I'll throw a coal into this fire

[El_Spectre]

Hey, pay attention. I didn't start any of this with Dr. A.

That's spiffy. Much like dancing and sex, flame wars take 2. If you want to stop it, just walk away kid.

 

[turtle]

That's spiffy. Much like dancing and sex, flame wars take 2. If you want to stop it, just walk away kid.

Why can't any of you take responsibility for your actions? He calls me names and follows me around and attacks me. That seems to be okey dokey with everyone. I tell him to buzz off, and I'm at fault?

Pathetic.

As I posted to winny, didn't you just read my post? He's on ignore. I'm in the other thread.

So why don't you all stop posting about my behavior and that way I won't have to respond? In other words: just walk away, "kid."

 

[Dr Adequate]

An entire post from turtle.

You're really quite the little gnarled gnome of a psycho-path, aren't you?
AREN'T YOU??!!!

You f****** nutcase you.

Give it up. It's going nowhere, babe. NOWHERE.

Loser.

Oh, sorry. Make that "filthy dirty vile maliscious pompous ass of a clown" loser, ROF.

Her entire post. That was the reasoning offered from beginnning to end. That was all she had to say for herself. I'd like to quote this now.

Originally posted by turtle
I am not a troll. So stop lying, you filthy, vile liar.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Umm...who decides which is true? God obviously.

I'm not saying my interpretation is true. I'm not saying christians intrepret it all just right. That wasn't what I'm saying at all.

What I was saying is just because there are many intrepretations of something doesn't mean there is a right one. That should be pretty obvious though. If somebody says 2+2=3, someone else says its 4, and someone says its 5, then the second is right right? So varying opinions can exist with only one being right.

But the guy who says 2+2=4 can also provide evidence why that answer is correct and the other 2 aren't.

It's very hard to defend the Bible, gecko, because the Bible does not support what Christians claim it supports. It isn't even possible to explain why Jesus is the 'son' of God. Does God have a wife?

You could rationalize something, I'm sure, but try this one. God makes man. Man pisses God off. God punishes man. God has a son. God sends his son to get beat up by man so God can forgive man for the thing that pissed God off in the first place.

Think about it. What possible logic could explain why God couldn't have just said, "Crawl on the ground a bit and ask to be forgiven and I will do so." God supposedly "sends" Jesus. It isn't that Jesus said, "Gee Dad, let me take the punishment for these sinners." So one is supposed to believe the Jesus story is some big sacrifice God makes because he 'loves' people.

"Here, let me cause my son pain so I can forgive you." It's really very stupid if you actually think about it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
At the same time, it would seem that you word prefer not to believe that God's exhortations to rape, murder, torture and enslave various peoples are true.

.... Did you think God was correct to forbid men with crushed testicles from going to church? ........ Do you think it was a worthy endeavour to collect the foreskins of your enemy? Do you think that God was right to threaten to smear faeces on the faces of his enemies? Do you think it was acceptable for God to kill 42 young children for making fun of His prophet?

When you take the book as a whole, God seems a fairly cranky, irrational and unpredictable kind of chappy to be honest.

I do buy your premise here. There are plenty of very bad things in the Bible. I am curious though, as to where these particular passages I left in your quote above are.

 

[turtle]

You could rationalize something, I'm sure, but try this one. God makes man. Man pisses God off. God punishes man. God has a son. God sends his son to get beat up by man so God can forgive man for the thing that pissed God off in the first place.

Think about it. What possible logic could explain why God couldn't have just said, "Crawl on the ground a bit and ask to be forgiven and I will do so." God supposedly "sends" Jesus. It isn't that Jesus said, "Gee Dad, let me take the punishment for these sinners." So one is supposed to believe the Jesus story is some big sacrifice God makes because he 'loves' people.

That sums it up for me as well. Why does someone want to believe in such a petty and vindictive being?

 

[Steven Howard]

I do buy your premise here. There are plenty of very bad things in the Bible. I am curious though, as to where these particular passages I left in your quote above are.

I'm not Winny, but I know some of these.

Crushed testicles:

Deuteronomy 23:1. "He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD."

Collecting foreskins:

1 Samuel 18:25-27. David kills 200 Philistines and brings their foreskins to Saul as a dowry for Saul's daughter Michal.

Killing 42 children:

2 Kings 2:23-24. Children make fun of Elisha's bald head. Yahweh sends two "she bears" to eat 42 of them.

 

[jmercer]

What IS the bible?

Yeah, the bible's full of nasty things... the better to keep you in line with, sez the organized religion of your choice...

Just remember - the bible is written by people supposedly inspired by God. However, apparently nobody gave God the option to edit the book, so it's really, really hard to say if any of it is accurate or not. FWIW, I think the bible may have some seeds of truth buried in it at places; however I strongly suspect that a lot of it is fictional, and should largely be taken as parables should be... not as a literal meaning, but as an Aesops Fable moral lesson.

Additionally, the thing's been translated into so many different languages during so many different periods of history, I seriously doubt that it looks much like any of the original texts.

In example, take a look at the Ten Commandment Versions . Even this link I gave you has a fundamental translation error, albeit one of current Talmudic and Christian texts. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" was actually "Thou Shalt Not Murder ". Apparently, the Hebrews of the period differentiated between murder and self-defense, and it was either purposely or accidently mis-translated at some point.

 

[Harlequin]

Edited to say: Oops, sorry, got posters mixed up, thought you were Gecko.

Wow. Hard to believe that this one little post was what killed the thread. From that minor mistake, rppa and Turtle went into a quote-spiral.

Dr. A, you seem to intensely dislike Turtle. I've followed along as this developed through several other threads. At this point, I would suggest ignoring her posts. What seems to happen is that you wait until she gets on a rant and then you push her over the edge. Are you hoping she'll go so far that she gets banned?

 

[SezMe]

Re: What IS the bible?

In example, take a look at the Ten Commandment Versions . Even this link I gave you has a fundamental translation error, albeit one of current Talmudic and Christian texts. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" was actually "Thou Shalt Not Murder ". Apparently, the Hebrews of the period differentiated between murder and self-defense, and it was either purposely or accidently mis-translated at some point.

I don't agree with the "murder" translation. After all, what is murder but unlawful killing. So another way to write "Thou shalt not murder" is "It is unlawful to kill unlawfully" which, of course, is meaningless.

 

[rppa]

Wow. Hard to believe that this one little post was what killed the thread. From that minor mistake, rppa and Turtle went into a quote-spiral.

Is it over yet?

I've been lurking and waiting for the thread to un-derail itself.

 

[jmercer]

Re: Re: What IS the bible?

I don't agree with the "murder" translation. After all, what is murder but unlawful killing. So another way to write "Thou shalt not murder" is "It is unlawful to kill unlawfully" which, of course, is meaningless.

Your take on it is a perfect example of how the bible itself has been misinterpreted many times over the years. "Thou shalt not murder" isn't "It is unlawful to kill unlawfully", it is "Do not kill unlawfully."

Judaic law preceded Moses's advent. It covered things like stoning to death for adultery, killing in self defense, killing to avenge rape, killing during war, etc. Even during Jesus's time the Judaic laws were in force - the "Let he who is without sin..." parable clearly shows that.

One of the reasons to believe that "Thou shalt not murder" was retranslated into "Thou shalt not kill" was due to the need the church felt during the middle ages to reconcile Jesus's apparently different views with the rest of the bible. After all, Jesus came "to fulfill the law and the prophecy", and any inconsistencies might cause theological problems for a still-troubled, still-growing church.

 

[jmercer]

Is it over yet?

I've been lurking and waiting for the thread to un-derail itself.

Uh... I dunno. And I'm sorry if I continued the derailment with my post about the bible stuff.

 

[turtle]

Uh... I dunno. And I'm sorry if I continued the derailment with my post about the bible stuff.

It's over as far as I'm concerned, he's on ignore, and I'm over in the religious thread...this is a good topic (all that bible stuff) why can't we just continue with that, or, take it to the appropriate thread?

 

[Winny]

I do buy your premise here. There are plenty of very bad things in the Bible. I am curious though, as to where these particular passages I left in your quote above are.

Steven Howard has answered this for all but the poo-poo on the face threat that God made.

It always struck me as a little odd that an all-knowing and all-loving God was so obsessed with poo-poo, dangly bits and funny-business. God has so much to say about foreskins, testicles, sex and faeces.

Anyway, the final passage that you are after is KJV Malachi 2:3 Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces

A charming sentiment indeed.

cheers

Winny

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Is it over yet?

I've been lurking and waiting for the thread to un-derail itself.

Ah... er... couldn't you have just not posted anymore?

It didn't take me long to 'just not read' either of your posts. Anyway, carry on if you like, I have one of those wheel scrollers on my mouse.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's over as far as I'm concerned, he's on ignore, and I'm over in the religious thread...this is a good topic (all that bible stuff) why can't we just continue with that, or, take it to the appropriate thread?

Peace be upon you.

 

[El_Spectre]

Peace be upon you.

OK, extremely off topic... but what is the smilie guy supposed to be doing there? Phrenology exam? blatant flirt? Inquiring minds want to know....

 

[Powa]

OK, extremely off topic... but what is the smilie guy supposed to be doing there? Phrenology exam? blatant flirt? Inquiring minds want to know....

The smiley is nitpicking.

 

[El_Spectre]

The smiley is nitpicking.

aaah. I feel old now.

(start geezer rant)
back in my days we didn't have none of yer highfalutin' animated smilies... all we had was : ) and ; ) and, dangit, we were happy that way!

uphill, both ways....