Why I think a lot of the Bible is False

[Yid613]

Honestly, you can't get over the fact that I just happen to not believe you're real because you've placed me on this Earth with NOTHING substantial to go on?

But even when the Temple stood and you could see G-d in person, in a time when miracles were a daily event people still sinned. Tricks were never enough it’s all about the truth in want he wrote.

The killing of the firstborn was justice, as the Egyptians had also killed all the Hebrew male babies. The eye-for-an-eye thing that was prominent in the Hebrew culture at the time. (doesn't mean I like or agree with it any more than you do. But what would you want to do if you ruled over a land and someone enslaved your people and killed all their male children?)

Does this mean that the crucifixion of Christ could be seen as divinely just, in an eye-for-an-eye, Old Testament sort of way?

Eye for an eye means that justice must be done and the punishment must be fitting for the crime. The damage done must be mitigated and further damage prevented. Punishment must not be out of retribution or revenge. It does not allow the victim to commit the same crime against the criminal. This is the bases of modern civil law.

[Riverwolf]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

So if someone kills your child, the just thing to do is to kill his child, in your opinion? And if someone's king kills your child, then the just thing to do is to kill all the children born in that kingdom?

I said that I didn't like it any more that you do, just that it was "justice" to Yeh'vah. (not to me) If someone killed my child, I would certainly want revenge, but if, fate willing, I were to maintain myself, I would find it in myself to forgive the person. If someone's king ordered the slaughtering of my children, I would want revenge against said king, yes, but against the king, not his people nor his offspring. But would I do anything? Well, if I lost myself, you bet.

In my personal beliefs, the gods are just as capable of mistakes as we are, and are young once and grow and mature as well. They are not immune to time in my beliefs.

But is it right to hold a grudge for something that happened thousands of years ago?

[Riverwolf]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

So...

- The Egyptians kill the Hebrews' first-born sons.
- As an act of divine justice, God kills the Egyptians' first-born sons.
- Later on, the Romans kill God's first-born Son.

Does this mean that the crucifixion of Christ could be seen as divinely just, in an eye-for-an-eye, Old Testament sort of way?

No, because the eye-for-an-eye thing only works once, ideally. Not to mention the Romans had nothing to do with the Egyptians. Neither by the way was it all the Romans who crucified Yeshua; the Jewish priests at the time persuaded Pilate, the local governor, to crucify him. So it was "a" Roman who ordered the crucifixion of Yeshua, but not "the" Romans. (I just got done reading Luke and Acts, so it's still fresh in my mind what was going on.)

[Riverwolf]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

And that makes it O.K. for GOD?

No; see above.

Originally Posted by Autodidact

Just a hunch? A feeling? Is that how you decide which parts to believe?

Well, in this topic, what else is there to go on, really? Not a lot of written records survived to this day.

Besides, don't forget, Auto, that I am PAGAN. I don't "believe" any of the Bible; I only follow certain aspects of it so as to better myself in this life. Not to mention some of the stories in the Old Testament are pretty good, and the poetry is beautiful.

I was speaking from the viewpoint of an Abrahamist, as I call someone who follows one of the Abrahamic faiths.

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

And how do you decide which ones to believe and which ones not?

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it:

1. Be especially attentive "to the content and unity of the whole Scripture"
2. Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church".
3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by Yid613

If one see the essence of a person as their physical self then death is a horrible thing. However if one sees the essence of a person as their soul and the physical body only as temporary vessel then death is just a transition. Therefore if the actions of the physical body or circumstances the physical body finds itself in are causing damage to the soul a transition, through death, may be desirable whether it be to another body or a more spiritual existence.

May I say that this is one of the most horrific, abominable, callous and disgusting posts that I have ever read on any message board anywhere? However, since you feel that way, would you mind if we facilitated your transition to either another body or a more spiritual existence, as you prefer? Does this apply to babies as well?

btw, none of this is actually in the Tanakh anywhere, where it makes it quite clear that G-D is ordering the deaths of babies and toddlers solely to make room for the Hebrews to occupy the land where they are living. There is no mention of any need to transition to any other plane, or any motivation other than genocidal ethnic cleansing.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Riverwolf

No, because the eye-for-an-eye thing only works once, ideally.

Why's that?

Originally Posted by Riverwolf

Not to mention the Romans had nothing to do with the Egyptians.

Just as God didn't have anything in particular to do with the Egyptians either.

Originally Posted by Riverwolf

Neither by the way was it all the Romans who crucified Yeshua; the Jewish priests at the time persuaded Pilate, the local governor, to crucify him. So it was "a" Roman who ordered the crucifixion of Yeshua, but not "the" Romans. (I just got done reading Luke and Acts, so it's still fresh in my mind what was going on.)

I wasn't thinking just of Pilate, but also the Roman soldiers who jailed Jesus, the soldiers who nailed Him to the cross, and the soldiers who stood watch until He died. All of them played a role in the execution, didn't they?

In any event, the mechanism of the "justice" isn't really the issue. It really boils down to this:

- the Egyptians kill the Hebrew first-born sons, so the Egyptians' own first-born sons are killed. An eye for an eye.
- God kills the Egyptian first-born sons, so God's first-born son is killed. An eye for an eye.

No?

[Riverwolf]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

Why's that?

Yid explains it pretty well above.

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

Just as God didn't have anything in particular to do with the Egyptians either.

Yeah he did. The Egyptians had enslaved his people and treated them like trash, literally.

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

I wasn't thinking just of Pilate, but also the Roman soldiers who jailed Jesus, the soldiers who nailed Him to the cross, and the soldiers who stood watch until He died. All of them played a role in the execution, didn't they?

In any event, the mechanism of the "justice" isn't really the issue. It really boils down to this:

- the Egyptians kill the Hebrew first-born sons, so the Egyptians' own first-born sons are killed. An eye for an eye.
- God kills the Egyptian first-born sons, so God's first-born son is killed. An eye for an eye.

No?

No. The Roman soldiers who did all that were simply following their orders. "Father, forgive them, for they no not what they do." And as I said before, the Romans had nothing to do with Yeh'vah; the Egyptians had enslaved his people. Ever see Prince of Egypt?