A Few Observations

[Jenyar]

Thank you, Jenyar. You made my point perfectly - I can quote something in black and white which is clearly instructive, yet you can appear to post something that contradicts it within the very same book.

Then please quote it and let's see (or just provide the reference). If you argue it has universal application (i.e. religious rather than national implications), please indicate why you think so.

And "the same book" would be John. The Bible is a collection of books, often separated by time and contexts.

PS. Keep in mind that Jesus himself was the victim of religious and political persecution. If you're looking for vindication against such abuses, you need to look no further than him.

 

[KennyJC]

If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

I like that one, but hundreds more of a similar nature can be found at evilbible.com

This basically tells us it is ok to murder someone on the grounds of their religion. I don't see how you will be able to agree with or justify the hundreds of quotes like the one above, without therefor bringing attention to the flawed nature of the "word of God".

 

[Jenyar]

"If your own full brother ... all Israel... in your midst". How does this apply to anybody outside their own nation or borders, exactly? And note "other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known" - this addresses an internal matter, pertaining to those who already believe in Israel's God, the God who had just brought them out of slavery - not to someone who has ever believed anything else. In that respect they also had a command: "Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt" (Ex. 22:21).

The site you gave has five more references of the same nature from the Hebrew bible, and two from the New Testament that they must think are commands. I'll be happy to discuss them with you one by one if you want. But there aren't hundreds. Or were you just attempting to exaggerate your point?

 

[MarcAC]

...The Bible is a collection of books, often separated by time and contexts.

This basically tells us it is ok to murder someone on the grounds of their religion. I don't see how you will be able to agree with or justify the hundreds of quotes like the one above, without therefor bringing attention to the flawed nature of the "word of God".

Religious practices evolve with human culture - i.e. they occur in a certain "context".

Any attentive individual who has read a Christian Bible from cover to cover will no doubt see the evolution in thought and practice, esp. those brought about by Jesus and his followers.

While such cultures still exist in some corners of the world, human society and culture has generally evolved since then.

In other words, don't soley blame the religion - the social practices also play a part.

-

The fact that religious practices are dynamic shouldn't put a "bad face" on religion, as some may want to think.

Look at science, "the atheist religion". It is certainly dynamic - as observation, knowledge, and human culture evolves, so does scientific thought, and scientific fact.

Why should it be any different with religion? Science and religion are, after all, both quests for certainty in humanity's existence - i.e. quests for truth.

-

Anyway... regarding "murder"

From Merriam-Webster Online:
murder: "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought"

The keyword is "unlawfully".

So it appears, in fact, that the text you quoted doesn't state that it is o.k. to murder someone. The text indicates that it was within the lawful practice of the society, back then, to kill/destroy anyone/thing which would threaten to lead them away from their God.

It is within the lawful practice of society, now, for police to kill criminals, and soldiers to kill terrorists, and for a man to defend his family and property against gun toting life threatening criminals by killing them if it comes to it - if there are no police there.

I'm sure I won't go to prison if a man who broke into my house, threatening to kill my family and take my belongings, ends up dead because I took my gun and pumped one through his skin just before he could pump one though mine, my wife's or my kids'.

 

[the preacher]

​

Why should it be any different with religion? Science and religion are, after all, both quests for certainty in humanity's existence - i.e. quests for truth.

but one can only find it, the other has nowhere to look.

​

-

Anyway... regarding "murder"

From Merriam-Webster Online:
murder: "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought"

The keyword is "unlawfully".

So it appears, in fact, that the text you quoted doesn't state that it is o.k. to murder someone. The text indicates that it was within the lawful practice of the society, back then, to kill/destroy anyone/thing which would threaten to lead them away from their God.

so when they burn at the stake, little girls who they thought were witches etc, this was'nt murder.
give me a break!

​

It is within the lawful practice of society, now, for police to kill criminals.

but not for aledgedly blaspheming.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Science and religion are, after all, both quests for certainty in humanity's existence - i.e. quests for truth.

Religion isn't a quest for truth. It's a method of human relationships whose viral foundation asserts that it already knows the truth (i.e. 'God' did it).

Anyway... regarding "murder"

From Merriam-Webster Online:
murder: "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought"

Three words, abortion clinic bombings.

 

[KennyJC]

The site you gave has five more references of the same nature from the Hebrew bible, and two from the New Testament that they must think are commands. I'll be happy to discuss them with you one by one if you want. But there aren't hundreds. Or were you just attempting to exaggerate your point?

No I did not exaggerate my point as there were too many quotes on that webpage to count... All relating to rape, murder, human sacrifice, slavery and a section with many other miscellaneous 'evil' quotes.

If the Bible is supposed to be the word of God, what difference does it make what the context of human culture is at that point in time? Furthermore, why if the Bible is only cultural contex should it be relevant today? If we ignore large parts of the Bible and hold onto other parts - that is nothing more than watered down moderation - which is in many ways more annoying that fundamentalists.

From Merriam-Webster Online:
murder: "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought"

The keyword is "unlawfully".

So it appears, in fact, that the text you quoted doesn't state that it is o.k. to murder someone. The text indicates that it was within the lawful practice of the society, back then, to kill/destroy anyone/thing which would threaten to lead them away from their God.

Yes... Thank God for secularism.

Thank you Jenyar and MarcAC for conceeding that your religion was simply made-up, therefor not the word of God.

 

[MarcAC]

Religion isn't a quest for truth. It's a method of human relationships whose viral foundation asserts that it already knows the truth (i.e. 'God' did it).

In any quest for truth - i.e. science or religion - you have to start from somewhere, be they reasonable assumptions or faithful beliefs. Religions start from God.

Three words, abortion clinic bombings.

Yes, that is murder - it is unlawful.

 

[MarcAC]

If the Bible is supposed to be the word of God, what difference does it make what the context of human culture is at that point in time? Furthermore, why if the Bible is only cultural contex should it be relevant today? If we ignore large parts of the Bible and hold onto other parts - that is nothing more than watered down moderation - which is in many ways more annoying that fundamentalists.

The Bible is the Word of God, as interpreted by humanity over the millenia.

Human culture changes, and so does religious practice. What remains throughout, imho, is God's true Word.

Love yourself, love your neighbour, love God, respect the laws of your society... etc... etc - and with all that everything follows. You apply these principles in the social context in which you live.

Yes... Thank God for secularism.

Indeed. It certainly won't prevent people from being religious. It just promotes the freedom for one to live as he chooses. There is free will, after all. I don't see why anyone should have a problem with that - even God.

Thank you Jenyar and MarcAC for conceeding that your religion was simply made-up, therefor not the word of God.

You are a true comedian.

 

[Jenyar]

No I did not exaggerate my point as there were too many quotes on that webpage to count... All relating to rape, murder, human sacrifice, slavery and a section with many other miscellaneous 'evil' quotes.

Of course there are many - "hundreds" - of quotes in the Bible. But we weren't talking about any of them. Upon stating "I can point to many parts of the Bible to show you that it is perfectly ok to kill in defence of your religion" you provided Deut. 13:7-12 as an example. Then you said "I like that one, but hundreds more of a similar nature can be found at evilbible.com ... This basically tells us it is ok to murder someone on the grounds of their religion". This gave the distinct impression that you considered all those hundreds of passages relevant to your point.

But I'll address them quickly: rape: condemned; murder: condemned; human sacrifice: condemned. Slavery: condoned with qualification ("remember that you were slaves in Egypt") and regulated: "If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him".

And remember, laws don't reflect a perfect world, they point out sin in a sinful world. Their existence alone shows there's something wrong.

 

[KennyJC]

"I like that one, but hundreds more of a similar nature can be found at evilbible.com"

By 'similar nature' I emplied that there are many quotes that appear to contradict the "loving" stereotypes of Christianity.

But I'll address them quickly: rape: condemned;

http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm

murder: condemned;

http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

human sacrifice: condemned.

http://www.evilbible.com/Ritual_Human_Sacrifice.htm

Slavery: condoned with qualification ("remember that you were slaves in Egypt") and regulated

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

Wow, some regulation...

More at: http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm

 

[Crunchy Cat]

In any quest for truth - i.e. science or religion - you have to start from somewhere, be they reasonable assumptions or faithful beliefs. Religions start from God.

Have any evidence to back up that assertion that religion is a quest for truth? In science, if an 'assumption' is incorrrect it can be discarded. Religion doesn't share that flexibility and it binds the concept of 'God' so tightly to a person's sense of self / self-worth that discarding it can be interpreted as an act of suicide.

Yes, that is murder - it is unlawful.

The people who do those things disagree and will argue that according to 'God's law, it's not murder.

 

[Jenyar]

By 'similar nature' I emplied that there are many quotes that appear to contradict the "loving" stereotypes of Christianity.

You mean, they don't reflect Christ's emphasis on love. How could they? Christ hadn't come yet.

http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm

You're working with a definition of rape that didn't exist at the time. Rape was defined as lawless and illegitimate sex, and it was unquestionably condemned. But when the relationship between a man and woman became legal, sex between them became legal. That's why someone who raped a girl had to marry her - it would restore her honour and assured her security. For the rest of his life, the man would carry the responsibility for what he had done - she would have the same rights and priviledges as someone whom he married out of choice. It's foreign to us because we're not Middle-Eastern. We simply send such people to prison. Deserts don't have prisons.

http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

Once again, you don't distinguish between the death penalty and murder. One falls within a legal framework, the other doesn't. Futhermore, what I said earlier stil applies: these punishments and regulations governed Israel as a nation. They would only change as morality matured, and you can only apply Christian deifnitions once Christ actually came to interpret the law as a means to love, not an excuse not to.

http://www.evilbible.com/Ritual_Human_Sacrifice.htm

It's unequivocably condemned. It was rampant among the surrounding people, which is why Abraham wasn't surprised that his God might require the same. But on the altar, God made his point vividly clear: He would provide a substitute. Child sacrifice always referred to idolatry (Lev. 18:21; 2 Kings 17:31; Isaiah 57:5; Ezekiel 16:21, 23:37, 23:39).

Maybe where the website displays its ignorance most clearly is when it claims about the consecration of the firstborn: "It is clear from the context that 'consecrate' means a burning sacrifice". They probably dearly wish it were true, because it would mean Christianity wouldn't exist:

Luke 2:22-24 When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took [Jesus] to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, "Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord")​

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

Wow, some regulation...

From a modern perspective, I don't like this passage either, but it's still a valid regulation - and it doesn't stand on its own. No law does. This one was probably a way to determine the extent of the crime (similar to Exodus 21:18-19). If it wasn't clear, the case would have been brought before the priests, and they would determine if the intention was assault, murder or just punishment (cf. Deut 17:8-11). If there was any permanent damage, the slave would go free (Ex. 21:26-27). A violent owner would end up slaveless, but unpunished; a murderous owner would be punished. The owner's power over his slaves was limited, which made these laws unprecedented in the ANE.

 

[Vega]

Can somebody explain what exactly this scripture describes from a theological point of view Genesis:1:26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness....!!!

 

[(Q)]

The Bible is the Word of God, as interpreted by humanity over the millenia.

Don't you mean 'created' by humanity over the millenia?

Surely, you don't suggest that gods actually dictated to people?

 

[Jenyar]

Can somebody explain what exactly this scripture describes from a theological point of view Genesis:1:26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness....!!!

Well, a short answer could be that of all creation, man alone would resemble God in any meaningful way. An image is a representation of the source, and likeness is a similarity in appearance, nature or character. So man would not only resemble God in some ways, he was also created to represent Him. This obviously has many implications, such as that man would only represent God while he reflects Him (the difference might then be called "sin"). Consequently, when Jesus was called "the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation" (Col. 1:15), that carried a lot of meaning.

It's such a core axiom of faith, concerning the relationship between God and man, that it would be impossible to give any comprehensive answer. But I hope this puts it in perspective a little.

 

[MarcAC]

In science, if an 'assumption' is incorrrect it can be discarded. Religion doesn't share that flexibility...

Your statement has questionable applicability to the wider context of religion, simply because there are so many adapted and adaptable views held be religious/spiritual individuals.

In religion, if the assumption can be shown to be incorrect, it can be discarded.

...it binds the concept of 'God' so tightly to a person's sense of self / self-worth that discarding it can be interpreted as an act of suicide.

True. Can it be proven that God doesn't exist?

The people who do those things disagree and will argue that according to 'God's law, it's not murder.

Naturally, but still they are disobeying God's law which instructs them to respect the laws of the society they live in, show love, and show tolerance.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Your statement has questionable applicability to the wider context of religion, simply because there are so many adapted and adaptable views held be religious/spiritual individuals. In religion, if the assumption can be shown to be incorrect, it can be discarded.

What happens if the assumption that 'God' exists is shown to be incorrect?

True. Can it be proven that God doesn't exist?

I suspect it can. For example, if science results in explicit knowledge about consciousness, that the human brain is solely responsible for it, and even reproduces it then it would invalidate the idea of a soul, invalidate the idea of 'God's reward/punishment upon death, and invalidate 'God'.

Naturally, but still they are disobeying God's law which instructs them to respect the laws of the society they live in, show love, and show tolerance.

Respecting the laws of society and obeying them are very different. 'Acts' of love and tolerance can be very subjective. Therefore it can easily be argued by such a person that they are fully compliant with 'God's law.

 

[MarcAC]

What happens if the assumption that 'God' exists is shown to be incorrect?

Hell freezes over?

I suspect it can. For example, if science results in explicit knowledge about consciousness, that the human brain is solely responsible for it, and even reproduces it then it would invalidate the idea of a soul, invalidate the idea of 'God's reward/punishment upon death, and invalidate 'God'.

Question is what does science represent? Knowledge of reality or consistency in observations? I dunno... do you?

Respecting the laws of society and obeying them are very different.

Hmmm... true in a sense, althoug I think that once you are a member of a society you must obey the law to show respect for it - otherwise that respect is a farce. Looking at societies as an outsider is another matter. You may have some respect for the law without the need to follow the law.

'Acts' of love and tolerance can be very subjective. Therefore it can easily be argued by such a person that they are fully compliant with 'God's law.

They can easily attempt to argue, but it won't stand up to scrutiny.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Hell freezes over?

Hahahahaha. That day may come.

Question is what does science represent? Knowledge of reality or consistency in observations? I dunno... do you?

I'm not sure it's intended to represent anything. IMO, it's a process and nothing more.

Hmmm... true in a sense, althoug I think that once you are a member of a society you must obey the law to show respect for it - otherwise that respect is a farce. Looking at societies as an outsider is another matter. You may have some respect for the law without the need to follow the law.

Isn't anybody under 'God's law living under man's law technically an outsider?

They can easily attempt to argue, but it won't stand up to scrutiny.

If a legion of people still believe their actions of killing to not be murder than the scrutiny really doesn't matter after the fact.