Religion Is For The Weak And Ignorant Masses

I'm rather confused myself on the positioning of Frank. Is he agnostic about the existence of a god or the biblical God? He's extremely ambiguous and irresolute in his reasoning.

--Ibn

0 Replies

Quote:

Let's test it.

Let us hear you tell your god to screw off...to stop being such a dipshyt...to stop being so goddam offended by nearly everything humans do...and to get off our backs.

There are actually places in the torah where humans openly disagree with God. Sometimes they actually sway God to their side, like the genesis 18:23-32 where God is about to destroy a city full of sinners and Abraham asks if God will destroy the rightous with the sinners and God says if there are 50 rightous, they will all be saved. Then Abraham asks if God would save them all for just 45 rightous and God agrees. This continues down to 10. Of course, there arent even 10 rightous people in the city and God destroys it anyway, but the point is that Abraham talked back to God and God considered his argument. On the other hand, sometimes when people disagree with God they get eaten by fish.

Its like the police. The people who arent breaking the law have nothing to fear from the police, the only people who should be afraid are the ones breaking the law. But in Judaism at least, there are 613 commandments you have to follow. God knows we're not perfect and doesn't expect us to follow all of them, but to repent when we screw up. Thus, we all have something to fear because we are all breaking some laws. Normally I would be fine letting the police into my house to look around if they think it will help solve a crime...but if they want to get on my computer they'll need a warrant. I have tons of downloaded music. That and speed limits are the only laws I break, so besides speed traps and cops online, I don't have any fear of the police.

I have no fear that I will be punished by God the way a murderer is, just like I have no fear that I will get senteced to life in jail (I live in MA, so that's the worst that can happen). If you find a religious person who follows EVERY law ALL the time, they legitimatly won't have any fear of God. But I doubt you'll find one of those; no one's perfect.

0 Replies

I believe, if you accept the existence of 'gods' who pass judgement, they all have a contingency plan for the generally good living people. Wink

0 Replies

Surely a christian must fear god, only because he has the power of choosing who to accept to heaven and who to send to hell.

I recently went to a christian play (because a friend was in charge of the lights) and it went more or less like this:

- Conversation between two or more people that made a clear distinction between good and bad persons (good ones were the ones that had accepted Jesus in their hearts).
- An accident happens resulting in the death of all participants
- The people woke up in heaven and saw 'The angel of the book of life' and asked him if their name was there (good people were there, obviously)
- If their name was there, Jesus would come out and that person would bow and then enter the gates of heaven; if not, the devil would come out and send his shadows to catch the person and take them with him to hell.

There were about 8 situations of that sort. Needless to say, the people there applauded each scene like there was no tomorrow. These people had genuine fear of god, for he judges people.

Yes, fear is a way to control the masses. But not every christian is dumb, even if they need god to cope with their problems. We all need some sort of escape our problems... some people choose drugs or alcohol, others choose the virtual world, others hide behind a mask, others follow religion, others just face them.

0 Replies

If you don't think Christians have to face problems, you are mistaken.

0 Replies

Quote:

I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

"fear" means fear. these first 6 commandments make it clear that if you don't toe the line, very bad things are going to happen to you.

that's o.k. i believe in freedom of religion, for everyone. what i don't believe in is the growing insertion of christian writings and ideology into the american government, whether it's roy moore or george w. bush.

people can argue that the first amendment isn't being violated because there is no "official" state religion being amended. however, we see these things creeping into everyday governance and a power play for all meaningful positions by a political party that has a non-stop mantra of "faith", "god", "jesus" and such on their lips. that is an establishment of an official state religion by proxy.

it may come as a surpirise to evangelical and born again christians, but not every christian agrees with you and and some of us are, in fact, of another religion entirely.

as a person who does not push my own religion on others, it is incredibly offensive to constantly have one forced on me day after day; and in violation of the constitution.

the framers knew, from previous experience in europe, that religion and government don't mix well. that was their purpose in the first amendment.

imho

EDITED... sorry, don't know why i typed 2nd. Embarrassed

0 Replies

TonyO wrote:

You wrote:

Quote:
I do not even know if there is a God...and in any case, I am not talking about God. I am talking about the god of the Bible...the fearsome, barbaric, vengeful, wrathful, quick to anger, constantly offended, vulgar, murderous, cartoon god.

Frank,

I am having a difficult time with this. You first claim that you are not even sure if there is a God, you then claim you are not talking about God but you are talking about the god of the Bible

I'm not sure what is confusing about that.

If I said, I am talking about Zeus...not about any God that might exist...you certainly could understand that. If there is a God...I do not think Zeus is that God...or more exactly, I THINK the description of Zeus is not an accurate description of any God that might exist. (I could give you many reasons why I think this, but let's leave that for the moment.)

So when I say I am talking about the god described in the Bible and NOT ABOUT ANY GOD THAT MIGHT EXIST...I am merely talking about that god described in the Bible...and I do not intend my remarks to reflect on any God that might exist. My wording was fairly careful. I said:

Quote:

am not trying to distance myself from any God that might exist. I am not denouncing any God that might exist. I DO NOT KNOW IF A GOD EVEN EXISTS...and I do not have enough evidence upon which to make a guess about that issue.

But I do have enough information about the god of the Bible to recognize that the chances of that pathetic god being God is so remote...I simply dismiss it.

And now, Craven was good enough to point out to you (quite correctly) that when I am speaking about the god of the Bible...I am not referencing any God (capital "G" God) that might exist.

Allow me to re-emphisize one point: I do have enough information about the god of the Bible to recognize that the chances of that pathetic god being God is so remote...I simply dismiss it.

I AM NOT SAYING IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT THE DESCRIPTION GIVEN IN THE BIBLE IS ACCURATE...merely that it seems so remote (at least as remote as Zeus being the God)...that I simply dismiss it. Just as we could discuss the reasons I do not think the descriptions of Zeus are accurate descriptions of any God that might exist...we could discuss the reasons I think the god of the Bible isn't either. In fact, I've done that in dozens upon dozens of threads both here and over in Abuzz.

I'm not sure why you or Ibn or anyone else cannot easily understand my position...which is anything but ambiguous and irresolute as Ibn charges.

Quote:

......you then state:

Quote:
So please don't think I have any hatred or even dislike of any God that might exist.

Everything about your statements here are contradictory. First you claim there may be no God, then you state there can be no god as revealed in the Bible

I did no such thing.

Stay focused.

Quote:

BUT you don't wish me to think you have any hatred or dislike for "any" God that "might" exist!

Because of your dislike for the God of the Bible you have come to the conclusion that He cannot exist. This is again illogical because you then state this:

Quote:
I DO NOT KNOW IF A GOD EVEN EXISTS...and I do not have enough evidence upon which to make a guess about that issue.

Apparently you do have enough evidence because you claimed that the God of the Bible cannot exist, correct?

Your thinking is much too muddled here.

Pay attention to what I have written...not to what you want me to have said.

Quote:

you wrote:

Quote:
But I do have enough information about the god of the Bible to recognize that the chances of that pathetic god being God is so remote...I simply dismiss it.

This is based on pure subjective reasoning

Okay...I agree. But what else do I have?

I have carefully read what the god of the Bible says and does...and I reject that any God (Capital "G" God) would say and do.

Fact is, you Christians reject it also...but you are in a bind. You want Jesus to be God also...so you pretty much are stuck with the god described in Leviticus and Deuteronomy....and that god is a cartoon.

I am not trying to be nasty or insulting...but in order to tell what I feel, I have to say the things I say.

0 Replies

for many of us there is a big difference between "the god of abraham" and "the creator".

this not a comment meant to mean better or worse, just different.

0 Replies

Frank,

You wrote:

Quote:

But I do have enough information about the god of the Bible to recognize that the chances of that pathetic god being God is so remote...I simply dismiss it.

Fair enough, that is your right. Yet you do so based on your own subjective reasoning. Hence your "test" is meaningless.

you wrote:

Quote:

I AM NOT SAYING IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT THE DESCRIPTION GIVEN IN THE BIBLE IS ACCURATE...merely that it seems so remote (at least as remote as Zeus being the God)...that I simply dismiss it.

Can you create a greater God than the one revealed in Scripture?

You wrote:

Quote:

Fact is, you Christians reject it also...but you are in a bind. You want Jesus to be God also...so you pretty much are stuck with the god described in Leviticus and Deuteronomy....and that god is a cartoon.

First, this is a generalized statement that holds no weight. You would of had to have talked with all Christians in order for this to be true.

Second I have no problem with Jesus being God Incarnate and also being the same God we find in Leviticus and/or Deuteronomy. Please expound on why I must reject it?

Thank you,
Tony

0 Replies

Frank Apsia wrote:

Quote:

I have carefully read what the god of the Bible says and does...and I reject that any God (Capital "G" God) would say and do.

Fact is, you Christians reject it also...but you are in a bind. You want Jesus to be God also...so you pretty much are stuck with the god described in Leviticus and Deuteronomy....and that god is a cartoon.

I am not trying to be nasty or insulting...but in order to tell what I feel, I have to say the things I say.

Okay, so your argument is based upon Your interpretation of what you believe your translation of whatever scripture is it that you are reading says.....

I am an Orthodox Jew, and when you write of "Leviticus" and "Deuteronomy" and "Moses" and "the G-d described," it reads to me someone who writes about the History of the Middle East based on what he read today in the New York Times.
There are several thousand years of scholarship; argument; understanding; and levels of meaning in the scriptures upon which you are basing your belief that "G-d is a cartoon."
I believe that the data you have is very superficial. And that is only relating to the Judaic G-d.
There are other levels to deal with in dealing with the Trinity of Christianity or the Allah of Mohammad or the pantheon of attributes that comprise the G-d of the Hindus or even the tales of the American Indians.....

It is of no matter what you believe, but for the sake of discussion, try to apprehend that what you know of the religion of the G-d of Moses is very little. Indeed, what you know is cartoonish, as you pointed out.
This is not a very deep understanding of the subject.

0 Replies

Frank, I don't always agree with Moishe3rd on issues of politics and sometimes Judaism as I am not Orthodox, but he is correct in his criticism of your understanding regarding the god of Moses. Judaic scripture is pretty much impossible to understand without a vast knowledge of Hebrew, and insights into the monumental theological and philosophical discussions regarding the scriptures. Reading it in translation is a nightmare of misunderstanding, but mind you, so is the New Testament.

0 Replies

Let's get back to the subject
How the hell did everyone get so off track? Who cares about the translations of the Old and New Testaments? Is it not obvious that religions have been invented all over the world throughout the ages in order to help and at the same time control the masses? Stop arguing about whose religion is correct and go to the basis of the argument.

There were two main points implicit in the original argument:

First, that all religions in the end, have to be based on faith and not evidence. What is faith though? Faith is nothing but the abstract concept of thinking something is true with no evidence to prove it's validity. What is the point of faith then? If "god" made us rational beings, why would this god then expect us to have "faith?"

Second, not only is religion absurd and needless, but that it is also very detrimental to society. Is it not obvious that right and wrong are relative terms that have no meaning except in society? Societies can make their own code of ethics based on the "greatest good for the greatest number," or numerous other approaches, which are far more advantageous to society than basing their code of ethics on religion. Isn't that part of the reason that the American society works so well? Religion instills a certain way of thinking which is detrimental to society. Since it is based on faith, it instills close-mindedness in it's believers. People stop thinking openly and clearly, by use of reason and evidence. They are told all the answers by their religion. This close-mindedness in turn breeds intolerance of other possible views, which in turn breeds hatred and violence. It is a trickle-down effect, rooted in a way of thinking upheld by religion.

So then again, what is the point of faith? What is the point of religion? Are they helpful or detrimental to society today?

0 Replies

Just like the god of the bible and the 'true' god, neither of which I believe in, faith and religion can be separated Voltoza. Faith does not have to be based in religion. Faith is an excellent psychological coping device that helps us live through upheaval. I may not have faith that there is a god, but I can have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. Expectant fathers can have faith that their baby will be born healthy, and that their wife will be healthy as well. The pedestrian can have faith that when they jaywalk, they will not be hit by a car. Without faith, we all live in fear. I can live without religion, but not without faith. Faith also has nothing to do with ethics.

As a sidenote, in case anyone forgot, reason and evidence did give birth to both phrenology and eugenics.

0 Replies

TonyO wrote:

you wrote:

Quote:
I AM NOT SAYING IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT THE DESCRIPTION GIVEN IN THE BIBLE IS ACCURATE...merely that it seems so remote (at least as remote as Zeus being the God)...that I simply dismiss it.

Can you create a greater God than the one revealed in Scripture?

Any day of the week...and twice on Sundays.

That is one of the reasons I have argued so often against Anselm's supposed ontological proof of the existence of God...which reduces to "God is that which nothing greater than can be imagined."

Anyone who cannot imagine a God greater than the god described in the Bible...simply has no imagination.

Quote:

You wrote:

Quote:
Fact is, you Christians reject it also...but you are in a bind. You want Jesus to be God also...so you pretty much are stuck with the god described in Leviticus and Deuteronomy....and that god is a cartoon.

First, this is a generalized statement that holds no weight. You would of had to have talked with all Christians in order for this to be true.

Second I have no problem with Jesus being God Incarnate and also being the same God we find in Leviticus and/or Deuteronomy. Please expound on why I must reject it?

So you think Jesus would say slavery is okay? You think Jesus would say people who engage in homosexual activity should be stoned to death? Jesus would tell people to stone to death their recalcitant children? Attack their enemies and kill every man, woman, child, and all their livestock?

Can you find the passage in Leviticus where the god advises people to turn their cheeks to someone who smites them?

Gimme a break.

0 Replies

Moishe3rd wrote:

Frank Apsia wrote:

Quote:
I have carefully read what the god of the Bible says and does...and I reject that any God (Capital "G" God) would say and do.

Fact is, you Christians reject it also...but you are in a bind. You want Jesus to be God also...so you pretty much are stuck with the god described in Leviticus and Deuteronomy....and that god is a cartoon.

I am not trying to be nasty or insulting...but in order to tell what I feel, I have to say the things I say.

Okay, so your argument is based upon Your interpretation of what you believe your translation of whatever scripture is it that you are reading says.....

So that you understand that I have studied the Bible rather thoroughly, I will herewith furnish a bibleography of the Bibles I use in these discussions. I seldom, by the way, leave anything contentious without checking several of these sources. These are the Bibles within hand reach of where I am sitting at the moment:

St. Joseph Edition of The New American Bible; Catholic book Publishing, NY; 1968 (Catholic)

The New American Bible; Thomas Nelson Inc, Nashville; 1971 (Catholic)

The Holy Bible King James Version; Thomas Nelson, Nashville: 1984 (Protestant)

The Holy Bible New International Version; Zondervan Bible Pub. Grand Rapids; 1978 (Non-demoninational)

The Scofield Reference Holy Bible (King James Version); Oxford Univ. Press; NY; 1909 (Protestant)

The Holy Scriptures Masoretic Text; Jewish Publ Society; Philadelphia: 1955 (Jewish)

The Holy Bible, St.Joseph Textbook Edition, Confraternity Version; Catholic book Publ: NY; 1963; (Catholic)

The Holy Bible Revised Berkeley Version; The Gideons Intrl; 1984; (Non-denominational Protestant)

The New American Catholic Edition of The Holy Bible; Benziger Bros, Boston; 1950 (Catholic)

The Old Testament; Guild Press NY; 1965 (Catholic)

The Living Bible; Holman Illustrated Edition: A.J. Holman Co; Philadelphia; 1973 (Protestant)

The Holy Bible; King James Version; The World Publ Co: Cleveland; (no date); (Protestant)

The Old Testament; Hebrew Publishing Co: NY; 1916 (English & Hebrew) (Jewish)

**** Also I use

The Common Catechism of the Christian Faith: Seabury Press;NY 1975 (Protestant)

Catechism of the Catholic Church: Libreria Editrice Vaticana; Urbi et Orbi Comm; 1994 (Catholic)

The New St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism: Catholic Book Publish; NY; 1962 (Catholic)

*****Plus, I have (estimated) 40 - 50 other books dealing with the Bible, religion, and philosophy that I use when posting.

Please note that there are two Jewish Bibles in this list.

Quote:

I am an Orthodox Jew, and when you write of "Leviticus" and "Deuteronomy" and "Moses" and "the G-d described," it reads to me someone who writes about the History of the Middle East based on what he read today in the New York Times.
There are several thousand years of scholarship; argument; understanding; and levels of meaning in the scriptures upon which you are basing your belief that "G-d is a cartoon."
I believe that the data you have is very superficial. And that is only relating to the Judaic G-d.
There are other levels to deal with in dealing with the Trinity of Christianity or the Allah of Mohammad or the pantheon of attributes that comprise the G-d of the Hindus or even the tales of the American Indians.....

I've had lots of Jews offer your argument, Moshe, and each time I've asked them for Talmudic information that would change any of the points I've made...they have declined.

If you want to get into this with me, I'd be delighted.

My opinion of the god of the Bible is that the god is a murderous, barbaric god. I suspect that is because the men who (apparently) invented the god needed a murderous, barbaric god to protect themselves from the murderous, barbaric gods of their enemies.

I have no problem with the people who (apparently) invented the god...but I think anyone in the modern world who still thinks this is an accurate description of what any God that might exist is like...is being childish. And probably is being motivated by fear...which is what we are discussing.

Quote:

It is of no matter what you believe, but for the sake of discussion, try to apprehend that what you know of the religion of the G-d of Moses is very little. Indeed, what you know is cartoonish, as you pointed out.
This is not a very deep understanding of the subject.

If that is what you think...that is what you think.

If you want to discuss it, we can do so...and we can let others determine whether I am as shallow as you seem to think I am.

0 Replies

Frank wrote:

Quote:

Any day of the week...and twice on Sundays.

I await your god. Please explain how this god would deal with:

1) Creation
2) Morals
3) Define as best as possible your gods nature (a spirit, tangible body, etc)

(There are of course many other "how would he's" but these are enough for now)

You wrote:

Quote:

So you think Jesus would say slavery is okay? You think Jesus would say people who engage in homosexual activity should be stoned to death? Jesus would tell people to stone to death their recalcitant children? Attack their enemies and kill every man, woman, child, and all their livestock?

Can you find the passage in Leviticus where the god advises people to turn their cheeks to someone who smites them?

Gimme a break.

First these are a series of questions rather than a statement as to why I "must reject" G-d.

Second, since Jesus is G-d come in the flesh then yes He did speak out against the immoral nature of homosexuality and that also of unruly and abusive children.

Third, the "people" did not and could not take the "Law" into their own hands. This is the basis for G-d handing down the Law-

Lev 24:19-20
19 "If a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so it shall be done to him:

20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him.
NASU

This is so designed as to STOP people from acting on impulse and seeking revenge. Can you demonstrate where "people", directed by G-d, made these judgments on their own, without the "judges" first making their decision on the issue?

In fact I have not found as of yet a recorded instance where a youth had been so punished within the people of Israel. This dos not mean it was never carried out but I have yet to find any, perhaps you know of an incident?

I am sure all those books you have explain that Leviticus is a book that makes a stark contrast between the holiness of God and the sin of man. Leviticus also explains the dealings and goings on of the Levites and their duties relating to the Temple services and their dealings within the people as "priests".

Lastly, if possible can you tell me what portion of the 10 Commandments is immoral?

Thank you, have a great day.
Tony

0 Replies

What part of the 10 commandments is immoral...I'd have to say 'Do not covet thy neighbour's wife'. When I was in the bloom of adolescence, there lived next to me a total MILF. I coveted her, but did not act. It was the normal function of a growing boy, and I should not be punished for that. It is a sin to kill children under the age of 18.

0 Replies

Re: Let's get back to the subject

Voltoza wrote:

How the hell did everyone get so off track? Who cares about the translations of the Old and New Testaments? Is it not obvious that religions have been invented all over the world throughout the ages in order to help and at the same time control the masses? Stop arguing about whose religion is correct and go to the basis of the argument.

There were two main points implicit in the original argument:

First, that all religions in the end, have to be based on faith and not evidence. What is faith though? Faith is nothing but the abstract concept of thinking something is true with no evidence to prove it's validity. What is the point of faith then? If "god" made us rational beings, why would this god then expect us to have "faith?"

Well, Meletus, it's like this:
Let us ask, what is the evidence? You would probably accept evidence that the sun will "rise" tomorrow by virtue of the fact that it has always done so as long as man has recorded such things.
Likewise, you may accept other more intangible ideas regarding our universe such as black holes or global warming or that mother's "love" their children or that Bill Clinton is indeed capable of charming the pants off of many females. All of these require a certain amount of "faith" based on your definition.
But let us grant you the world of the senses - If you can see it, hear it, touch it, smell it, feel it, then it exists within a minimum amount of stretching your "faith."
If this is indeed so, how would you explain the anomalies? Just a sport? A randomly occuring "thing" that proves the idea of randomness?
I would suggest that you investigate the scientific probabilities of Life "accidentally" occurring in our Universe. It is statistically impossible.
I would suggest an investigation of the origins of our Universe itself. This is another anomaly.
Then, there are historic anomalies aplenty - such as, if I might be so bold, the Jews. As a culture, a race, a nation, a people, they are a-historical. There is quite simply no comparison to any other peoples on this planet.

Lastly, faith is totally based on rationality. You would simply need to experiment with the concepts involved to discover if they were true....

Second, not only is religion absurd and needless, but that it is also very detrimental to society. Is it not obvious that right and wrong are relative terms that have no meaning except in society? Societies can make their own code of ethics based on the "greatest good for the greatest number," or numerous other approaches, which are far more advantageous to society than basing their code of ethics on religion. Isn't that part of the reason that the American society works so well? Religion instills a certain way of thinking which is detrimental to society. Since it is based on faith, it instills close-mindedness in it's believers. People stop thinking openly and clearly, by use of reason and evidence. They are told all the answers by their religion. This close-mindedness in turn breeds intolerance of other possible views, which in turn breeds hatred and violence. It is a trickle-down effect, rooted in a way of thinking upheld by religion.

What moral values are not based on religious values? The ethical code of the "greatest good for the greatest number" is a very new ethic which is practiced in very few places. It is only practiced based on religion and only practiced at that based on the total saturation of religion in whatever society attempts to practice this ethic.
The American society is totally based on Jewish and Christian religious ethics. Which is indeed why it works so well....

So then again, what is the point of faith? What is the point of religion? Are they helpful or detrimental to society today?

Ahhh, to be so young and full of myself again. Happy Days.... Very Happy

0 Replies

TonyO wrote:

Frank wrote:

Quote:
Any day of the week...and twice on Sundays.

I await your god. Please explain how this god would deal with:

1) Creation
2) Morals
3) Define as best as possible your gods nature (a spirit, tangible body, etc)

(There are of course many other "how would he's" but these are enough for now)

"My God" (your words, not mine) would simply create the world. Period.

As far as "morals" are concerned, the God would not be offended by any of the things humans do. The God would simply keep a hands off position with regard to humans -- and allow humans to determine for themselves what they would tolerate and what they would not.

The God would be spirit (I guess) but would not be jealous, vindictive, vengeful, petty, murderous, or barbaric. It would probably never get involved with what humans should or should not do...but if it did, it certainly would never tell humans that some humans could own other humans...or that humans should slaughter people in wars. It would leave those kinds of things to the petty, cartoon gods that humans who are afraid of the unknown invent.

Quote:

You wrote:

Quote:
So you think Jesus would say slavery is okay? You think Jesus would say people who engage in homosexual activity should be stoned to death? Jesus would tell people to stone to death their recalcitant children? Attack their enemies and kill every man, woman, child, and all their livestock?

Can you find the passage in Leviticus where the god advises people to turn their cheeks to someone who smites them?

Gimme a break.

First these are a series of questions rather than a statement as to why I "must reject" G-d.

Where did I ever tell you that you must reject God or gods?

Quote:

Second, since Jesus is G-d come in the flesh then yes He did speak out against the immoral nature of homosexuality and that also of unruly and abusive children.

Would you mind being more specific.

Here is what the god of the Bible has to say about those things.

Leviticus 25:44ff
"Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess...such slaves
you may own as chattels, and leave to your sons as their
hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves."

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be
put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their
lives." Leviticus 20:13

"If a man has a stubborn and unruly son who will not listen to
his father or mother, and will not obey them even though they
chastise him, his father and mother shall have him apprehended
and brought out to the elders at the gate of his home city, where
...his fellow citizens shall stone him to death." Deuteronomy 22:18ff

"When you march up to attack a city, first offer terms of peace.
If it agrees to your terms of peace and opens its gates to you,
all the people to be found in it shall serve you in forced labor.
But if it refuses to make peace with you and instead offers you
battle, lay siege to it, and when the Lord, your God, delivers it
into your hand, put every male in it to the sword, but the women
and children and livestock and all else in it that is worth
plunder you may take as your booty and you may use this plunder
of your enemies which the Lord, your God, has given you." Deuteronomy 20:10

"I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishments
for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate
me, down to the third and fourth generation." Deuteronomy 5:9

Please cite specific passages from Jesus that says those same things...or that gives that kind of flavor to what he is saying.

Quote:

Third, the "people" did not and could not take the "Law" into their own hands. This is the basis for G-d handing down the Law-

Lev 24:19-20
19 "If a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so it shall be done to him:

20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him.
NASU

This is so designed as to STOP people from acting on impulse and seeking revenge. Can you demonstrate where "people", directed by G-d, made these judgments on their own, without the "judges" first making their decision on the issue?

No...but can you show me any reason why the god of the Bible decided to give these injunctions if he did not intend for people to use them?

Quote:

In fact I have not found as of yet a recorded instance where a youth had been so punished within the people of Israel. This dos not mean it was never carried out but I have yet to find any, perhaps you know of an incident?

Whether I or you know of an incident where it was done is not nearly as important as the fact that if it were done...your god would not be offended by it.

Quote:

I am sure all those books you have explain that Leviticus is a book that makes a stark contrast between the holiness of God and the sin of man. Leviticus also explains the dealings and goings on of the Levites and their duties relating to the Temple services and their dealings within the people as "priests".

I know that the book of Leviticus purports to tell what the god of the Bible is like...what pleases the God (grovelling in front of him, mostly) and what offends him (damn near everything humans do)...and I know that Jews and Christians have spent centuries trying to rationalize away this crap.

But the best possible explanation of Leviticus is that it is a collection of fables...the sensibilities of relatively uninformed, relatively unsophisticated, very, very supersitious ancient Hebrews...who were trying to create a civilization...and who put their morals and sensibilities into the mouth of a god they invented in order to do so.

Quote:

Lastly, if possible can you tell me what portion of the 10 Commandments is immoral?

If you've heard anyone say that a portion of the 10 Commandments is immoral...ask them. I've never said that to you.

Thanks for continuing this discussion.

I am enjoying it very much.

You have a great day yourself, Tony.

0 Replies

Voltoza wroteL "Societies can make their own code of ethics based on the greatest good for the greatest number."

Isn't that how Hitler and Stalin started out?

0 Replies

Religion Is For The Weak And Ignorant Masses

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know