Merged (edited) General thoughts about Christianity and the bible

[catsmate]

Why not?

What is supposed to be referring to?

You seem to be in the business of discarding any child with a blemish.

Strawman

<>

Why are you posting nonsense from that idiotic addict?

 

[catsmate]

That's a typical, but unwarranted criticism.
Do you critisize a doctor for being a specialist instead of GP?

Strawman.

The creeds lay out the core beliefs. Everything else is icing on the cake.
You can have a red cake, or a blue cake. Both are still cake.

Nonsense.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Are they better for it?

Yes, everywhere where religion becomes a personal thing that has no power over others is better off then where it isn't

Which is why zealots are so dedicated into making religion codified by law and ensuring their children are never exposed to alternatives.

 

[catsmate]

Who determines which Bible has "translational fidelity"?

Objective scholars.

And what becomes of all the others?

Discarded as erroneous ..

They already tried to do that with the King James Version.

But people keep it because it suits their opinions.

Every Bible translation is different. (with many similarities)

Each READER choose the one that works BEST for them.

Old translation, new, paraphrase, study... themed? Illustrated?

No

 

[Foster Zygote]

I suppose that's a matter of opinion.
Is abortion murder? (subjective human morality?)

I just realized that I asked that question of someone with "zygote" in their username. - LOL

Didn't see you'd later added this video.

Charlie Kirk: the younger, louder, dumber Ben Shapiro.

 

[catsmate]

Exodus 20:13 ~ “You shall not murder."

You can't kill a baby without killing a baby.
Human DNA is determined at conception.

Don't be silly, abortion isn't "murder".

I don't know.

Slavery was a fact of life in early times.
I would say the law made it humane.

Rubbish. Slavery was and is a profitable atrocity.

The alternative was genocide.
Would you preferred that?

Again, rubbish.

 

[catsmate]

Why would you limit sources?

Why are you obsessed with the morality of a bunch of bronze age goat herders?

 

[Helen]

When the Apostle Paul told Christian men to love their wives, that was revolutionary thought at the time.

No, it wasn't. Perhaps to some of the local people, but loving your partner was certainly not revolutionary 2000 years ago. Perhaps you should read other fiction from the era, and earlier? Love for a partner is one of the most common themes in fiction, you'll find.

Why limit yourself to one set of translators on a specific version.
Compare to see what best speaks to you.


In comparative study they bring out a subtle or blatant difference.

That is not how you do comparative studies of ancient texts; what "speaks to you" is utterly irrelevant.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Little known fact: the bet was settled when Satan (the Adversary) paid God the agreed upon wager of $1.00.

I thought he had to change his avatar to the little red horned fella.

 

[JayUtah]

No, it wasn't. Perhaps to some of the local people, but loving your partner was certainly not revolutionary 2000 years ago. Perhaps you should read other fiction from the era, and earlier?

Like Song of Solomon.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Why would you limit sources?

From a scholarly perspective, I wouldn't. Scholarship includes the study of Christian history, so there's no good reason to ignore doctrinal changes that effect the direction in which Christianity evolved.

But from the standpoint of attempting to determine the closest we can get to the original sources, it's illogical not to differentiate textual variances and interpolations that were clearly made centuries later. If you learn that a source is unreliable, there's nothing intellectually honest about ignoring the problem because you prefer what the less reliable source says.

It's stunning, really, that you so readily admit that you simply want to pile everything together and select or discard based on your own personal desires. I don't know whether you simply cannot apprehend the complete logical failure of that method, or you're so indoctrinated in the irrational apologetics of defending your dogma that you simply ignore the problem.

 

[Helen]

I suppose that's a matter of opinion.
Is abortion murder? (subjective human morality?)

I just realized that I asked that question of someone with "zygote" in their username. - LOL

I've never understood why a foetus should have more rights than the woman it's freeloading on.

 

[JayUtah]

It's stunning, really, that you so readily admit that you simply want to pile everything together and select or discard based on your own personal desires. I don't know whether you simply cannot apprehend the complete logical failure of that method, or you're so indoctrinated in the irrational apologetics of defending your dogma that you simply ignore the problem.

I find it telling that what's important versus what isn't important seems now to be varying according to how well the OP can defend it against criticism. The less tenable his argument, the less important it is to God to get right.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Are they better for it?

Yes.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I've given this a bit more thought.

I think most marriages at that time were arranged. Women weren't free to choose their own mate.
Extended families lived together. The men (husbands) owned everything and everyone in their clan.
Some marriages were political in nature. Connecting clans for political gain. (safety in numbers)

So, a daughter that was off chasing men was putting herself and her family at risk. Very bad behavior.

Congratulations! You've succeeded in explaining how a member of a Bronze Age patriarchal oligarchy would have rationalized killing a girl for having sex. But you've utterly failed to explain why a just, loving god would have imposed that system upon them. Hell, they were so committed to the idea of females as property that a woman or girl could be executed for being raped if it was determined that she didn't fight or shout loudly enough to stop it. Throughout human history, women and girls have had to endure the "but what were you wearing" victim blaming.

To a slave owner in the Southern U.S. in the middle of the 19th Century, whose entire economy, let alone his own personal fortune, was dependent upon the enslavement of vast numbers of people, slaves running away and seeking freedom in the northern states was "very bad behavior". Are you implying that we should tolerate slavery in cultures in which it has been institutionalized to the point that it's a supporting pillar of their economy and social structure?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Are they better for it?

Are you ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ kidding me? Are we better for abolishing slavery? Are we better for recognizing women as having equal rights to men? At this point you're just trolling for shock points. No wonder you're posting Charlie Kirk videos.

 

[Helen]

Charlie Kirk and Jordan Petersson videos...

 

[Foster Zygote]

No, it wasn't. Perhaps to some of the local people, but loving your partner was certainly not revolutionary 2000 years ago. Perhaps you should read other fiction from the era, and earlier? Love for a partner is one of the most common themes in fiction, you'll find.

Yeah, ancient versions of cheesy romance novels were all the rage in Greco Roman fiction.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I thought he had to change his avatar to the little red horned fella.

Turned out that image was copyrighted by a hot sauce company in New Mexico. But Satan later acquired it in a merger with its parent company.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Like Song of Solomon.

Passionate love for Helen caused a major war, for crying' out loud.

And Orpheus went to the land of the dead to bring back his beloved wife, Eurydice.