Excuses, excuses

[JesusKnowsYou]

Samuel 15
3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ***.


And that's just one example.

Do you know who the Amalekites were?

Do you not know that they had been fighting to destroy the people of Israel ever since the days of Moses?

Israel had continually beaten back the Amalekites for centuries, but they kept coming back.

You don't believe that Israel had a right to self-preservation?

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

For goodness sake man... get with the program. The passage from Deuteronomy can be paraphrased easily as "God requires that you love Him." What is so complicated about this? You can stop tap-dancing any time now.

Also, you couldn't be more wrong about love. Here's what you said:

You may always WANT the other to return the love, but in some cases, EVEN IF THEY DON'T - you still love them no matter what. My children fall under this category. They could literally hate me, cast insults and vitriol my way every time I saw them and I would still love them. But, apparently, God's love isn't that strong, and when you qualify your ideas with things like "If I love someone, I want to see that love reflected in the other, yes?" when talking about God, you are admitting as much. And so, with your explanations and excuses under my belt, I have no choice but to conclude that my version of love for my children is stronger than God's love, hands down. Because you know what I would never say? I would never say that I would only love my children if they loved me back. And that's basically what you are saying about God - that He makes that statement. Perhaps not directly, but that is exactly how you tried to excuse some of the passages I quoted.

In the end, you don't have anything compelling to offer. You need to understand this. It may sway some gullible people, who haven't thought it through fully, but your words are just junk. There is nothing backing them but the words of other people - and none of it is very sound or well-composed. None of it. Hence the reason I am constantly able to pick things about your words, or The Bible's words apart. There is always contradiction to be found, always logical holes and inconsistencies. Your stories are NOT STRAIGHT, and it shows. Boy does it show.

God loves us no matter what. Even when we require correction or punishment.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

God loves us no matter what. Even when we require correction or punishment.

That's not what @sojourner was implying. So that's what I was responding to. If this person comes back and says the same as you, then they are basically back-tracking on the whole initial excuse/qualification they made with "If I love someone, I want to see that love reflected in the other, yes?" Because this is not necessarily the case, but this person was implying that that is the case with God. So I guess we'll see.

In my experience, Chrsitian theists are almost NEVER able to maintain consistency in their words and ideas. I think it is mostly because their source material (The Bible) has its own problems with consistency, but they believe that it doesn't, and so they feel unwarranted amounts of confidence in just quoting The Bible and then quoting or referring to other parts and ideas from it when those parts don't work to convince whoever it is they're talking to. But all they end up doing is propagating the same inconsistencies all over the place and adding in their own. Happens all the time.

 

[sojourner]

The kind where you own other people as property, can trade in them and pass them on to your off spring as inheritance

I asked twice for specific references. We can only argue specifics.

Am I allowed? Is that ok with you? Do I have your permission? Do I even need it?

So long as you continue to post vague things that the Bible doesn’t say, no, it’s not OK with me. The minute you post something with some real teeth, I’m on board.

You mean, aside from living in a society where christians who read this book, actively try to legislate the nonsense therein and pour it into laws that *I* would be subject to as well?

I didn’t think that was the topic of this thread...

Aside from that, true, I have no bone in that fight. The thing is though, christians actively try to stuff their religious bible based beliefs down my throat. So they make it my fight

And I totally agree with you. But you must post real arguments, if you want them to be effective. If you want to hit the target, you gotta aim. Otherwise, you’re just flailing your arms around aimlessly.

Funnier fact: giving them the very vague and ambigous label of "spiritual", doesn't mean anything

It obviously means something to those who define the term and who apply it to the human condition.

In leviticus. You might want to read your bible sometime

I have a graduate degree in biblical studies. Which of us do you think has read it more?

It says it's an "abomination" and "they shall surely be put to death".

“They” who? Certainly not homosexuals. ‘Homosexuals” is never mentioned.

I'm not going to bother given you verse numbers, because I am absolutely positive that you know this is what Leviticus has to say about it. You're just playing

You should, because I’m absolutely positive that nowhere in Leviticus does the term “homosexual” or “gay” or “queer” appear. I DO know what Leviticus says, and it patently does NOT say that “God condemns homosexuals.” I’m not “playing,” I’m trying to get you to be specific and on target with your arguments. The Bible says nothing about “homosexuals.” Nothing. Don’t damage your argument by saying that it does. it only helps the other side.

It says “men who lie with men as with women.” That can mean any number of kinds of heinous acts, such as rape or pedophilia. It doesn’t mean “normal, consensual, adult, natural, same sex sexual relations” — or the people who identify as homosexual.

But it counts in a conversation where we exchange our views, no matter if you feel the need to butt into it or not

This is a public forum. If you want to have a private debate, go to that section.

 

[sojourner]

Please. Read what it actually says in your book. It specifically singles out gays

No, it doesn’t. It does single out specific sex acts in a vague sort of way. “Homosexual” never appears in the original languages. In fact, there is no such term in either language.

Persecuting homosexuals, accomplishes the opposite

You’re quite right — and I’m firmly on your side here. But you’re only compounding the problem by stating that the Bible condemns homosexuality. It does not.

 

[sojourner]

God loves us no matter what. Even when we require correction or punishment.

“Punishment” is incongruent with the Christian ideal.

 

[sojourner]

In my experience, Chrsitian theists are almost NEVER able to maintain consistency in their words and ideas. I think it is mostly because their source material (The Bible) has its own problems with consistency, but they believe that it doesn't, and so they feel unwarranted amounts of confidence in just quoting The Bible and then quoting or referring to other parts and ideas from it when those parts don't work to convince whoever it is they're talking to. But all they end up doing is propagating the same inconsistencies all over the place and adding in their own. Happens all the time

The Bible isn’t a technical manual, nor a scientific journal. It’s myth and theology. And theology isn’t a specific discipline, such as mathematics. Looks awfully like you want them to be that way, though. You see “inconsistency.” I see “broad brush strokes.” Spirituality, Christianity, theology — these are all fairly fluid concepts, just as they’re designed to be. The problem occurs when we try to make them too specific.

 

[sojourner]

So, you're really going to deny that all those things are in the bible?




How ironic of you, to put up this defense in this specific thread.

No, I’m simply insisting that you be specific in your arguments, instead of indiscriminately throwing claims around that either aren’t true or misrepresent what the text actually means.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The Bible isn’t a technical manual, nor a scientific journal. It’s myth and theology. And theology isn’t a specific discipline, such as mathematics. Looks awfully like you want them to be that way, though. You see “inconsistency.” I see “broad brush strokes.” Spirituality, Christianity, theology — these are all fairly fluid concepts, just as they’re designed to be. The problem occurs when we try to make them too specific.

And I am sure you are by now quite aware of where I feel that "fluids" like The Bible belong:

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

It is a close cousin of the logic that says, "if gravity is a physical law of the Universe, you would do well to obey it and not ignore it."

Well, Gravity never demands that you worship it, in exchange for NOT being tortured forever....

.... so there's that.

Might Makes Right is a failed moral philosophy. The bible's god? 100% Might Makes Right-- just a big bully, really. Good thing it's also a big myth.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

That's not what @sojourner was implying. So that's what I was responding to. If this person comes back and says the same as you, then they are basically back-tracking on the whole initial excuse/qualification they made with "If I love someone, I want to see that love reflected in the other, yes?" Because this is not necessarily the case, but this person was implying that that is the case with God. So I guess we'll see.

In my experience, Chrsitian theists are almost NEVER able to maintain consistency in their words and ideas. I think it is mostly because their source material (The Bible) has its own problems with consistency, but they believe that it doesn't, and so they feel unwarranted amounts of confidence in just quoting The Bible and then quoting or referring to other parts and ideas from it when those parts don't work to convince whoever it is they're talking to. But all they end up doing is propagating the same inconsistencies all over the place and adding in their own. Happens all the time.

I still don't see any issue with the question, "If I love someone, I want to see that love reflected in the other, yes?"

God loves us. He wants us to love Him. He will continue to love us even if we don't love Him back.

That doesn't change His desire for us to love Him back.

I understand the imperfections in the Bible and know that it is not a complete or perfect record.

I still consider it scripture though. I just don't consider scripture to be without error.

I mean, men wrote it down right? Doesn't that immediately add a measure of imperfection?

 

[sojourner]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!

Ow man...............

"if a man lies with a male as with a woman,"

There's nothing else this could logically refer to, dude

Prison rape.
Forced sex with another underage male.
These are other things it can refer to, neither of which requires the presence of a sexual orientation.

In fact, there is a great cultural example here that you should be made aware of:
In that culture, shame and honor were embedded in the sexes. Males embodied honor and women embodied shame. An honorable male (in order to act honorably) would have to treat an equally honorable male as an equal. To “take” another male as one would “take” a woman was a shameful act, because it demeaned the other male. For a male to “take it like a woman” was for the recipient to act shamefully — as a woman. the injunction isn’t against the orientation — it’s setting the bar for social taboo where shame/honor are concerned.

"a man with a man". Maybe that's vague to you, but it isn't to just about everyone else.
It's in fact pretty direct, clear and unambigous

See above. Unless you’re aware of the cultural implications, you really have no idea what you’re talking about.

Uhu. I guess the vast majority of christians aren't taking these mysterious cultural implications into consideration either

Many don’t. It’s unfortunate.

I don't need any, nore do I care.
There is no cultural implication or context in which it could ever be moral or okay to own other people as property

Apparently there was in that culture. Not all cultures hold the same morals as yours.

Sorry dude, but I don't buy the idea that the supernatural all powerfull creator of the universe who apparantly had no problems flooding the entire planet, killing pretty much everything, or killing entire cities because they had sex wrong, felt like he had to "accomodate" for the "culture of the time" and not outlaw on of the most vile practices that any human has ever engaged in

I didn’t say that God did that. I do maintain that the writers can only speak out of their own cultural contexts — and they do. that doesn’t match up with your cultural context, so naturally it seems “wrong” to you. It doesn’t fit my morals, either. But I understand that we have to take these culturally-relevant moral statements with a grain of salt. they don’t apply to us.

It doesn't translate into morality either

In your world.

But I'ld expect a higher moral compass from an all powerfull, all knowing and benevolent god

What about from the ancient Near Easterners who wrote the texts?

 

[sojourner]

But it accurately reflects the "spirituality" of the bible.

No. It doesn’t. See my post above. None of this is about the orientation OR about normal, consensual sexual relations, as WE define them.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

It is interesting, if you think Bible God is evil. After all, Bible God commands us to love other and do good. And if people are evil, God doesn’t let evil to continue forever. I think it would be evil, if God would be something else.

The bible's god kills at a whim. That's pretty evil. In Exodus 21? The bible's god explains how to trick someone into being a life-time slave. That's pretty evil.

Elsewhere, the bible's god demands that all the people are brutally murdered, except for the virgin girl-babies. Those are to be taken as sex slaves instead.

And that one time? When bible-god brutally drowns all the puppies, kittens, butterflies and other Beautiful Things, just because bible-god could. That's a whole lower level of evil.

But the worst of them all? Brutal murder of a scape goat, in a horrific display of brutality, just to create a loophole in "law" that bible-god created in the first place...!

Why is it impossible for bible-god to simply forgive? Why does it require BRUTAL MURDER first?

Lame.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Both of those things happened and I don't see anything wrong with them..

You do not see anything wrong with the brutal murder of millions of babies? Innocent children? To say nothing of all the drowning kittens, puppies and other critters?

That's beyond EVIL, that's what that is!

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You're heading into the weeds.

Why not first stick with those claims you originally made.

Why was a global Flood an "evil" thing to do?

Murdering the innocent to get at the allegedly "guilty"? THE HALLMARK OF PURE EVIL VINDICTIVE MONSTER.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

“Punishment” is incongruent with the Christian ideal.

This is not accurate.

I can think of several parables of the Savior that describe people receiving just punishment.

Have you not read the New Testament?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

God hates the idea of His children engaging in sexual relations outside of marriage.

With that in mind, do you think He would want an unmarried couple to have protected sex or not?

God works with us. He wants to minimize harm.

If we are unwilling to keep His commandments for any reason - even societal norms - then He will still do what He can to help us minimize harm.

The world that ancient Israel was a part of was one of slavery. God taught them how best to live in that world while minimizing harm.

Homosexuality was a sin that spread like wildfire among ancient peoples and led to many worse sins.

Leaving this world is not the worst thing that can happen to us.

riiiiiight..... let's just KILL'EM ALL -- TO "TEACH" THEM A "LESSON".

Riiight.

 

[sojourner]

For goodness sake man... get with the program. The passage from Deuteronomy can be paraphrased easily as "God requires that you love Him." What is so complicated about this? You can stop tap-dancing any time now

It can’t actually. This is why we have scholars who exegete the texts. You ain’t one of them. Read my reply again. This is “how we live together as a tribe” stuff.

You may always WANT the other to return the love

I said that very thing.

But, apparently, God's love isn't that strong, and when you qualify your ideas with things like "If I love someone, I want to see that love reflected in the other, yes?" when talking about God, you are admitting as much

I didn’t say that. I didn’t even imply it. If that’s what you’re taking away from it, you need to up your reading comprehension game.

Because you know what I would never say? I would never say that I would only love my children if they loved me back

God doesn’t say that. In fact, the Bible says that God is steadfast, even when we’re not.

In the end, you don't have anything compelling to offer. You need to understand this. It may sway some gullible people, who haven't thought it through fully, but your words are just junk. There is nothing backing them but the words of other people - and none of it is very sound or well-composed. None of it. Hence the reason I am constantly able to pick things about your words, or The Bible's words apart. There is always contradiction to be found, always logical holes and inconsistencies. Your stories are NOT STRAIGHT, and it shows. Boy does it show

In the end, you have managed to grossly misapprehension what I wrote. Your stories are not straight, and it shows. Please go back to “Dick and Jane,” if you can’t run with the big boys.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

And that conclusion follows from what logical premise?.

100% failure to demonstrate a single Godly Action. Zip. Zero. Nada.

If god exists? It's principle attribute is to be unconvincing to anyone insisting on Divine Evidence.

That means it is either entirely indifferent? Or? Doesn't exist in the first place.

What specific horrific things are done? To whom specifically? What was the relationship of these people to the biblical authors?.

The bible speaks of horrific atrocity that it's god demanded happen.

Rape slaves. Genocide. Infanticide. Slavery. The list is endless...

How does that follow from the story of the tower?

If god was so afraid of an smallish tall building getting up to heaven? Then? God would be terrified beyond measure of an airplane or rocket...

It's only logical, from the bible's very silly story.

Of course, applying logic to the bible is akin to polishing a t888d....

.... yet more proof, that there are absolutely no gods who care about humans, JUST for permitting the bible to exist in the first place.