3 "phobic" VALUES OF GOD

[Douglas Hendrickson]

In the Bible, it was also directed towards non-believers. But not just them - their women, their children, even their cattle.

So I'm failing to see the difference. The Q'uran's passages are also directed towards specific people too: so-called "infidels". If you can cherry-pick the Q'uran, you can cherry-pick the Bible and find scripture that's just as murderous.
Ringo

No, the pronouncement you seem to take exception to was given directly to ancient Israelites - they were told to do certain things. NOT WE. I would suppose you can indeed see there is indeed a difference between them and whatever they were up to, etc., on the one hand, and us?

(You seem to have a different understanding of "directed to" - I am talking about the pronouncements of God (not Allah!) that were directed toward certain Israelites who had suffered certain things. NOT about any you or I or anyone of present times whatever scriptures or whatever they may happen to subscribe to. NOR about anyone who might have been harshly treated by the Israelites responding to God's command.)

 

[Ringo84]

No, the pronouncement you seem to take exception to was given directly to ancient Israelites - they were told to do certain things. NOT WE. I would suppose you can indeed see there is indeed a difference between them and whatever they were up to, etc., on the one hand, and us?

(You seem to have a different understanding of "directed to" - I am talking about the pronouncements of God (not Allah!) that were directed toward certain Israelites who had suffered certain things. NOT about any you or I or anyone of present times whatever scriptures or whatever they may happen to subscribe to. NOR about anyone who might have been harshly treated by the Israelites responding to God's command.)

You may be able to twist yourself into a pretzel to "justify" passages like that, but to someone who isn't a Christian, they'd look at that verse and probably conclude that the Bible is as violent and murderous as the Q'uran. To whom the passages were "directed" doesn't matter. There is blood in the history of Christianity just as there is in Islam.

I'm not saying that the two religions are necessarily equivalent (though an unacknowledged point is that Islam is an "spin-off" of Judaism just like Christianity and share many of the same scriptural figures). But it's not true that one book is less violent than the other.
Ringo

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

You may be able to twist yourself into a pretzel to "justify" passages like that, but to someone who isn't a Christian, they'd look at that verse and probably conclude that the Bible is as violent and murderous as the Q'uran. To whom the passages were "directed" doesn't matter. There is blood in the history of Christianity just as there is in Islam.

I'm not saying that the two religions are necessarily equivalent (though an unacknowledged point is that Islam is an "spin-off" of Judaism just like Christianity and share many of the same scriptural figures). But it's not true that one book is less violent than the other.
Ringo

Perhaps whether a book is "less violent" is not the main thing?
Perhaps who is counselled to be violent and by whom and to what end, perhaps these matter?

It might be a better position to be concerned about who violence is being advocated to be perpetrated against, and by whom or what ("sacred scripture.")

"BLOOD IN THE HISTORY" is not the really important thing, but what is the blood of today - who is to suffer bloody murder, etc, because some book calls for it? What book would that be now?

 

[SilverBear]

Perhaps whether a book is "less violent" is not the main thing?
Perhaps who is counselled to be violent and by whom and to what end, perhaps these matter?

It might be a better position to be concerned about who violence is being advocated to be perpetrated against, and by whom or what ("sacred scripture.")

"BLOOD IN THE HISTORY" is not the really important thing, but what is the blood of today - who is to suffer bloody murder, etc, because some book calls for it? What book would that be now?

maybe you should ask gays and lesbians in Uganda or Russia.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

maybe you should ask gays and lesbians in Uganda or Russia.

If you can ask them it means they are alive - which means Old Testament values are not being applied.

 

[SilverBear]

If you can ask them it means they are alive - which means Old Testament values are not being applied.

Well I'm sure that is a relief to them and a disappointment to the various ministries and their donors

 

[Sammy-San]

ONLY INCIDENTALLY. Not much of the time, if at all.
For many in having sex there is not even the possibility of pregnancy. Consider the older for instance.
Far from all sex is reproductive - in fact, only a very small MINORITY of times is there anything of actual reproduction.

Without the buzz, that is what it physically is-reproduction.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Without the buzz, that is what it physically is-reproduction.

What is "the buzz." Tell me what 'the buzz" is, that I may understand the sentence.

YOU MEAN "anything other than reproduction"? (Of sex, in sex.)

Especially when usually it has NO REPRODUCTION?