24
   

The Bible (a discussion)

 
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Apr, 2014 06:48 am
Quote:
Smileyrius said:@RF- Your postulation that I have any disrespect for the words of Jesus is invalid and rather obtuse...
So answer me this, How much of the bible is wrong?

Well, we know that Jesus overuled some harsh bits of the Old T, so those bits must certainly be wrong.
If you or Neologist are saying that Jesus is no more important than the ancient prophets, that's an insult to him.
I ask you both again- Who saves, Jesus or the Old T?
Here are some clues for you-
"Through Jesus we are saved, and not through Moses" (Acts 13:39)
"The covenant of which Jesus is mediator is superior to the old one" (Heb 8:6)
"In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent." (Acts 17:30)
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Apr, 2014 07:05 am
Quote:
Romeo said to Neologist: Sorry mate, I haven't a clue why you and Smileyrius quoted Psalm 1: 1-3..what are you getting at?
Smileyrius replied: Id explain it, but you probably wouldn't get it.
Neologist suggested: Perhaps if you focus on verse 2, that might help.

Well this is verse 2 but I still can't see what you're getting at-
"2: but whose delight is in the law of the Lord,
and who meditates on his law day and night."


So why don't you both simply spit out what you're trying to say instead of prancing around the issue like Morris Dancers before people start thinking you can't or won't give straight answers..Wink

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/sub3/morris.jpg
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Apr, 2014 07:16 am
Quote:
Krumple said: The whole thing is made up. There was no Moses and there is no god

Prove it..Smile
Incidentally forget the Charlton Heston hollywood stereotype: Moses was just an ordinary guy who never wanted the job of tackling Pharoah and leading the Israelites out of Egypt in the first place, and even tried to talk his way out of it-
"Moses said to the Lord, “Pardon your servant, Lord. I have never been eloquent, I am slow of speech and tongue..Please send someone else.”

But as we know, God said- "Stop yer yakking and go bust Pharoahs ass, i'll be watching your back for you"
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Apr, 2014 07:26 am
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Krumple wrote:

Olivier5 wrote:
I suppose there would always been some missing idea in a short list f commandments, but what are you referring to?


Well before I get into answering that. I just want to explain how I think the whole story of the 10 commandments is so convoluted and it is clear they were thought up by a human and had NO god intervene what-so-ever.

So Moses supposedly goes up a mountain alone? Sounds like an excuse to hide something. "Hang on a minute guys, let me just go up there by myself for a little bit, I'll be right back."

So while he is up there he is having an interaction with god? Really? It doesn't make any sense. If this god is all knowing it would have known that even after dictating the commandments, once Moses returns to the base of the mountain he is just going to destroy them, so what would be the point in going through with creating them? But once again that didn't happen. It narrows the possible explanations down to just a few.

1. Either Moses made the whole thing up and he personally created the commandments himself. But why pretend as if a god dictated them to him? Because he needs something to empower them. If everyone knew he created them, they could be challenged but if he pretends a god created them, no one can challenge them.

2. This god is reactionary and has no ability to know the future events at all. This god would therefore not be all knowing but limited in scope to future events. This seems to be a reoccurring theme too in the bible. There are many places where god reacts to the situation as if he had no clue it was going to happen. Another good example of this is the Adam and Eve story. If he was all knowing then he HAD to know they were going to sin long before he even created them. Yet he pretends as if he is shocked they sinned against him. The tower of Babel is another reactionary story as well.

3. The whole thing is made up. There was no Moses and there is no god. It is just a way to try to slip in some laws and rules for naive Jews to follow or be murdered for disobeying them. This one sounds like the most plausible because of how the narrative plays out. Once Moses returns he witnesses a bunch of his people worshiping a golden cow? Really? They are so eager to worship something they just go through the process of constructing a golden cow? The story seems so contrived.

They had all the tools and equipment to construct a golden cow? They had all the materials there with them at the base of the mountain? How long was Moses gone? I find it funny that these people were so eager to be worshiping something that they immediately sprang into action creating a golden cow. Think about it. Even if Moses had been gone for months, how long after he was gone did they all of a sudden start wanting something to worship?

They would have had to have a small village set up at the base of this mountain for them to even have the ability to create a golden cow. Did they just have the gold on hand to spare too? It is obvious the story is contrived. Then on top of that Moses's reaction to seeing them worshiping the cow, so he destroys the commandments? Really? You just got done having a meeting with god over the establishment of some rules and then you destroy them because you can't stand to see your stupid people are so eager to be worshiping something.

It is clear the story is a fabrication.



Nearly as I can see...the best possible guess about the Bible is that it is fiction and myth.

For you to suggest it is "clear" is another self-serving assertion. What you want to be so...you simply declare as so..

That is what the theist do.

You are behaving as unreasonably as a theist...simply coming to different conclusions.


I notice you have this constant need to say essentially "Na ahh" on just about every single post that is made on this forum relating to anything remotely philosophical.


Really? Have you really noticed that...or is that one of your gratuitous insights?

Quote:
If someone said **** stinks, you would feel the need to reply that they couldn't possibly know that **** stinks.


Nope...I can assure you that I think **** stinks...and if you offer that comment, I will agree. Of course, you are probably going to classified that remark of yours as "something remotely philosophical" and mention that I disagreed with you.

Quote:
It becomes so obnoxious it makes me wonder if you are able to reason anything.


I am able to reason quite nicely, thank you...and have had examples of my reasoning and ability to put it into writing in many, many newspapers including the New York Times and in national magazines. How about you?

Quote:
To me it starts to seem that any time there is a distinction to be made you make sure not to be a part of any distinction. Even if it contradicts your position you'll still claim not to be a part of that distinction. It has nothing to do with logic or reason you just don't like categories or claims of any kind.


Why not actually quote something I wrote...and tell me why you disagree with it, Krumple.

Quote:
You are not a theist but you are not an atheist, you are not agnostic. All of those can't be true but of course you magically like to think it can.


Actually, they easily could be true. But I am an agnostic...but as I have written, I prefer to simply state my agnosticism rather than using the designation...which often causes battles over the meaning of the word.

My agnosticism as regards the existence of gods as an answer to the question, "What is the true nature of the REALITY of existence?" is:

I do not know if there is a GOD or if there are gods; I do not know if there are no gods; I see no reason to suspect gods cannot exist; I see no reason that suggests gods are needed to explain existence; I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction.

I am quite clear...and consistent. Sorry that bothers you.

Quote:
Or you can just continue being obnoxious.. up to you..


Aha...so you think that if I disagree with you, I am being obnoxious.

Hummm. Well, I think that is something you will have to deal with.
Krumple
 
  2  
Reply Sat 19 Apr, 2014 08:09 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
Aha...so you think that if I disagree with you, I am being obnoxious.


A lot of forum users disagree with me, but they are not obnoxious. The fact that you are trying to twist it into being that for the cause for revealing your characteristic is just another aspect of your obnoxiousness. You are in absolute denial of how obnoxious you are.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Apr, 2014 08:21 am
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Aha...so you think that if I disagree with you, I am being obnoxious.


A lot of forum users disagree with me, but they are not obnoxious. The fact that you are trying to twist it into being that for the cause for revealing your characteristic is just another aspect of your obnoxiousness. You are in absolute denial of how obnoxious you are.


YOU are being obnoxious here, Krumple.

I have quoted your words exactly when I disagree with you...and I state my disagreement reasonably and logically.

Quote what you see as wrong-headed...or not up to your standard of "even slightly philosophical"...and we can discuss it.

One of my majors in college was philosophy, but I acknowledge that was long ago and it is not now my strong suit. But I steadfastly stay away from areas where I know I have no business being.

My comment to you have been appropriate...and for the most part, a good deal more courteous than yours to me.

Quote a particular where you feel I am wrong...and we can discuss with more civility than many discussions I've seen you in here in A2K.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Apr, 2014 09:25 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
One of my majors in college was philosophy, but I acknowledge that was long ago and it is not now my strong suit. But I steadfastly stay away from areas where I know I have no business being.


and my guess is you failed it as well.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Sat 19 Apr, 2014 09:43 am
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
One of my majors in college was philosophy, but I acknowledge that was long ago and it is not now my strong suit. But I steadfastly stay away from areas where I know I have no business being.


and my guess is you failed it as well.


Nope. I got excellent grades.

But you are being obnoxious again...as usual.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Apr, 2014 10:28 am
@Krumple,
Quote:
3. The whole thing is made up. There was no Moses and there is no god. It is just a way to try to slip in some laws and rules for naive Jews to follow or be murdered for disobeying them. [...]

They would have had to have a small village set up at the base of this mountain for them to even have the ability to create a golden cow. Did they just have the gold on hand to spare too? It is obvious the story is contrived.

It's of course a myth, a legend, and legends are not reliable historical accounts. At best they are wild embellishments of real facts. The question therefore is: what kernel of actual historical facts is contained in Exodus, among all the sea-parting and snake-staff magic? Particularly here, in the story of the golden calf.

Another good question is: what does this story say in its own culture? Why was it retained as an important, indeed fundamental myth in Judaism? What's the lesson Judaism drew of it?

The answer to the second question is easy: monolatry (the worship of only one god, which is the original form of Judaism: no gods shall be put before Yahweh, not that no other gods exist) and monotheism (which comes later) have always been a tough sell among Hebrews. A good chunk of the chosen people didn't care much for being chosen at all, and was afraid enough of other gods' anger that they kept worshiping them in secret, as soon as their priests were out of sight... The story is about polytheist resistance to enforced monolatry/ monotheism. About the frequent pagan resurgences/ relapses among Hebrews.

And that is also where its most historical worth lies. Many archeological finds in modern Israel and around, as well as many biblical stories, attest that Hebrews and Jews after then worshiped several gods, together with Yahweh, in spite of their judges and priests.

Assuming the exodus describes a real mass emigration, emigrants are highly vulnerable and fearful people, in general, and thus prone to superstition. As people who lived all their lives in Egypt, they would have naturally worshiped Egyptian gods such as Hathor...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Hathor-cow-ThutmosisIII_%28right_side%29.JPG/697px-Hathor-cow-ThutmosisIII_%28right_side%29.JPG

Hathor was worshipped in Canaan in the eleventh century BC, which at that time was ruled by Egypt, at her holy city of Hazor, or Tel Hazor which the Old Testament claims was destroyed by Joshua (Joshua 11:13, 21).

It's not inconceivable that a band of frightened refugees, with a few cattle and gold left in the middle of nowhere, would try to invoke an old and well known protective goddess, and would melt a little gold to make a small, crude idol of her.

The reaction of Moses is interesting to say the least: he kills thousands of his people among the pagan worshipers. A near genocide... Religious freedom, anyone?

Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Sat 19 Apr, 2014 10:38 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
3. The whole thing is made up. There was no Moses and there is no god. It is just a way to try to slip in some laws and rules for naive Jews to follow or be murdered for disobeying them. [...]

They would have had to have a small village set up at the base of this mountain for them to even have the ability to create a golden cow. Did they just have the gold on hand to spare too? It is obvious the story is contrived.

It's of course a myth, a legend, and legends are not reliable historical accounts. At best they are wild embellishments of real facts. The question therefore is: what kernel of actual historical facts is contained in Exodus, among all the sea-parting and snake-staff magic? Particularly here, in the story of the golden calf.

Another good question is: what does this story say in its own culture? Why was it retained as an important, indeed fundamental myth in Judaism? What's the lesson Judaism drew of it?

The answer to the second question is easy: monolatry (the worship of only one god, which is the original form of Judaism: no gods shall be put before Yahweh, not that no other gods exist) and monotheism (which comes later) have always been a tough sell among Hebrews. A good chunk of the chosen people didn't care much for being chosen at all, and was afraid enough of other gods' anger that they kept worshiping them in secret, as soon as their priests were out of sight... The story is about polytheist resistance to enforced monolatry/ monotheism. About the frequent pagan resurgences/ relapses among Hebrews.

And that is also where its most historical worth lies. Many archeological finds in modern Israel and around, as well as many biblical stories, attest that Hebrews and Jews after then worshiped several gods, together with Yahweh, in spite of their judges and priests.

Assuming the exodus describes a real mass emigration, emigrants are highly vulnerable and fearful people, in general, and thus prone to superstition. As people who lived all their lives in Egypt, they would have naturally worshiped Egyptian gods such as Hathor...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Hathor-cow-ThutmosisIII_%28right_side%29.JPG/697px-Hathor-cow-ThutmosisIII_%28right_side%29.JPG

Hathor was worshipped in Canaan in the eleventh century BC, which at that time was ruled by Egypt, at her holy city of Hazor, or Tel Hazor which the Old Testament claims was destroyed by Joshua (Joshua 11:13, 21).

It's not inconceivable that a band of frightened refugees, with a few cattle and gold left in the middle of nowhere, would try to invoke an old and well known protective goddess, and would melt a little gold to make a small, crude idol of her.

The reaction of Moses is interesting to say the least: he kills thousands of his people among the pagan worshipers. A near genocide... Religious freedom, anyone?




You and Krumple seem certain there are no gods...and you are both asserting that as a fact.

I say it is impossible to KNOW there are no gods.

You and Krumple are making a blind guess that there are no gods.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Apr, 2014 10:42 am
@Frank Apisa,
Sure. And why not?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Apr, 2014 11:17 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Sure. And why not?


Nothing wrong with making blind guesses, Olivier.

I just get a kick out of your guys pretending what you are doing is enlightening the rest of us about what the REALITY is.

Wink
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Apr, 2014 11:43 am
@Frank Apisa,
Anything and everything is a blind guess, even you and your assertions about Krumple and I...

Should we all shut up, then? Why don't you start?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Apr, 2014 12:11 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Anything and everything is a blind guess, even you and your assertions about Krumple and I...


Not everything is a blind guess. And my assertions about you and Krumple are anything but a blind guess.



Quote:
Should we all shut up, then?


Only if the heat is getting too much for youj, Olivier.

Quote:


Why don't you start?


I'm quite comfortable, thank you.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Apr, 2014 02:30 pm
@Frank Apisa,
I can't say anything about your ultimate reality, Frank. YOU are a blind guess, as far as I am concerned. I am not certain that you exist. Maybe you and everything you say spring from my fertile imagination...
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Apr, 2014 03:16 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
Well, verse 2 is precisely what you appear to not do.
0 Replies
 
Smileyrius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Apr, 2014 03:24 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
You pitch Jesus against the old testament as if you think it in contention an accusation you toss in without a thought.
Yes. Jesus is the means of salvation for mankind, that makes him the greatest man that ever lived. However your question is without sense. To respect the bible as if every word were beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of god might be fully equipped for every good work, is not placing any man on par with Jesus, but it is respecting the putative author.

Whose words did Jesus speak? whose words did the prophets of old speak? whose words are penned by bible writers. If you answer the same to all three, you give gross disrespect when you throw away a single word as "wrong".

A question my friend. Did Jesus not agree with his fathers actions in the old testament?
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Apr, 2014 03:31 pm
Quote:
Neologist said:@RF- Well, verse 2 is precisely what you appear to not do.

Appearances count for zilch in the Big Picture mate-
"The Lord does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart" (1 Sam 16:7)
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Apr, 2014 03:56 pm
Quote:
Romeo said to Neologist and Smileyrius: I ask you both again- Who saves, Jesus or the Old T?
Smileyrius said: your question is without sense

Ha ha, I can see you've been taking "ducking and dodging" lessons from Neologist because both of you seem incapable of giving a straight answer..Smile
Tell 'em Rock!

"C'mon, it's true, but that don't bother me, I just wanna prove somethin', I ain't no bum, it don't matter if I lose, don't matter if Romeo opens my head.
The only thing I wanna do is go the distance, that's all.
Nobody's ever gone fifteen rounds with Romeo. If I go them fifteen rounds, an' that bell rings an' I'm still standin', I'm gonna know then I weren't just another bum from the neighborhood"...


http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/rocky1.png



cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Apr, 2014 04:07 pm
From MPOV, any discussion of the bible needs to be observed from what impacts it has had on humans throughout its history.

No religion or teachings have impacted human behavior that can be deemed as learned from 'them.'

In other words, it's a form of human organization that tries to give the impression that their beliefs help human society, but human history proves otherwise.

All cultures and religions have been responsible for atrocities against other humans - and even their own religious' group.

One simple question is, what good and bad has resulted from its teachings?

There are just too many to list - on both sides of the equation.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 09:53:34