If the world is predominantly religious, why is it such a mess?

[Robert.Evans]

Going with the story, Jesus seemed to treat both genders, equitably. But, also believed in both genders living authentically...(not women becoming like men, etc)

Really. So if I start off a new faith and say I want 12 men but NO women. You are not going to say something?
So is he wrong or the modern day woman?

 

[Robert.Evans]

You do realize that dogmatic communism has more in common with religion than with secular freethought, right?

The only atrocities that even come close to "freethought run amok" were in the French Revolution... and even then, very few of the perpetrators were atheists.

Funny. What about Pol Pot and Stalin? Are you rewriting history? I see no one saying that accept people who are atheist and are in denial.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Funny. What about Pol Pot and Stalin?

What about them?

Are you rewriting history?

No; I'm just acknowleding that their brand of authoritarianism has more to do with what you're selling than it does with the secular humanism and freethought that pervades the modern atheist movement.

I see no one saying that accept people who are atheist and are in denial.

If anyone who didn't believe in any gods are supposed to be reflective of modern atheists, then are the theists throughout history supposed to be reflective of modern theists? ... Or is your illogical position hypocritical as well?

 

[Deidre]

Really. So if I start off a new faith and say I want 12 men but NO women. You are not going to say something?
So is he wrong or the modern day woman?

He spoke solely to women often, throughout his ministry.
I don't believe he called only men to be his apostles. I believe that is what early church leaders want us to believe.

 

[Koldo]

Okay, let us try it your way. We live thousands of years ago. There is a war, and most of the men are dead or fled. The women are left. You now leave back to your own land. What are you suggesting we do with the women and children? Leaven them or take them? If they stay they will probably die of starvation. So what are you going to do? So perhaps you have said take them. Now you next say that we should not allow any of them to become friends with anyone and have kids with them, as you call that rape; a rape, I might add, that was not allowed by law. So tell me, what do we do with them?

I don't remember him saying that "we should not allow any of them to become friends with anyone and have kids with them", nor that he would call it 'rape'. I must have missed it, what post was it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Okay, let us try it your way. We live thousands of years ago. There is a war, and most of the men are dead or fled. The women are left. You now leave back to your own land. What are you suggesting we do with the women and children? Leaven them or take them? If they stay they will probably die of starvation. So what are you going to do? So perhaps you have said take them. Now you next say that we should not allow any of them to become friends with anyone and have kids with them, as you call that rape; a rape, I might add, that was not allowed by law. So tell me, what do we do with them?

First off, you're sugar-coating this story. Here are the actual verses I'm talking about:

15 Moses said to them, “Have you allowed all the women to live? 16 Look, these people through the counsel of Balaam caused the Israelites to act treacherously against the Lord in the matter of Peor—which resulted in the plague among the community of the Lord! 17 Now therefore kill every boy, and kill every woman who has had sexual intercourse with a man.18 But all the young women who have not had sexual intercourse with a man will be yours.

Numbers 31:15-18 NET - Moses said to them, “Have you allowed - Bible Gateway

It does not say anything like "take care of the innocents"; it says:

- kill the boys
- kill the women who aren't virgins (which would include all the mothers)
- keep the virgin girls if you want them

Also, keep in mind that this "starvation or death" red herring you keep throwing around was predicated on the fact that in the earlier verses, the Israelites burn all the fields and cities and steal all the livestock.

Right now, in this thread, you are being an apologist for genocide, kidnapping, and rape as a weapon of war. You will not be able to convince me that these are good things. Your god's character is already clear. The only thing left to be determined is your character... and that determination will be based largely on whether you have enough basic regard for humanity not to endorse crimes like genocide and rape.

There is no charity in what was described in this passage.

 

[Deidre]

First off, you're sugar-coating this story. Here are the actual verses I'm talking about:



Numbers 31:15-18 NET - Moses said to them, “Have you allowed - Bible Gateway

It does not say anything like "take care of the innocents"; it says:

- kill the boys
- kill the women who aren't virgins (which would include all the mothers)
- keep the virgin girls if you want them

Also, keep in mind that this "starvation or death" red herring you keep throwing around was predicated on the fact that in the earlier verses, the Israelites burn all the fields and cities and steal all the livestock.

Right now, in this thread, you are being an apologist for genocide, kidnapping, and rape as a weapon of war. You will not be able to convince me that these are good things. Your god's character is already clear. The only thing left to be determined is your character... and that determination will be based largely on whether you have enough basic regard for humanity not to endorse crimes like genocide and rape.

There is no charity in what was described in this passage.

Agree.

Either the people depicted in the Bible were robots with absolutely no ability to think freely and decide for themselves as to what seemed morally right and wrong, or God is insane.

Or a third option, and that is the Bible is largely representative of how mankind treats mankind. At times, very kindly...at other times, atrociously. And a supposed deity is the perpetual scapegoat of the latter.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Agree.

Either the people depicted in the Bible were robots with absolutely no ability to think freely and decide for themselves as to what seemed morally right and wrong, or God is insane.

Or a third option, and that is the Bible is largely representative of how mankind treats mankind. At times, very kindly...at other times, atrociously. And a supposed deity is the perpetual scapegoat of the latter.

IIRC, one of our members here likened the Bible to "a blog of humanity's relationship with the divine" (@sojourner, if I'm misquoting you, please let me know). I have no problem seeing the Bible in that context.

The problem arises when people treat it as some sort of moral guide... and tying this all back to the topic here: this thread has had an excellent example of someone justifying horrible crimes with religious excuses, which I think sheds light on why religions have been so bad at correcting the world problems they say they're concerned with.

I remember a few years ago listening to news coverage of the Sri Lankan civil war when they talked about how the (largely Buddhist) army was shelling a hospital where the rebels (who were fighting for a Hindu homeland in Sri Lanka) were using the patients as human shields. No religion is immune from being used as an excuse for violence.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I remember a (Buddhist?) saying that I'm probably butchering that goes something like "a rowboat is useful to get from one place to another, but it makes an uncomfortable home."

It sounds a bit like the parable of the raft, which basically says that teachings and practice are a means to an end, and not things to become attached to.

 

[Robert.Evans]

What about them?


No; I'm just acknowleding that their brand of authoritarianism has more to do with what you're selling than it does with the secular humanism and freethought that pervades the modern atheist movement.


If anyone who didn't believe in any gods are supposed to be reflective of modern atheists, then are the theists throughout history supposed to be reflective of modern theists? ... Or is your illogical position hypocritical as well?

You seem to be shooting yourself in the foot there...
If you are saying that there is a difference between atheist then and now, and also between theists then and now, so what? What point have you made. Pol Pot and Stalin, to name but two, had atheist thinking. In Romania they tortured them and killed them just because they were Christians. It was atheist communism that did that. If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with history I feel.

There is a book called Tortured for Christ. You should read it if you think it has nothing to do with atheism.

 

[Robert.Evans]

He spoke solely to women often, throughout his ministry.
I don't believe he called only men to be his apostles. I believe that is what early church leaders want us to believe.

haha... okay. Well, if you look at it through the light of the Essenes, then I could agree. The women used to baptise Gentiles. Also at the end of Romans, there is a woman who is called a attendant-servant (deaconess). So they must have been involved one way or another. Either way, the structure that is written is about male and then female, that has always been the way. It is not whether they could, it is more to do with doing our own roles, being the masculine and feminine of God. Scripture has a lot to say in not a lot of pages, (albeit 1000 or so pages) and it is not always easy to show it all.

God, we are told, Is the Father, not the mother. It is an important point, as is the infrastructure and order of man.

You are following a feminist mindset I feel, which leads to the mother (the goddess) and not the Father (the God), or perhaps in your case, neither.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I don't remember him saying that "we should not allow any of them to become friends with anyone and have kids with them", nor that he would call it 'rape'. I must have missed it, what post was it?

click on the upwards poiting arrow until you find it. It might takw a few poosts.

 

[Deidre]

haha... okay. Well, if you look at it through the light of the Essenes, then I could agree. The women used to baptise Gentiles. Also at the end of Romans, there is a woman who is called a attendant-servant (deaconess). So they must have been involved one way or another. Either way, the structure that is written is about male and then female, that has always been the way. It is not whether they could, it is more to do with doing our own roles, being the masculine and feminine of God. Scripture has a lot to say in not a lot of pages, (albeit 1000 or so pages) and it is not always easy to show it all.

God, we are told, Is the Father, not the mother. It is an important point, as is the infrastructure and order of man.

You are following a feminist mindset I feel, which leads to the mother (the goddess) and not the Father (the God), or perhaps in your case, neither.

You and I have fundamental differences of opinions when it comes to religion and our worldviews. But, I'm not a feminist. I used to be. I'm for equal rights/equal responsibilities...regardless of gender.

If we go with just what we know of Jesus, I'd say he felt the same.

 

[Robert.Evans]

First off, you're sugar-coating this story. Here are the actual verses I'm talking about:

That would help.

Numbers 31:15-18 NET - Moses said to them, “Have you allowed - Bible Gateway
___________________
5 Moses said to them, “Have you allowed all the women to live? 16 Look, these people through the counsel of Balaam caused the Israelites to act treacherously against the Lord in the matter of Peor—which resulted in the plague among the community of the Lord! 17 Now therefore kill every boy, and kill every woman who has had sexual intercourse with a man.18 But all the young women who have not had sexual intercourse with a man will be yours.
____________________
It does not say anything like "take care of the innocents"; it says:

- kill the boys
- kill the women who aren't virgins (which would include all the mothers)
- keep the virgin girls if you want them

Also, keep in mind that this "starvation or death" red herring you keep throwing around was predicated on the fact that in the earlier verses, the Israelites burn all the fields and cities and steal all the livestock.

Right now, in this thread, you are being an apologist for genocide, kidnapping, and rape as a weapon of war. You will not be able to convince me that these are good things. Your god's character is already clear. The only thing left to be determined is your character... and that determination will be based largely on whether you have enough basic regard for humanity not to endorse crimes like genocide and rape.

There is no charity in what was described in this passage.

This is a long subject. First of all, this is not my God. There is a God of the left and right hand. Do you not see the difference in the OT and the NT? It seems clear even without going into it further, which i'm not.
This happens firstly within higher-consciousness. Divine Conscioiusness. Here in the physical world, we are told Do not kill. Depening on who you listen to, it can mean just that, don't kill. Now I ask you then, who is this God who says Don't kill and then says later, kill? Does it not sound like a man?
It is hard of you to judge anyone on scripture that you don't fully understand, uncluding the time period and the people involved. You should tread carefully, as we are judged by our words...though I doubt you will.

The right approach is found in the Ot and NT.... love God and man with all your heart. Is that difficult? Not really. But understanding what unfolds in the text, that can be really difficult.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Agree.

Either the people depicted in the Bible were robots with absolutely no ability to think freely and decide for themselves as to what seemed morally right and wrong, or God is insane.

Or a third option, and that is the Bible is largely representative of how mankind treats mankind. At times, very kindly...at other times, atrociously. And a supposed deity is the perpetual scapegoat of the latter.

The people were African and the god was a man representing their God

 

[Koldo]

click on the upwards poiting arrow until you find it. It might takw a few poosts.

I couldn't find it.

 

[Robert.Evans]

No religion is immune from being used as an excuse for violence.

And what of the US and the UK? Ar e they religious countries fighting the middle east or is it a secular country fighting them. which one?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And what of the US and the UK? Ar e they religious countries fighting the middle east or is it a secular country fighting them. which one?

The fact that religion can be an excuse for violence doesn't mean that there are no other excuses for violence.

 

[Robert.Evans]

You and I have fundamental differences of opinions when it comes to religion and our worldviews. But, I'm not a feminist. I used to be. I'm for equal rights/equal responsibilities...regardless of gender.

If we go with just what we know of Jesus, I'd say he felt the same.

You are not a feminist?? hmmm.... I don't know what land your in, but do you vote, or have you rescinded your right to vote? Do you work? I guess you do all those thigns because you think it is being equal, but either way, it is still playing of the back of feminist, which in turn you must then be, even if not in name. If not, then what is differnet?

 

[Deidre]

You are not a feminist?? hmmm.... I don't know what land your in, but do you vote, or have you rescinded your right to vote? Do you work? I guess you do all those thigns because you think it is being equal, but either way, it is still playing of the back of feminist, which in turn you must then be, even if not in name. If not, then what is differnet?

This thread's not about feminism or my take on it. Maybe you should start your own thread about it.