I know that the Bible is a very powerful book; one that founded European society until the Enlightenment. However, I can't figure out how it was misconstrued as "The Good Book". It was a book written well before modern science and human rights was introduced and, since its promoted as 'The perfect law of the Lord' (Psalm 19:7), it cannot be scrutinized or questioned, ever. The result is people whole-heartedly believing in a book that makes claims like these:

For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death. -Exodus 31:15

If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods …do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. -Deuteronomy 13:7-12

All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. - Leviticus 20:9

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death. - Leviticus 20:13

Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. - Numbers 31

If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. - Exodus 21:20

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the Lord your God must die. In this way you will purge the evil from Israel. -Deuteronomy 17:12

And here is another side of Jesus you probably wouldn't expect

If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell. - Matthew 18:7-9


Its pretty much the same sorry situation in the Koran and Talmud. The moral of the story is: don't use 1000+ year old book to teach you how to live today.

The only standard it is is what you allow it to be.

Nobody is forcing you to believe in anything the Bible, Koran, or TNK is saying. If you wish to set it as the standard of your lifestyle then so be it.

shitty wok, the thing about the Old Testament laws is that they were designed to prove how impossible it is for mankind to EARN their way into heaven. In order to realize that mankind is in need of a savior, God provided the Jews with an insurmountable collection of rules. He knew they would never succeed, but just telling them was not sufficient (much as it is not sufficient to warn a teenager of the dangers of doing drugs or having unprotected sex...they're most likely going to engage in those activities anyway, and come to discover the truth in their parents' warnings as a result of their personal experience). It was necessary to create a culture of laws so that they could fail horribly at keeping them, to prove that mankind is in need of grace, mercy, and a savior that could atone for sin.

Regarding what Jesus said, it was not a direct commandment. It was an illustration of how unimportant the flesh is in comparison to our eternal souls and where they go.

Taking scripture out of context is never a good way to understand it.

Regarding what Jesus said, it was not a direct commandment. It was an illustration of how unimportant the flesh is in comparison to our eternal souls and where they go.

Taking scripture out of context is never a good way to understand it.

I understand your comments about the OT, but I still think the the NT verse was fairly straightforward.

"ts pretty much the same sorry situation in the Koran and Talmud. The moral of the story is: don't use 1000+ year old book to teach you how to live today."

Nailed it. Most Christians don't know fuck all about their holy book, so we can count ourselves lucky that they're so ignorant of their own belief system.

You're also right about the straightforwardness of many of these morally questionable passages; some of that shit is just downright nasty, and it's saddening (although not at all surprising) to see dumbshits try to rationalize that garbage.

Most of the "nasty" passages in the Bible should probably be taken figuratively, or in the case of Exodus's laws, disregarded as tribal nonsense. I don't believe that the laws in those books can honestly be regarded as the "word of God," given that they were essentially the laws of the people. If the laws were unjust (and I say that they were), I don't think that makes the entire Bible unjust or unreasonable.

Biblical fundamentalists (and those who try to "debunk" the Bible by pointing out inconsistencies) miss the subtlety of the allegories, metaphors, hyperbolic techniques utilized by the authors of the Bible.

The thread starter quotes Matthew 18:7-9 as an example of a "ridiculous" statement out of the Gospels, or of a Jesus that "one wouldn't expect." It is completely weird if you take it literally, but the technique of hyperbole that Jesus uses is to point by exaggeration towards the ultimate truth of what he's saying, in that case that one's spiritual life should take precedence of one's physical condition.

In any case, saying that it's a mistake to live by a 1000+ year old book is presupposing that it's better to live by "modern" morals (which are usually either contrapositives or restatements of those ancient books anyway), and doesn't make intrinsic sense either. Honestly, I would rather consider the wisdom of a 5000+ year old compilation by sages and scholars rather than some revisionist construction that erroneously supposes that the age we live in is somehow "different" and demands an accordingly different moral code.

If there is a truth (and I'm not going to be so bold to say that I <i>know</i> there is), then it ought to be "timeless," and that precludes the argument that an old book is necessarily irrelevant.

^^^^^^

Word.

Most of the "nasty" passages in the Bible should probably be taken figuratively, or in the case of Exodus's laws, disregarded as tribal nonsense. I don't believe that the laws in those books can honestly be regarded as the "word of God,"

So any laws that make the bible, the Christian god, or Christians look bad are suddenly out? We should suddenly not consider them to be the word of the Christian god? How convenient!


Biblical fundamentalists (and those who try to "debunk" the Bible by pointing out inconsistencies) miss the subtlety of the allegories, metaphors, hyperbolic techniques utilized by the authors of the Bible.

No, they consider the bible to be literal in it's statements. Why? Because if they don't, anyone can pick and choose what to believe, and can claim the bible says almost anything. It loses any and all integrity it might have, if the meaning of its passages are completely subjective and open to any and all interpretations.

It is completely weird if you take it literally, but the technique of hyperbole that Jesus uses...

You mean the technique you think he uses...


In any case, saying that it's a mistake to live by a 1000+ year old book is presupposing that it's better to live by "modern" morals (which are usually either contrapositives or restatements of those ancient books anyway), and doesn't make intrinsic sense either. Honestly, I would rather consider the wisdom of a 5000+ year old compilation by sages and scholars rather than some revisionist construction that erroneously supposes that the age we live in is somehow "different" and demands an accordingly different moral code.

If modern texts would be mostly contrapositives and/or restatements of ancient books, according to you, then I would much rather take the word of the modern text, which not only contains the ancient wisdom, but also new scenarios that those ancient "sages and scholars" might not have imagined.



If there is a truth (and I'm not going to be so bold to say that I <i>know</i> there is), then it ought to be "timeless," and that precludes the argument that an old book is necessarily irrelevant.

All the more reason why we shouldn't believe there is a truth or that the bible is relevant, not until proven otherwise.

If there isn't a truth, then that wouldn't preclude that idea that the bible is irrelevant, and if there is a truth and it is timeless, the same applies. Both of those possibilities would point to the bible being irrelevant, or at least to not precluding the argument that it is.

So any laws that make the bible, the Christian god, or Christians look bad are suddenly out? We should suddenly not consider them to be the word of the Christian god? How convenient!
I'm quite aware of the danger in doing this, and I beg you to consider what I said not a an attempt to dodge "inconvenient truths" but rather an attempt to analyze the circumstances under which some disturbing incongruencies emerged in a book which is mostly on track with a certain moral philosophy.

No, they consider the bible to be literal in it's statements. Why? Because if they don't, anyone can pick and choose what to believe, and can claim the bible says almost anything. It loses any and all integrity it might have, if the meaning of its passages are completely subjective and open to any and all interpretations.
I know they consider the Bible literal in its statements. That's the supposition I was working off of when I said it causes them to incorrectly interpret hyperbole and metaphor for literal statements or facts.

I think that if most people were confronted with a man who says, "It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell," they would consider the statement an exaggeration for emphasis, as much of an exaggeration it may be. It is not a matter of "choosing what to believe" so much as interpreting what it being said. The answer to this question in the Catholic Church (I'm working off what I know here) is for the magisterum/teaching faculty of the Church to interpret, within the correct historical and linguistic perspectives, what is being said. This is another argument, however.

You mean the technique you think he uses...
Okay, from now on, I hereby affirm that all my statements are, in fact, my opinions.

If modern texts would be mostly contrapositives and/or restatements of ancient books, according to you, then I would much rather take the word of the modern text, which not only contains the ancient wisdom, but also new scenarios that those ancient "sages and scholars" might not have imagined.
I see the wisdom of this, but too often, I think, people completely trash the old philosophies, or vilify them completely, instead of trying to understand them in order to reinterpret them for the modern age and its attendant situations and scenarios.

All the more reason why we shouldn't believe there is a truth or that the bible is relevant, not until proven otherwise.
I don't know if that's really a better view than the opposite. I personally would rather suppose there is a truth until proven otherwise, but it's a personal choice.

If there isn't a truth, then that wouldn't preclude that idea that the bible is irrelevant, and if there is a truth and it is timeless, the same applies. Both of those possibilities would point to the bible being irrelevant, or at least to not precluding the argument that it is.
I'm not sure I understand this. What I was saying was that the Bible or other holy books shouldn't be tossed out the window just because they're old. My reasoning was that truth ought to be truth whenever it was written down.

In any case, the Bible will never be completely irrelevant. It's pretty good literature if nothing else.

I'm quite aware of the danger in doing this, and I beg you to consider what I said not a an attempt to dodge "inconvenient truths" but rather an attempt to analyze the circumstances under which some disturbing incongruencies emerged in a book which is mostly on track with a certain moral philosophy.

The point being that why should we throw out the passages you don't like? Why are they suddenly not the word of the Christian god? Because you don't like them? Because you think they're just too "nasty"? Whether those passages are "nasty" or not, is irrelevant in determining whether they were actually said - and meant that way.


I know they consider the Bible literal in its statements. That's the supposition I was working off of when I said it causes them to incorrectly interpret hyperbole and metaphor for literal statements or facts.

Then to say that they "miss" something presupposes that your view point is correct... that there is something to miss (i.e. some literary devices like metaphors, et cetera) that cannot be viewed with a literal interpretation in the first place. You don't know that; obviously according to the literal interpretation there is nothing to miss.


I think that if most people were confronted with a man who says, "It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell," they would consider the statement an exaggeration for emphasis, as much of an exaggeration it may be.

If it was a normal human man, then sure. But a man didn't say that, did he? At least not according to Christians. If a god were to say that - one which does a crap load of freaky stuff, like transubstantiation, reincarnation, virgin impregnation, exorcism, etc. - then the answer isn't that clear cut.


I see the wisdom of this, but too often, I think, people completely trash the old philosophies, or vilify them completely, instead of trying to understand them in order to reinterpret them for the modern age and its attendant situations and scenarios.

The exact same could be said Christianity, and many other "ancient wisdom". If you think that they are somehow innocent in any vilification then you're sorely mistaken. Sadly, only the first ever moral code in the world could hold that distinction, and only because there was nothing else to vilify!


I don't know if that's really a better view than the opposite. I personally would rather suppose there is a truth until proven otherwise, but it's a personal choice.

Believing there is a truth that you don't even know what it is, what it means, or even if it's actually a truth or not, is a lot sillier than simply being of the position that no "truth" exists until proven otherwise.


I'm not sure I understand this. What I was saying was that the Bible or other holy books shouldn't be tossed out the window just because they're old. My reasoning was that truth ought to be truth whenever it was written down.

In any case, the Bible will never be completely irrelevant. It's pretty good literature if nothing else.

You said:

"If there is a truth.. then it ought to be "timeless," and that precludes the argument that an old book is necessarily irrelevant."

I'm pointing out the other two possibilities: There is no "truth" and there is a "truth" but it isn't (wasn't) timeless. If there is no "truth" then no reason to read the bible (aside from any strictly literary reasons); if there is a truth, and it isn't (wasn't) timeless, then a high probability of the same exists there. That's my point - it relates real well with the statement above this.

The point being that why should we throw out the passages you don't like? Why are they suddenly not the word of the Christian god? Because you don't like them? Because you think they're just too "nasty"? Whether those passages are "nasty" or not, is irrelevant in determining whether they were actually said - and meant that way.I don't know if I can convince you here. I feel personally that my "picking and choosing" is more of a rational examination of historical circumstances, but I understand that since what I see as "historical circumstances" are really a matter of opinion (underinformed as I am on the history of early Biblical books like Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus).

Then to say that they "miss" something presupposes that your view point is correct... that there is something to miss (i.e. some literary devices like metaphors, et cetera) that cannot be viewed with a literal interpretation in the first place. You don't know that; obviously according to the literal interpretation there is nothing to miss.Unfortunately, all I can do in any argument is to presuppose that my view is correct. I wouldn't be going anywhere if I didn't. I think that there is a very great chance that most perceived "hard sayings" in the Bible are a result of misinterpretation, but you're right to say I can't prove my views as to which and why.

If it was a normal human man, then sure. But a man didn't say that, did he? At least not according to Christians. If a god were to say that - one which does a crap load of freaky stuff, like transubstantiation, reincarnation, virgin impregnation, exorcism, etc. - then the answer isn't that clear cut.Not a bad point, but given that "Jesus the Man" endeavored (or I believe that he endeavored) to speak to Man on Man's own level, it would be counter-productive to issue confusing commands concerning cutting off body parts, when the general idea behind said statements makes so much more sense.

The exact same could be said Christianity, and many other "ancient wisdom". If you think that they are somehow innocent in any vilification then you're sorely mistaken. Sadly, only the first ever moral code in the world could hold that distinction, and only because there was nothing else to vilify! Actually, I think Christianity is unique in that when it originated, it originated in a Jewish setting, and yet didn't claim to throw out Jewish teachings, but to fulfill them, and to place their legalistic statutes in a new Messianic context. It didn't try to supersede, but to fulfill. Whether it actually did that is subjective opinion, but Jesus' own words, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill," express the mission statement fairly well.

Believing there is a truth that you don't even know what it is, what it means, or even if it's actually a truth or not, is a lot sillier than simply being of the position that no "truth" exists until proven otherwise.I don't agree that it's silly, which isn't surprising, since you did not back up your view. Now, I'm not saying that I can back up my own with anything else but the stock answers that "it makes me feel secure to believe in Truth" or that sort of drivel, but rather that I consider the issue to be moot, unprovable in either direction (and also irrelevant to the immediate topic).

You said:

"If there is a truth.. then it ought to be "timeless," and that precludes the argument that an old book is necessarily irrelevant."

I'm pointing out the other two possibilities: There is no "truth" and there is a "truth" but it isn't (wasn't) timeless. If there is no "truth" then no reason to read the bible (aside from any strictly literary reasons); if there is a truth, and it isn't (wasn't) timeless, then a high probability of the same exists there. That's my point - it relates real well with the statement above this.Alright, I understand. I agree that if there is no Truth, then there isn't a religious reason to read the Bible, because that's obvious. However, I do believe that if there is a Truth, that it can't be impermanent. I think this has to do with the basic nature of truth. If truth isn't permanent, than one day it will be a truth and the next a lie, or at least a "half-truth," and that's not congruent with what truth ought to be at all.

The Havamal is a much better book

I understand your comments about the OT, but I still think the the NT verse was fairly straightforward.

Please consider how much of what Jesus said was done so in parable, hyperbolic, or even in metaphorical form.

If he intended people to take that scripture literally, there would be examples of his followers doing so. None of them were sinless, yet none of them physically injured themselves in order to prevent themselves from sinning.

Most of the "nasty" passages in the Bible should probably be taken figuratively, or in the case of Exodus's laws, disregarded as tribal nonsense. I don't believe that the laws in those books can honestly be regarded as the "word of God," given that they were essentially the laws of the people. If the laws were unjust (and I say that they were), I don't think that makes the entire Bible unjust or unreasonable.

Biblical fundamentalists (and those who try to "debunk" the Bible by pointing out inconsistencies) miss the subtlety of the allegories, metaphors, hyperbolic techniques utilized by the authors of the Bible.

The thread starter quotes Matthew 18:7-9 as an example of a "ridiculous" statement out of the Gospels, or of a Jesus that "one wouldn't expect." It is completely weird if you take it literally, but the technique of hyperbole that Jesus uses is to point by exaggeration towards the ultimate truth of what he's saying, in that case that one's spiritual life should take precedence of one's physical condition.

In any case, saying that it's a mistake to live by a 1000+ year old book is presupposing that it's better to live by "modern" morals (which are usually either contrapositives or restatements of those ancient books anyway), and doesn't make intrinsic sense either. Honestly, I would rather consider the wisdom of a 5000+ year old compilation by sages and scholars rather than some revisionist construction that erroneously supposes that the age we live in is somehow "different" and demands an accordingly different moral code.

If there is a truth (and I'm not going to be so bold to say that I <i>know</i> there is), then it ought to be "timeless," and that precludes the argument that an old book is necessarily irrelevant.


One could disregard the violence and violent, riduculous laws written in the good book as allegorical or figuratively. The problem is far too much of this text is and has been taken literally for far to long.

If you then look at the atrocities commited by the faithful the world over you realize....God should have written a clearer and straightfoward text. Maybe it was a bad idea for God to inspire the authors of the bible to write in fucking riddles and over-generalized statements. I wonder how many people have died b/c the the written Word of God can be twisted so easily by the shepards due to it's vague passages.

I can see why the authors wrote the book in such a way though. So that you can always RE-TRANSLATE the shit to fit whatever social order you wish to impose upon your flock. It is written like this for the same reason Horoscopes are written in vague and over-generalized script. To fool the guillible.

and I say that they were.

So you're saying that you are a high and mighty force? That you can decide what a bunch of dumbasses do? If you can make them say whenever the greet someone: "I am [insertname] of the dumbass religion.





Minions Attack!

... but I understand that since what I see as "historical circumstances" are really a matter of opinion...

Much more than just opinions... suspiciously convenient ones.


Unfortunately, all I can do in any argument is to presuppose that my view is correct.

That's not the problem, is the circular logic associated with what you said. You presume they are wrong, and then "prove" (or argue, discuss, debate, opine, whatever you want to call it) how "wrong" they are. That is fruitless.


Not a bad point, but given that "Jesus the Man" endeavored (or I believe that he endeavored) to speak to Man on Man's own level, it would be counter-productive to issue confusing commands concerning cutting off body parts, when the general idea behind said statements makes so much more sense.

He endeavored to speak to "Man on Man's" level by calling himself the son of god (the embodiment if the doctrine of the Trinity is to be taken as true) and doing all those supernatural things I mentioned (as well as a huge list of other things that I did not)? A terrible attempt I would say.


Actually, I think Christianity is unique in that when it originated, it originated in a Jewish setting, and yet didn't claim to throw out Jewish teachings, but to fulfill them, and to place their legalistic statutes in a new Messianic context. It didn't try to supersede, but to fulfill. Whether it actually did that is subjective opinion, but Jesus' own words, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill," express the mission statement fairly well.

a. You ignore the countless other religions and beliefs aside from Judaism. The very celebration of Christmas is an attack on the pagan rituals that existed at the time of Christianity's birth.

b. Christianity did in fact throw away Judaic laws as archaic (must I remind you of what you just said in this very thread?) and obsolote with Jesus' teachings.


I don't agree that it's silly, which isn't surprising, since you did not back up your view. Now, I'm not saying that I can back up my own with anything else but the stock answers that "it makes me feel secure to believe in Truth" or that sort of drivel, but rather that I consider the issue to be moot, unprovable in either direction (and also irrelevant to the immediate topic).

So you don't believe it is silly to believe in something you can't even describe, let alone prove exists?


However, I do believe that if there is a Truth, that it can't be impermanent.

What you "believe" is irrelevant in this case. We must consider all possibilities until one of them is proven to be impossible - something you have clearly not done.