as a moral framework." Some theologians have faith in God, some don't (by that I mean they understand may God as a metaphor, or something non-literal). One of my favorite examples of theology is trying to understand the Trinity. The Trinity is nowhere spelled out in the Bible, but if you try to understand to reconcile everything Jesus says about himself and God and the Holy Spirit, as well as take up threads from the Old Testament, you eventually come up with the Trinity, i.e. God is a community of three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each giving to the other since the beginning. If that's the case, then love and relationships is a fundamental character of God. And that is consonant with what's in the Bible, like in the first letter of John: "God is love." If God is not a trinity, but rather, monolithic, then love was something created later, which means God's fundamental character is _power_. And if that is how you understand God, then it will certainly affect how you live out your live, versus if you believe God is love.
Finally (and I apologize for the long post), the bible is "better" than any other philosophical book because it is _not_ a philosophical book. It is not primarily about how to live your life, but rather a story of creation, fall, redemption, and renewal. The "happened"-ness of God, of Christ, in history, matters. That the resurrection actually happened supremely matters. God has broken through and is at work in the world today to build a better world. I think a couple talks I had listened to recently will really help explain this better (by N.T. Wright, whom I've been studying lately):
http://www.veritas.org/3.0_media/talks/273
http://www.gracecathedral.org/forum/for_20060514.shtml (this one includes Anne Rice) - freexe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@PatrickFisher
Contradictions aside, my post still applies: The Bible has books that were not included; It was written after the fact and any amount of amends could have been made (the people writing it had the power to do so); It's been translated/copied many times, so much of the meaning could well have been lost (once again the translators have the power to "interpret" things with a bias, hence the multiple versions); Why is the Bible any better than one of the other great philosophical books.
People say the same thing about The Vedas, The Qur'an, The Agamas, The Book of Mormon, Tao Te Ching, dare I say Dianetics, and many other philosophical books. Why do you have so much faith in the Bible but not any of these other works?
@robbyjo
> That's why Christian theology exists. Compare their opinions. Just like scientists nowadays.
Isn't this like using Christianity as a moral framework, and not so much as a faith in God? - TDR25, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Good thing I'm an Atheist. I'm still trying to figure out who's worst, God or Satan. I don't believe in either one of those imaginary people, but for the record, just reading that or the bible proves God is far worst!
- timewarrior, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"I actually believe that it is better to figure these types of things out on our own (morals) rather than analyze over and over and over and over again a book that was written by man, and is supposed to be inspired by God (the word of God)"
This is true not just for morals but also for all forms of education. Roger Schank has a beautiful article on how artificial intelligence can be used as an education tools where the student derives his knowledge and learns in order of the question he asks rather than a schedule and a curriculum set by the system. See more in the link below.
http://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/q-Ch.9.html - soogy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8I believe the most important quote of the Bible is "Yea, and God said to Abraham, 'You will kill your son Isaac.' And Abraham said, 'I can't hear you, you'll have to speak into the microphone.' And God said, 'Oh, I'm sorry, is this better? Check, check, check. Jerry, pull the high end out, I'm still getting some hiss back here.'"
- PunkRampant, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11If there is a God and he ends up sending me to hell for being too lazy to learn his religion then I will burn at least knowing God Almighty is a total jackass.
- seks03, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Exactly what I was thinking... man cant people see that the bible was made to help control the masses.. I believe there was a Jesus but the powers that be used his demise to their advantage... what better way then to write a book that they say was inspired by Gods teachings to make people do what you want. It tears me up that people could believe so blindly in this and not use common sense... but hey what do I know.. I've been blinded by Satan who lives in the center of earth and I'm going to be joining him soon... give me a break!
People should follow the golden rule.... - jimsterbell, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10Contradictory to popular beleif not all atheists are arseholes.
I'm an atheist but i see why people may choose to believe in religeon, because it gives an answer. I know how belief can calm people and generally make them better people.
BUT some people take the bible way to seriously, sure let it have a minor guide on how to live your life, it contains some good morals, but please please please dont try and make other people think the same way as you (Gay marriage etc.) let people do whatever they want and everybody will be happy. - matt0ne, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6God jealous isn't the kind of jealousy that I have when my neighbour buys a Ferrari Enzo. His jealousy is directed towards us, His created children. He so wants us to know him and receive love from him (because he knows that is best for us!).
That is why God is a jealous God!
As an Aside.. this is some of the best discussion on any digg article about religion in a while. - Rosemary02, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6You make good points about corrupt priests and a tiny fraction of Christians who hate gays. There is no place for that in a moral society. Unfortunately, there will always be people who fail to live up to their principles. BUT, they are such a minority of all of the tens of millions of religious people that were it not for the media and the Internet we would barely know they exist. Also, these outlaws are almost universally denounced by most Christians and Jews. And more importantly, the most they do is talk (free speech) or at worst exhibit boorish, disgusting behavior like demonstrate their ignorance by crashing funerals. (And please don't bring up the minority of gay-bashing cases which are perpetrated by lawless bullies, not practicing religious people.)
Contrast the boorish behavior of a small minority in Christianity to the be-headings, suicide bombings, murdering of school children, and other popular jihadist activities and there is NO MORAL RELATIVITY. I might add that the first people to be attacked by the forces of Sharia law would be Jews, gays, and anyone who dares to speak freely. To promote the idea that the two sides are even remotely comparable is either dishonest or completely lacking in historical and moral thought, and common sense. - webwiz1986, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Like the laws of science! Thats a foundation, right?
- posure, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Most of the contradictions are taken out of context, and anyone who hasn't read the Bible probably doesn't understand them correctly. For example:
(3)
Ephesians 2:8-9 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith . . . not by works.
James 2:14-17 What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? . . . Faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
Revelation 22:12 Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done.
These passages aren't contradicting that you don't need works. The whole point is that if you actually had faith, you'd be doing good works anyways. - Devz0r, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12ON GOD`S JEALOUSY
1.) "God is love." 1 John 4:8.
2.) "Love is not jealous." 1 Cor 13:4
3.) "I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God." Exodus 20:5.
4.) The Christian god cannot logically exist.
from www.infidelguy.com -
Show 51 - 100 of 323 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is