The good book?

[Sectio Aurea]

Ok, now what is wrong with God putting into place certain laws and penalties for breaking those laws in a nation of people who He desires to be the paradigm of civil, righteous, and just harmonious living?

Stoning people to death is a command I would expect from the anti-christ. Anybody who fails to see the bad or condones such acts must also be evil!

 

[Gottservant]

Death is wise, in the eyes of the Law, for the men of the world.

 

[Gottservant]

You missed the point. The point is for a book that claims to be divinely inspired, it would not be unreasonable to expect something unimaginably enlightened.

Instead it's a book with no original ideas that's pretty well in line with a first century take on morality and society.

The whole of the book of proverbs doesn't qualify as enlightened to you? I think you browsed it. I think you browsed it with an undiscerning attitude and you took nothing to heart. Read it again.

The rest of what you wrote is just provocation, and once again, history will prove you wrong.

Moreover, your suggestion that its morality is dated is a sleight of hand, based on a few discrepancies with minority groups of the modern day. Life was simpler in those days and for being simple was closer to being right. I think you will find that history proves even its morality was modern.

 

[Eudaimonist]

What's wrong with completely destroying two cities, killing every living thing, human or not in the first case.... and in the second case keeping the virgins for the personal use of the invading soldiers?

Are you serious? What is right about those commands? There's nothing remotely good about ordering the rape and murder of two entire cities!

Don't you see? Christianity has to be right, therefore all of the barbarism in the Bible has to be right. QED.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Sectio Aurea]

Death is wise, in the eyes of the Law, for the men of the world.

No offence but you sound just like a fortune cookie, have you got any words of true value to contribute?

 

[lupusFati]

Not that I'm defending them entirely, but you're making it sound like Christianity is the only religion with a bloody history.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The whole of the book of proverbs doesn't qualify as enlightened to you? I think you browsed it. I think you browsed it with an undiscerning attitude and you took nothing to heart. Read it again.

The rest of what you wrote is just provocation, and once again, history will prove you wrong.

Moreover, your suggestion that its morality is dated is a sleight of hand, based on a few discrepancies with minority groups of the modern day. Life was simpler in those days and for being simple was closer to being right. I think you will find that history proves even its morality was modern.

I've read proverbs, and again, there's no original concepts in there.

I'll grant you it's one of the better books in the Bible, there is some great advice, however there's a lot of questionable stuff in there too. For example Pro 23:13 tells you if you beat your children, they will not die. In fact there's a few passages in there which promotes the idea of beating your kids (among other people like slaves or "fools") hard and often. There's also a few passages that promotes the idea that humans can't think for themselves, and it's pretty misogynistic from cover to cover.

But again, for a couple hundred years B.C. it's not to be unexpected.

For a book written during Old Testament times, it is impressive. Still, none of the good parts were previously unheard of at the time, and the bad parts make it clearly a work of man.

A divinely inspired book would be perfect from a moral sense in any time period, and this book simply isn't.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Not that I'm defending them entirely, but you're making it sound like Christianity is the only religion with a bloody history.

Every major religion I'm aware of has a bloody history, we just happen to be talking about Christianity in this thread.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think the idea of divine inspiration comes from a believer who writes in good conscience. Thats all.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I think the idea of divine inspiration comes from a believer who writes in good conscience. Thats all.

Or, it could just be the work of a believer who writes in good conscience.

There's nothing divine about that. Divine would imply it's better than man, and that book is simply one of man's better works from the time period. We have written works since that time which surpass its moral views.

 

[JGL53]

God caused a couple of bears to tear a group of children limb from limb for the "sin" of making fun of some old guy's bald head.

I believe that is called premeditated murder.

In some states such people after conviction are put to death.

Good thing for god that he is immortal, immaterial, invisible and imaginary.

lol.

 

[Sectio Aurea]

God caused a couple of bears to tear a group of children limb from limb for the "sin" of making fun of some old guy's bald head.

The slaughter of children in such way for nothing more than just being children is more than just simply murder, it was evil!

 

[pjnlsn]

Death is wise, in the eyes of the Law, for the men of the world.

I honestly have no idea what this means, but if you somehow mean that you think people shouldn't judge the, strictly speaking, imaginary entity that you think exists, that you think so doesn't change how it is judged and what it neccesarily is, based on description.

Or, and for example, if you mean something like, executions as a common form of punishment is a wise and good thing, because men would otherwise be uncivilized and barbaric, or something like that, well, it's neither useful, in modern times, nor judged by the majority (to the degree you might be suggesting) to be anything less than barbaric itself.

 

[Sectio Aurea]

Ok, now what is wrong with God putting into place certain laws and penalties for breaking those laws in a nation of people who He desires to be the paradigm of civil, righteous, and just harmonious living?

1.Are you serious?

2. Are you going to answer my last question?

 

[pjnlsn]

Ok, lets assume your paraphrases are accurate.

What is wrong with those commands?

you're asking what's wrong with slaughtering people en-masse and taking into one's ownership a woman to be sexually used?

 

[Gottservant]

I've read proverbs, and again, there's no original concepts in there.

Show me parallels. Where in antiquity is there anything even remotely like proverbs?

I'll grant you it's one of the better books in the Bible [...]

If you don't see the Bible as inspired, there is no point in calling any part of it better than any other part.

But again, for a couple hundred years B.C. it's not to be unexpected.

For a book written during Old Testament times, it is impressive. Still, none of the good parts were previously unheard of at the time, and the bad parts make it clearly a work of man.

A divinely inspired book would be perfect from a moral sense in any time period, and this book simply isn't.

Man is to live in the times in which he is given and no other, for this is good in the sight of the Lord.

As I said, there is enough in the Bible that will make it memorable for all time, it doesn't need the comments of man to spur it on.

 

[Gottservant]

[...]
Or, and for example, if you mean something like, executions as a common form of punishment is a wise and good thing, because men would otherwise be uncivilized and barbaric, or something like that, well, it's neither useful, in modern times, nor judged by the majority (to the degree you might be suggesting) to be anything less than barbaric itself.

Sometimes it is necessary to stoop to the level of the barbaric, to make the point that the barbaric is not to be accepted.

You are a fool if you think men can be persuaded not to do evil, by mere incarceration.

 

[Sectio Aurea]

Sometimes it is necessary to stoop to the level of the barbaric, to make the point that the barbaric is not to be accepted.

You are a fool if you think men can be persuaded not to do evil, by mere incarceration.

Only a fool would propose to men that it is sometimes necessary for god to be barbaric for god to demonstrate how wrong barbarism is.

 

[Gottservant]

But... it's wise.

Haven't you ever heard of making a point?

If it were the case that society could not be barbaric and then proceed to be civilized, then you would have a point, but there is nothing stopping society from executing a criminal and then celebrating civil festivities, nothing at all.

 

[Eudaimonist]

But... it's wise.

No, it shows a lack of integrity.


eudaimonia,

Mark