Bible study, open to all

[Charity]

I was interested in GadFly's answer, but thanks for your opinion.... and no... I don't believe it is good enough... I don't know what "evidence" you speak of, can you tell me?

How do you know they wrote it?

Convert everyone to the Catholic Church.... duh.

There is documation that the letters that were written by Paul to Timothy and Peter to the churches and Paul to the churches.....You are suppose to be a Catholic and you believe in Jesus then why am I having to defend myself to you arent' we suppose to believe in most of the same things when it comes to Jesus...

And furthermore the agenda I referred to was not a question to you so why bring it up , it has nothing to do with the discussion between us.....That post was to someone else......

Why are you nitpicking with us we are all suppose to be on the same side.....

 

[Charity]

Come Let us reason together

II Tim 2:16

But shun profane and vain babblings: For they will increase unto more ungodliness.




Do all things withour murmurings and disputes....

So please let's just drop this conversation Hallelujah Glory to God!!!

 

[texan1]

First, allow me to point out that atheist certainly are not the best people to script what a Christian is really like. Secondly. Autodidact is what she is. She is an atheist with an agenda. Everybody except maybe you can see this. Her purposes for discussing Scriptures is agenda driven by her atheistic desire to cause confusion and pick at theist.

Also, if you have read what I said with an open ear, you know that I only pointed out whose position in a debate she is on. She has chosen theologically to take Satan's side of the argument; therefore, she represents the Devil's position. She is not the Devil but she likes his point of view. You are welcome to that point of view too if you like it. We are all free to make up our own minds. Autodidact also post that she is the head lesbian, which that also is her choice; but, I also notice she is a lawyer and she is certainly wise enough to know that posting you are a head lesbian among Christians would raise a few eye brawls. I assume she is intelligent but any lawyer who is a head lesbian would not expect to be well received as a speaker in a Christian debate in most places.

I think she has been well received here but many of us disagree with her motives. She has approached us as if we are stupid baby killers.

Sorry if I offended you GadFly. I understand your response to her may have been based in part on previous posts and interactions with her. I also wrote this before I saw some posts that came after your comments.

We admit that God told Israel to kill the Medinites' children. We did not kill these children but we correctly predicted that she would make this accusation as I think you might have done so also.

I'm not making any accusations.

You say you are truly interested in historical context. Somehow I don't believe you. If you are interested, what is to keep you from doing your own reading and research?

Okay fair comment.

I think you are too anxious to blame the people of faith for you lack of understanding. It is not our fault you do not read all the many passages in the four Gospels where Jesus argued bitterly with the Scribes and Pharisees over the meaning of the Scriptures.

Since Ale Gore invented the internet,

lol

there is no way you can successfully claim Christians have not pointed out any sources to help your lack of understanding.

I don't think I was claiming that exactly, but that's a fair comment.

Me thinks you've played dumb for the last time with the GadFly.

I don't usually have to play dumb. It just comes naturally.

My intentions were well meaning towards you but I don't think you have reciprocated by making the accusations posted here. I may be mistaken but I am sure you will correct me if I am.
God Bless, the GadFly

Again, sorry to have offended. I think I'll exit this thread now.

 

[Ratiocinative]

Why would you assume the Bible is easily ridiculed, or that studying it lends easily in that direction?

We're not. It's obvious you're trying to "discredit" the Bible by quoting Numbers 31 without Numbers 25 also. If you didn't know about Numbers 25, then its obvious you just went to some website and copied your post from there. In either case, you made no attempt to read the text, so of course you don't understand it.

By reading chapter 25 you can see that the Midianites purposely sent women to tempt Israel into idolatry and sexual immorality, and some of the Israelites did. God hates these behaviors and both Israelites and Midianites were killed as punishment, the Israelites first in chapter 25 and Midianites in chapter 31. Also, the 6th commandment is do not murder, it is not do not kill. Murder means to kill unlawfully. There are certainly situations in which killing is lawful: self-defense, punishment for crime, etc..

I find it funny how Atheists claim to be so logical, yet they don't even seem to know how to read or how to use a dictionary.

 

[uss_bigd]

We're not. It's obvious you're trying to "discredit" the Bible by quoting Numbers 31 without Numbers 25 also. If you didn't know about Numbers 25, then its obvious you just went to some website and copied your post from there. In either case, you made no attempt to read the text, so of course you don't understand it.

By reading chapter 25 you can see that the Midianites purposely sent women to tempt Israel into idolatry and sexual immorality, and some of the Israelites did. God hates these behaviors and both Israelites and Midianites were killed as punishment, the Israelites first in chapter 25 and Midianites in chapter 31. Also, the 6th commandment is do not murder, it is not do not kill. Murder means to kill unlawfully. There are certainly situations in which killing is lawful: self-defense, punishment for crime, etc..

I find it funny how Atheists claim to be so logical, yet they don't even seem to know how to read or how to use a dictionary.

:clap:clap:clap

 

[UnityNow101]

Are the old testament stories that tell of an "almighty" god that uses mass murder as a tactic to induce belief in him not enough proof to realize that man has made god in his own image to continually justify his own wrongdoings and evil intentions? This is kind of ridiculous that we would even be having this debate nowadays...There is no excuse for that kind of mass murder, no matter if the chosen people are allowed by god to kill with such ruthlessness.

Is it not enough to see the change in the peoples' perception of god and its fluctuation throughout the ages to come to the conclusion that as human consciousness evolves, our perception and ideas of god change as well? I always had a hard time with this when I was younger. I would read the ruthlessness of the old testament god and then jump to the new testament where we are told to love as god loves and not to judge others. This only began to make sense to me as I began to understand the origin of god. Not who is god and what religion he can be found in. But rather, where did the idea of god come from and how has it changed over the years according to our collective consciousness...

 

[texan1]

Is it not enough to see the change in the peoples' perception of god and its fluctuation throughout the ages to come to the conclusion that as human consciousness evolves, our perception and ideas of god change as well? I always had a hard time with this when I was younger. I would read the ruthlessness of the old testament god and then jump to the new testament where we are told to love as god loves and not to judge others. This only began to make sense to me as I began to understand the origin of god. Not who is god and what religion he can be found in. But rather, where did the idea of god come from and how has it changed over the years according to our collective consciousness...

I tend to agree with this. I think it has been mentioned before on other threads - the idea that in a lot of ways our collective morality has evolved which has changed the way God is perceived and how religion is practiced. I think perhaps it can go both ways; religion can impact peoples morality and morality can impact religion.

I know I said I was exiting this thread.....don't bite me Gadfly.....

 

[McBell]

I find it rather interesting how certain agendas are just fine (Gadfly's), yet other agendas are bad (Autodidact's).

I find it even more interesting that Gadfly did not answer the direct question posted to them:

Peter and Paul the Apostles read the King James Version of the Bible?#34
​

​

 

[GadFly]

I tend to agree with this. I think it has been mentioned before on other threads - the idea that in a lot of ways our collective morality has evolved which has changed the way God is perceived and how religion is practiced. I think perhaps it can go both ways; religion can impact peoples morality and morality can impact religion.

I know I said I was exiting this thread.....don't bite me Gadfly.....

I promise to never bite you. You are welcome to share any thread with me at any time. You are also welcome to disagree with me at any time. we are friends.
GadFly

 

[GadFly]

I find it rather interesting how certain agendas are just fine (Gadfly's), yet other agendas are bad (Autodidact's).

I find it even more interesting that Gadfly did not answer the direct question posted to them:

Peter and Paul the Apostles read the King James Version of the Bible?#34
​

Don't be too concerned about my reference to the King James Version of the Bible. It was an attempt at humor. You may have noted that I am not good at making jokes and I was only practicing to improve my humor skills. I did not mean to mislead you or did I have any theological meaning in what I said. Most any version of the Bible is fine with me as long as the person reading it can understand it.
GadFly

 

[GadFly]

Are the old testament stories that tell of an "almighty" god that uses mass murder as a tactic to induce belief in him not enough proof to realize that man has made god in his own image to continually justify his own wrongdoings and evil intentions? This is kind of ridiculous that we would even be having this debate nowadays...There is no excuse for that kind of mass murder, no matter if the chosen people are allowed by god to kill with such ruthlessness.

Is it not enough to see the change in the peoples' perception of god and its fluctuation throughout the ages to come to the conclusion that as human consciousness evolves, our perception and ideas of god change as well? I always had a hard time with this when I was younger. I would read the ruthlessness of the old testament god and then jump to the new testament where we are told to love as god loves and not to judge others. This only began to make sense to me as I began to understand the origin of god. Not who is god and what religion he can be found in. But rather, where did the idea of god come from and how has it changed over the years according to our collective consciousness...

This debate is good and therefore necessary. I know you are not surprised when I tell you that people have a problem recognizing evil whether it comes from atheist or theist zealots. I have seen evil come form all different types of people, even from those who are most against what they call evil, such as passivities. The Bible is perfect in that it does what it was supposed to do. It does what you say is happening to the world and to God. It describes man's relationship to God and man's moral development as man changes to approach the image of God.

When man does wrong, he is not doing wrong and reflecting the image of God. He is reflecting the image of Satan, who delights in interfering with God's creation. Man's bad mistakes or good doings do not contribute to the making of the image of God; where did you get this idea? It never came from the Bible or from Christians. Unlike atheist, theist do not believe that God changes but rather our understanding of God changes. God always stays the same.

The Bible does not trace the development of God. It traces the moral and spiritual development of man. You have things turned around from what they are. Man can not create God but God is recreating man and keeps trying to get man's attention. That was the purpose of Christ to show us the Father. To be there stable as a solid premise to moral behavior and standard of all that is good. You can not judge moral behavior by man's standards because these change but God does not change.

 

[Autodidact]

Again, I read the Bible as the Word of God and not as if each and every sentence was a literal account of history...

O.K., great. So what do you think God is telling us in this particular passage.

Listen, I get it ok.... the atheist really wants all us stupid Christians to look at this verse (apparently for the first time--- or the first time without our secret-squirrel brainwashing helmet on) and come to the OBVIOUS conclusion that God is vidictive, evil, a virgin taking-little boy killing ****** that we should not worship.... I get it... geez, I think everyone on this thread understands what you are trying to do.

Do you disagree? If so, why? On what do you base your position? How do you interpret this passage so as to reach a different conclusion?

Or, if you don't, then why do you worship and obey a vindictive, evil, virgin-taking, little-boy killing ******?

..... but if you are going to just ignore my replies and my opinions on Scripture, please stick to talking to the Protestants who think God kills and we should kill non-Christians.... you'll have a lot more fun with them.

I'm sorry, I don't think I've been ignoring you. I believe you posted that God condemns these actions. This is a very different interpretation than the other Christians in this thread. I submit that it is a questionable interpretation of this passage. Where is the condemnatory language? It's not like this is a God who minces words or doesn't know how to condemn things. I mean, eat the wrong mammal or sleep with the wrong person and it's an abomination punishable by death. Not so here, true? In fact, the only thing that God gets angry about is that His people failed to kill enough Midianites.

 

[Ringer]

In fact, the only thing that God gets angry about is that His people failed to kill enough Midianites.

What God was angry about is that they didn't follow his commands. I understand you have an issue that God's command was to kill every Midianites. I have an issue with it as well but I don't pretend to understand everything about God either. It's not my duty to pass judgement on Him. They were commanded to do as they were told and by doing so they would be blessed. It's as simple as that for most Christians.

I also find it ironic that an atheist would even question the morality of such a scenario. You see these actions as evil. If there is evil there also has to be good. If there is good and evil you are indirectly apply there is a moral law and if there is a moral law there would have to be a moral law giver (God). I think you know the answers to the questions you are asking. You just don't like them. Nothing we can do about that.

 

[Autodidact]

What I learn is that God will support those who obey His commands.

Yes, I think you're right. I think this, or something like it, is the main point of these passages, that if you are faithful to God, you will be successful in war, and He will smite your enemies. If, however, you disobey Him, He may smite you.

That if they are a force for leading His people astray then they will be held accountable for their actions. OF course that is general and not specific to this situation.

Again, I think you're basically right, but the specifics do raise some questions.
It seems like God prohibits non-Jews (or non-Christians?) from proselytizing to His people; this is punishable by death, right? But Jews (or Christians?) are allowed to proselytize others? So like you can go preach to the Muslims, in fact you should do so, but if they do the same to you, they should be killed? Doesn't seem too fair. That would especially bad if they felt the same way, then everyone goes around killing each other. Oh wait, that does describe most of world history. That's one of the reasons that I think passages like this are important.

btw, I guess you disagree with Scott that God is condemning this genocide? You think He approves of it?

Another big issue is that God doesn't just punish the Midianites, He wipes them off the face of the earth, and also their babies. Do you think that's just?

I believe they did occur. But it wouldn't be a huge problem if they actually didn't. I am occasionally a believer in the theory of exagerated Bible numbers.

Again, I think that Scott disagrees with you.

Obey the commandments and God will bless you.

Yes, exactly. Now I'm assuming that you agree that stabbing newborn babies to death is wrong, correct? So, if God commands you to do so, you should go ahead, and God will then bless you?

And of course, how can you be sure it's God commanding you?
I mean, if, heaven forbid, you were living in YFZ ranch, and Warren Jeffs told you that God had spoken to him and told you to kill the neighbor's babies, how do you tell whether it's God, or just a psychotic cult leader? How were the Israelites supposed to know that Moses was communicating with God, and not just another Warren Jeffs? Because apparently God is perfectly capable of commanding just that, right?

Or, if you have a revelation from God, how can you be sure that it really was God, and not your own schizophrenic delusion. Like, say you're Andrea Yates, and God speaks to you directly and tells you to kill your children to save them from Satan, so they can enjoy eternal life with Him, how do you tell whether it's God or not?

And finally, what kind of God commands His soldiers to murder babies?

I don't know. Ask Him.

I did. No reply. This happens to coincide with the theory that He doesn't exist, which is how all my attempts to find out whether He does turn out. This confirms my suspicion that He doesn't. So I have to ask His followers, such as you. Any idea?

How does any person determine who is a virgin?

Medical exam?

I think it just basically speaks about the importance of obeying God's commandments.

No matter how horrific, right? So if God commands you to commit genocide, kill babies, capture virgins, drive airplanes into buildings, etc., you should do it, right?

We learn that if God commands a person to kill then it is not held against that person as murder.

Exactly. I agree completely. No matter how unprovoked, unjustified, or otherwise abhorrent, if God commands it, it's not murder.

I don't know. I've never been in war.

Well me neither, but I do vote, so I think I need to have opinions about it.

I'm not sure.

Maybe you should read it. It is one of your holy texts, isn't it?

It depends on the situation.

Could you be more specific? Say for example if 50 years ago some Muslims tried to proselytize some Mormons, and even persuaded some. Should we be killing them now?

 

[Autodidact]

What God was angry about is that they didn't follow his commands. I understand you have an issue that God's command was to kill every Midianites. I have an issue with it as well but I don't pretend to understand everything about God either. It's not my duty to pass judgement on Him. They were commanded to do as they were told and by doing so they would be blessed. It's as simple as that for most Christians.

Yes, it is, which is why Christians sometimes behave in exactly this way. If they come to believe, for whatever reason, that God has commanded them to kill babies, they do so. That is part of their religious belief system.

Of course I have an issue with it; I'm a moral person with compassion. I believe that genocide and infanticide are evil, that warfare, hatred and conflict in general are bad things and that we should be trying to reduce them, don't you?

Also, I'm afraid of being on the victim end of this kind of behavior. After all, I'm an atheist , a Jew and a lesbian. I'm afraid that some Christian is going to take this type of passage seriously and kill my kids.

I also find it ironic that an atheist would even question the morality of such a scenario. You see these actions as evil. If there is evil there also has to be good. If there is good and evil you are indirectly apply there is a moral law and if there is a moral law there would have to be a moral law giver (God). I think you know the answers to the questions you are asking. You just don't like them. Nothing we can do about that.

Well, this goes to show that you haven't thought about atheism much. It is not the case that only theists are moral. On the contrary, I think this passage and the responses it's getting are examples of how Theists are often the least moral people. Your logic is lacking. However, this raises a separate issue, which I would be happy to debate with you. I think it needs a separate thread, though, don't you?

I don't "know" the answers. I have my opinions, but the purpose of the thread and the forum are to debate and discuss everyone's opinion. I don't assume that I'm right and know more than everyone else; I'm willing to put my reasoning out there, subject it to discussion, and see how it holds up.

 

[Autodidact]

First, allow me to point out that atheist certainly are not the best people to script what a Christian is really like.

Are you sure? Maybe an outside perspective is the best one.

Secondly. Autodidact is what she is. She is an atheist with an agenda.

Well yeah, something wrong with that? No big secret. This is a forum for everyone to share their opinions, including atheists.

Everybody except maybe you can see this. Her purposes for discussing Scriptures is agenda driven by her atheistic desire to cause confusion and pick at theist.

Now this is where you go wrong. I'm not trying to cause confusion, and why would atheists have a special desire to do that. In general, we tend to be people who value reason, and who are trying to cause clarity, not confusion. My goal is to spark discussion so as to lead to greater understanding, not confusion.

Also, if you have read what I said with an open ear, you know that I only pointed out whose position in a debate she is on. She has chosen theologically to take Satan's side of the argument; therefore, she represents the Devil's position.

Please withdraw this vicious slander immediately. Obviously, I am not more representing the Devil's position than Yahweh's; I don't think either of them exists.

She is not the Devil but she likes his point of view.

Is it your practice to invent vicious lies about other people? I most certainly do not. My point of view is that the Devil does not exist. You seem to be locked into a primitive myth-system in which there are only two categories, God and Devil, and this prevents you from seeing anything out side those two categories. I will try to excuse your slander, but an apology would make it easier to forgive you.

You are welcome to that point of view too if you like it. We are all free to make up our own minds. Autodidact also post that she is the head lesbian, which that also is her choice; but, I also notice she is a lawyer and she is certainly wise enough to know that posting you are a head lesbian among Christians would raise a few eye brawls. I assume she is intelligent but any lawyer who is a head lesbian would not expect to be well received as a speaker in a Christian debate in most places.

My mistake. I thought this was a forum to discuss and debate issues, not my personal life. I thought that even Christians were capable of focusing on the questions, and not on their erroneous judgmental condemnation of someone else's love life. Apparently you disagree? Or maybe it's only you, GadFly, who cannot argue without resorting to the fallacy ad hominim? (ad feminem?)

I think she has been well received here but many of us disagree with her motives. She has approached us as if we are stupid baby killers.

Read the first post. How did I approach you in that way? Did I call you names? Did I call you stupid? Seems like you're the only calling names, here, GadFly, approaching me as if I'm a pawn of a mythological creature. All that I did was to raise questions that you are finding difficult to answer. If anything, I am crediting you with quite a lot of intelligence. And here I thought that GadFlys liked difficult questions. Maybe not when they're directed at the GadFly?

We admit that God told Israel to kill the Medinites' children.

Some of you do; some don't.

We did not kill these children but we correctly predicted that she would make this accusation as I think you might have done so also.

If you disagree with any of my reasoning, please respond and show how it is erreneous. If not, then it stands.

This is a debate tactic you see from atheist everytime you discussion religion with them and it comes from their desire to embarrass Christians. Christians do believe the Devil's position is evil, or did you not already know this before you blamed us for calling Autodidact's position evil. With me, I was not calling anybody a name but lust pointing out her theological position. That's fair here.

Well, if you advocate infanticide, what does that make you? It's not a tactic, it's the truth, isn't it?

 

[sojourner]

Thanks Scott. But using the three criteria you mention above, what would you (or anyone else reading this thread) make of this passage?



This is where I get confused. And this is why I started questioning my faith to begin with. There are some lovely passages in the New Testament, but why is it okay for Christians to sort of disregard much of the Old Testament, including passages like this? People just seem to believe the parts that suit them and then seem critical of others who don't accept the Bible as the Truth. I'm never able to get a clear answer from anyone. I understand it can't be taken literally......so how can it be taken? I'm not trying to pick on you or anything (so hard to get tone of voice across in this virtual world), but I would really be interested in an answer for this, or an interpretation of this passage despite the fact that some of you may question the motivation/intention of the op.

We make judgments about the veracity, the importance, the relevance of scripture all the time. We weigh scripture, just as Jesus did. "It is written ... but I tell you..." When his disciples were taken to task for gleaning on the Sabbath, Jesus said, "the Sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath." that is the process of weeding through the corpus of Tradition we find in scripture. Some of it "fits," some doesn't. We don't have to "believe the whole thing," in a manner of speaking, in order to use it to develop our relationship with God.

The Bible isn't a textbook of fact that informs our faith. Rather, it is a testament to our faith.

 

[Ringer]

Of course I have an issue with it; I'm a moral person with compassion. I believe that genocide and infanticide are evil, that warfare, hatred and conflict in general are bad things and that we should be trying to reduce them, don't you?

Of course I think it's evil and anybody would. However, God deals perfect justice so for me to say that God was wrong in this situation would nonsense on my part. In an unperfect world, the children suffered because of the sins of their parents. The good news is, they don't have to share the eternal fate with them. We see the same situation in the bible as well. Children are blessed because of the righteousness of their parents.

Also, I'm afraid of being on the victim end of this kind of behavior. After all, I'm an atheist , a Jew and a lesbian. I'm afraid that some Christian is going to take this type of passage seriously and kill my kids.

LOL?

Well, this goes to show that you haven't thought about atheism much. It is not the case that only theists are moral. On the contrary, I think this passage and the responses it's getting are examples of how Theists are often the least moral people. Your logic is lacking. However, this raises a separate issue, which I would be happy to debate with you. I think it needs a separate thread, though, don't you?

I never stated that atheists aren't moral. The bible says that the law of God is written on all of our hearts so that we are without excuse. I believe this is why everybody regardless of age, race, culture, and orientations know right from wrong. It's not something that sprang up due to evolution. Atheist are just as moral as theist. The only difference is where we believe these morals came from. Sure....this could be a good thread in and of itself.

 

[Autodidact]

Of course I think it's evil and anybody would. However, God deals perfect justice so for me to say that God was wrong in this situation would nonsense on my part. In an unperfect world, the children suffered because of the sins of their parents.

O.K., so obviously, here's your problem:
1. This behavior is evil.
2. God commands it.
Therefore God commands evil.
How can you escape from this syllogism?
Even worse, but maybe not quite as strongly warranted:
1. This behavior is evil.
2. Commanding evil behavior is evil.
3. God commands this behavior.
Therefore God is evil?
How can you escape from this syllogism? Where is the flaw in the logic?

The good news is, they don't have to share the eternal fate with them. We see the same situation in the bible as well. Children are blessed because of the righteousness of their parents.

The problem for the rest of us is the strong possibility that you are wrong about any of this. It may be that I'm right, and they're just plain dead. It may be that there is some life after death, but that you are mistaken in any particular, from the highest level (it's nothing like what you think) to the smallest particular (actually, pagan babies get punished with eternal torment.)

LOL?

I wish. You skipped over the "Jew" part too lightly. I'm sure I have many ancestors who were murdered, along with their babies, due to just this kind of logic.

I never stated that atheists aren't moral. The bible says that the law of God is written on all of our hearts so that we are without excuse. I believe this is why everybody regardless of age, race, culture, and orientations know right from wrong. It's not something that sprang up due to evolution. Atheist are just as moral as theist. The only difference is where we believe these morals came from. Sure....this could be a good thread in and of itself.

Better. Start the thread if you want to pursue it; I'm neutral. I hope you will refrain from this obviously erroneous argument in future.

On my side, there is the strong argument that a God who commands you to do evil would not be a good source of morality. That is, Biblical morality includes infanticide; kind of weak case for you to make out that's a good morality. You have to resort to circular reasoning; "Whatever God commands is by definition good," which gets to believing that killing innocent babies is good, which
(1) is an odd position.
(2) leads to atrocities.
(3) once led me to call someone else on this board, if memory serves, a psychotic baby-killer, or something of the like.

People in this thread are accusing me of calling others baby-killers, but what do you call someone who asserts that killing babies is good, if God commands it?

 

[texan1]

People in this thread are accusing me of calling others baby-killers,

Oh. I thought they were accusing you of siding with Satan for asking about Bible verses out of context. You devil.