The good book?

[Gottservant]

No, it shows a lack of integrity.

A lack of integrity can be sustained, if greater integrity is won by it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

A lack of integrity can be sustained, if greater integrity is won by it.

That makes no sense whatsoever.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Sectio Aurea]

He who has not read Proverbs, is far less the wise for it than if he had.

He who has read proverbs is wiser knowing that god will laugh at his misfortunes and mock him when he is afraid, and ignore him when he asks for help. 1.26-28

 

[pjnlsn]

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.

It's just what the people would want.

Also, if you're implying that people are "evil" for no reason, this is incorrect.

And, furthermore, the example that was brought up was of the strictly imaginary entity you believe exists having been said to have children eaten alive for teasing someone. Which in any person would be an example of a sociopath. Which is pertinent given that the books of the Bible are, strictly speaking, though in any other context I wouldn't need to make the distinction, written by people.

In any case, your statements of that violence begets violence and that barbarism stops further barbarism are in conflict. If violence begets violence, then violent attempts to stop barbarism lead to further barbarism i.e. violence.

 

[Gottservant]

That makes no sense whatsoever.

I'm glad you think so?

 

[Gottservant]

He who has read proverbs is wiser knowing that god will laugh at his misfortunes and mock him when he is afraid, and ignore him when he asks for help. 1.26-28

That is so out of context it is not funny.

 

[Gottservant]

It's just what the people would want.

That's right, the people want the death penalty. If you asked a serial murderer what he thought he deserved, he would say "the death penalty".

Also, if you're implying that people are "evil" for no reason, this is incorrect.

You're doing it now, contradicting me without giving evidence is evil and you give no reason for it.

And, furthermore, the example that was brought up was of the strictly imaginary entity you believe exists having been said to have children eaten alive for teasing someone. Which in any person would be an example of a sociopath. Which is pertinent given that the books of the Bible are, strictly speaking, though in any other context I wouldn't need to make the distinction, written by people.

You don't know what God sacrificed in order to allow children to be eaten alive, but I for one am glad that children will think twice about who they tease.

No one ever said God didn't qualify as a sociopath. The difference is He's God.

In any case, your statements of that violence begets violence and that barbarism stops further barbarism are in conflict. If violence begets violence, then violent attempts to stop barbarism lead to further barbarism i.e. violence.

Yes but if that violence is simply that everyone does their utmost to steer clear of danger, then it is a good thing, in the end. No one ever said violence or barbarism were irredeemable. It might mean people avoid the place where they have the death penalty altogether, but that is still preferable to people doing what they want because they could care less about what the penalty was.

There is something about the death penalty that actually makes you stop and think.

And far be it from God to be threatened by mere mortals because He should pander to their desire to live a bit longer even though they do evil.

 

[Sectio Aurea]

That is so out of context it is not funny.

Please provide the correct context then?

 

[Sectio Aurea]

Wisdom.

He who has not read Proverbs, is far less the wise for it than if he had.

He is also wiser for knowing that mocking his father and disobeying his mother will result in ravens picking out his eyes for the vultures to eat.

Proverbs 30:17

 

[pjnlsn]

That's right, the people want the death penalty. If you asked a serial murderer what he thought he deserved, he would say "the death penalty".



You're doing it now, contradicting me without giving evidence is evil and you give no reason for it.



You don't know what God sacrificed in order to allow children to be eaten alive, but I for one am glad that children will think twice about who they tease.

No one ever said God didn't qualify as a sociopath. The difference is He's God.



Yes but if that violence is simply that everyone does their utmost to steer clear of danger, then it is a good thing, in the end. No one ever said violence or barbarism were irredeemable. It might mean people avoid the place where they have the death penalty altogether, but that is still preferable to people doing what they want because they could care less about what the penalty was.

There is something about the death penalty that actually makes you stop and think.

And far be it from God to be threatened by mere mortals because He should pander to their desire to live a bit longer even though they do evil.

First section: No, I mean, the people, the majority. And specifically that the people don't want murder to be handed out on a whim. Specifically what people referenced was that passage where children are eaten alive for teasing someone.

Second section: I meant that it's not necessary for 'barbarism' to exist at all, and so it's not strictly necessary to attempt to stop barbarism with further barbarism. I.e. violence and death.

Third section: Yes, some people feel very good about the idea of having people they dislike tortured, possibly while they're dying. These people, though, are variously sociopathic and deranged and, well, evil. Also, it's irrelevant that perhaps you've been taught to never question what it is said the strictly imaginary entity you believe in does. It has been pointed out that the actions described in the passage of the bears and the children would be, in any person, an example of some kind of sociopathic disorder, at the very least. This is pertinent because, again strictly speaking, although in any other context I wouldn't have to say that, the books of the Bible are written by people.

Fourth section: Ah, the words 'violence' and 'caution' mean different things. Again, your statements of that violence begets violence and that barbarism stops further barbarism are in conflict. If violence begets violence, then violent attempts to stop barbarism lead to further barbarism i.e. violence. What was also said was that it's not strictly necessary (see second section) and not what the people would want. And again, comments on the deranged/sociopathic nature of certain ways of thinking are still relevant, because, strictly speaking, people wrote the books of the bible and you are a person. That you'd like to transfer the blame/responsibility for these things unto your god is irrelevant.

 

[Sectio Aurea]

Wisdom.

He who has not read Proverbs, is far less the wise for it than if he had.

Is it wise to beat the hell out of children? 13.28 19.18 22.15, 23.13-14,29.15.

And would he be any wiser by beating his slaves just like his children? 29.19

 

[Dave Ellis]

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

Seeing as it's impractical to go line by line through 31 chapters, can you point out something you think is especially notable as unique and divinely inspired?

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

Books with plenty of good advice with some smaller bad issues like proverbs are clearly better pieces of work than Leviticus or Deuteronomy which advocates stoning people to death for minor infractions.

Another way of putting it, is that I don't believe Star Trek is real either... that doesn't stop me from thinking certain episodes or movies are better than others.

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.

How on earth does that even address what I said?

 

[Elioenai26]

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!

God has never ordered anyone to be murdered or raped. The text does not support your interpretation.

What You have done is referred to as "quote mining" and that is why you are wrong.

 

[quatona]

God has never ordered anyone to be murdered or raped. The text does not support your interpretation.

What You have done is referred to as "quote mining" and that is why you are wrong.

In the post to which Dave Ellis responded you asked:

Ok, lets assume your paraphrases are accurate.
What is wrong with those commands?

(emphasis added)
It´s there for everyone to see.

 

[Dave Ellis]

In the post to which Dave Ellis responded you asked:
(emphasis added)
It´s there for everyone to see.

I second this response...

 

[Davian]

 

[MathWizard]

When I was a Christian (Anglican) I read the bible entirely (yes all the way through) at aged 13 and again when I was about 17 during my time in a Christian boarding school. I again made numerous attempts as a young adult but always gave up partway. Anyway it didn't matter to me about reading it entirely again as I believed it was the inspired word of God and I had read it entirely twice before. At least that was the reason I used to justify to myself why I stopped reading it. Now older with more wisdom I know why. Because I wasn't satisfied that is why. Everybody seemed to refer to it as the good book, but to me it was anything but. The best way to keep my faith was to actually avoid reading it and focus on the good parts my priest would choose for his sermons.

Anyway...

If you have read the bible entirely(honesty here please folks) what makes you conclude that the bible is a good book?

I probably read some of the books in the bible 100+ times by now. You know when you read it you have to think deeply each time. It isn't so plain. I don't really talk to people who don't believe in God though so I don't know much about atheism. If I do usually they are so uninterested they just wave me on. So there is no understanding going on concerning me and that group.

Anywho! I consider it the good book because it shows how disastrous it is to be on the opposing side of God. That it shows God is merciful despite knowing how much he hates sin, that he would take lives for sin for the benefit of those who don't sin (ex: Israel taking over the land over those who did many abominations in the land were killed by the sword by Israel). It is sad they had to die. But even if not everything is written in the bible it's still there. Even Pharaoh was given 10+ chances to repent before he was destroyed. Yes his heart was hardened to God. But that doesn't excuse his evil behavior. Apart from showing the judgment and its results (death) it shows how living in his grace is the most blessed way to live. That he will give all lands to you. He will take care of all your problems. He will heal you and remove thorns from your life. He genuinely loves you and through faith in Him, he considers you, a sinner that previously did things that showed you hated God (sin).. that he considers you a child of his.

And when I think about it really I am in a relationship where I am told I am loved a lot. But they cheat on me so much, like I think my heart has been broken over a dozen times now. Well I love them... it made me think about how people only love God with their words. Yeah you can say you love God. Then go ahead and sin. And it made me draw the comparison of when my heart was broken each time I was cheated on. Even though he tells me he loves me, i have been growing bitter toward him.

So I can see how sin can do this with us and God. God considers sin to be something that he is willing to separate himself from us over. So I think its reasonable to do what he wants since regardless we will get our hearts desire by just doing it his way. its like being a good spouse.

So I think its good because it made me see how much God loves me, but also shows me how much he hates sin and the lengths he will go. Jesus did say 'These people worship me with their lips, but their heart is far from me' and James said 'Even demons believe in God and tremble' and James was right because Demons obviously believe and are not saved so how much more can a Christian who believes in God to be saved if they continue to *cheat* on him.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I probably read some of the books in the bible 100+ times by now. You know when you read it you have to think deeply each time. It isn't so plain. I don't really talk to people who don't believe in God though so I don't know much about atheism. If I do usually they are so uninterested they just wave me on. So there is no understanding going on concerning me and that group.

Well, hopefully I can give you an Atheists perspective on the points you bring up

Anywho! I consider it the good book because it shows how disastrous it is to be on the opposing side of God.

If God made everyone, our behaviour is a byproduct of the way he designed us. That is also true for those who oppose God. As such, it's silly to rain down wrath on people for acting in a way you designed them to act.

That it shows God is merciful despite knowing how much he hates sin, that he would take lives for sin for the benefit of those who don't sin (ex: Israel taking over the land over those who did many abominations in the land were killed by the sword by Israel).

If God hates sin, why did he invent it? And why did he make humans capable of sinning? In fact, what do you mean "for the benefit of those who don't sin"? Christian doctrine says that we're all sinners.

It is sad they had to die. But even if not everything is written in the bible it's still there. Even Pharaoh was given 10+ chances to repent before he was destroyed. Yes his heart was hardened to God. But that doesn't excuse his evil behavior.

Exodus 9:12 says God hardened the Pharaoh's heart... How just is it to punish a man (or his civilization) when you were the one responsible for hardening his heart towards you?

Apart from showing the judgment and its results (death) it shows how living in his grace is the most blessed way to live. That he will give all lands to you. He will take care of all your problems. He will heal you and remove thorns from your life. He genuinely loves you and through faith in Him, he considers you, a sinner that previously did things that showed you hated God (sin).. that he considers you a child of his.

I know some very devout and good people who have certainly not lived a lie like you describe. In fact how religious or devouted someone is has no statistical difference on health, wealth, longevity or prosperity.

And when I think about it really I am in a relationship where I am told I am loved a lot. But they cheat on me so much, like I think my heart has been broken over a dozen times now. Well I love them... it made me think about how people only love God with their words. Yeah you can say you love God. Then go ahead and sin. And it made me draw the comparison of when my heart was broken each time I was cheated on. Even though he tells me he loves me, i have been growing bitter toward him.

I'm sorry to hear you've had some poor experiences with prior relationships, however I don't really think the comparison with God (assuming he exists) is an accurate one.

First off God is supposedly omniscient, so he knew before you were born what sins you would commit. Being omniscient, he must have known that when he created you. As such, growing more bitter over sins is ridiculous as he prior knowledge of it all.

Secondly, what you're describing is a great tool organized religion uses to keep people in the fold, guilt. Sin is a set of rules designed in a way that makes it impossible for anyone to stay sin free, as such you feel guilty you've wronged God, and keep going back to Church to repent... And the church welcomes your weekly donation.

In reality, if God is just, he would have either created a law we are capable of following, or he would have designed us in a way where we can follow his law. Creating a law that nobody has a hope of living up to is cruel, especially if hell is a real punishment. Keep in mind a society which has laws nobody has a hope of following is a mark of a totalitarian regime here on earth.

So I can see how sin can do this with us and God. God considers sin to be something that he is willing to separate himself from us over. So I think its reasonable to do what he wants since regardless we will get our hearts desire by just doing it his way. its like being a good spouse.

So what's the point of free will? What you're describing is coercion on the part of God.... Do it his way and you'll be fine, don't do it his way and you'll feel his wrath. That's not free will by any definition.

So I think its good because it made me see how much God loves me, but also shows me how much he hates sin and the lengths he will go. Jesus did say 'These people worship me with their lips, but their heart is far from me' and James said 'Even demons believe in God and tremble' and James was right because Demons obviously believe and are not saved so how much more can a Christian who believes in God to be saved if they continue to *cheat* on him.

The doctrine of Christianity doesn't care how you act, all that matters is if you accept Jesus as the saviour.

Murderers, rapists and other terrible people will be saved if they accept Jesus, whereas someone who has lived a completely peaceful normal life could risk eternal damnation if they don't happen to believe. Sin is irrelevant, as are your actions. It's simply not a just system in that regard either.

 

[pjnlsn]

I probably read some of the books in the bible 100+ times by now. You know when you read it you have to think deeply each time. It isn't so plain. I don't really talk to people who don't believe in God though so I don't know much about atheism. If I do usually they are so uninterested they just wave me on. So there is no understanding going on concerning me and that group.

Anywho! I consider it the good book because it shows how disastrous it is to be on the opposing side of God. That it shows God is merciful despite knowing how much he hates sin, that he would take lives for sin for the benefit of those who don't sin (ex: Israel taking over the land over those who did many abominations in the land were killed by the sword by Israel). It is sad they had to die. But even if not everything is written in the bible it's still there. Even Pharaoh was given 10+ chances to repent before he was destroyed. Yes his heart was hardened to God. But that doesn't excuse his evil behavior. Apart from showing the judgment and its results (death) it shows how living in his grace is the most blessed way to live. That he will give all lands to you. He will take care of all your problems. He will heal you and remove thorns from your life. He genuinely loves you and through faith in Him, he considers you, a sinner that previously did things that showed you hated God (sin).. that he considers you a child of his.

And when I think about it really I am in a relationship where I am told I am loved a lot. But they cheat on me so much, like I think my heart has been broken over a dozen times now. Well I love them... it made me think about how people only love God with their words. Yeah you can say you love God. Then go ahead and sin. And it made me draw the comparison of when my heart was broken each time I was cheated on. Even though he tells me he loves me, i have been growing bitter toward him.

So I can see how sin can do this with us and God. God considers sin to be something that he is willing to separate himself from us over. So I think its reasonable to do what he wants since regardless we will get our hearts desire by just doing it his way. its like being a good spouse.

So I think its good because it made me see how much God loves me, but also shows me how much he hates sin and the lengths he will go. Jesus did say 'These people worship me with their lips, but their heart is far from me' and James said 'Even demons believe in God and tremble' and James was right because Demons obviously believe and are not saved so how much more can a Christian who believes in God to be saved if they continue to *cheat* on him.

Anyone can take a text and skew it to fit their interpretation, but ultimately, the reason why you all find this to be so important, in effect, is because you believe the deity of the religion actually exists.

However, the existence of any deity is unlikely and unproven.

EDIT: Also, I sort've hate to break it to you, but human nature is what it is, and you know, religious ideas tend to make men (I suppose) acting according to human nature some kind of devastating event. If you accepted it, it would be less.....heart breaking. The point being that religion and associated ideas creates the, to use your phrase, heart break where it wouldn't have been there before. Well, it wouldn't have been as, ah, severe, I should think.

 

[JGL53]

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

OK, then, god is obviously evil.

Well, I guess we humans are ALL scr.ewed.

Unless god is just imaginary. Which seems to be the case.

So, then, no problem.

Whew, that was close.