Your least favorite Scripture

siti said:

How can you be a fundamentalist "in some ways"?

Click to expand...

Just want to address this one point. I am non-denominational. My beliefs are my own; others may share some points of dogma, but which ones and to what extent is the question. I no longer care at all what others believe in whether they be Christian, Buddhist, Shinto, Pagan, Wicca, or atheist. If I find I need to modify some of my beliefs I do so without consideration of any church. I am not Trinitarian, nor JW, or LDS. I simply go by the Bible.

PopeADope said:

Mine is probably the one where God orders the man to be killed for picking up sticks on Sabbath. How stupid it is to kill some one for working on a certain day. Reminds me of ISIS. The verse where God kills a man for steadying the Ark is also stupid.

Click to expand...

I believe you are referring to where a man was killed because having the power of God nearby in a cloud of smoke/pillar of fire, and having personally walked through the sea and having personally seen God destroy the Egyptians, and having heard the voice of God thunder on the mountain as the Law was given, chose from among thousands of his neighbors to publicly despise the Sabbath, serving as an example of those who despise the true Sabbath-giver, Jesus Christ.

He wasn't killed for merely "picking up sticks on Saturday".

Likewise, a simple reading of the Law concerning not touching the ark would explain your other misstep/misinterpretation.

Grandliseur said:

As you said, the thread topic won't permit me going into this. If you want to, I can answer you on another thread or conversation. However, whatever such a discussion brings to light - may not mean that we agree. But, feel free to engage me in this subject.

Click to expand...

You can go off topic if you like

PopeADope said:

You can go off topic if you like

Click to expand...

I haven't been asked to yet. Thanks for the women in hell like.

Grandliseur said:

I haven't been asked to yet. Thanks for the women in hell like.

Click to expand...

It was because you said many women are saints... I agree

PopeADope said:

It was because you said many women are saints... I agree

Click to expand...

I think it is the women who make the foundation of the family. The man is the moon orbiting the earth, the woman. The children might then be satellites.

dfnj said:

Gilgamesh! Gilgamesh was a man's man:

"GILGAMESH went abroad in the world, but he met with none who could withstand his arms till be came to Uruk. But the men of Uruk muttered in their houses, ‘Gilgamesh sounds the tocsin for his amusement, his arrogance has no bounds by day or night. No son is left with his father, for Gilgamesh takes them all, even the children; yet the king should be a shepherd to his people. His lust leaves no virgin to her lover, neither the warrior's daughter nor the wife of the noble; yet this is the shepherd of the city, wise, comely, and resolute.'"

His lust leaves no virgin to her lover!

Click to expand...

It is the story, and not the man. Actually Enkidu is the primal hero. My interest is the myths of the creation and flood found in Genesis are first in Gilgamesh. To large extent Genesis is written by men about the myths of their ancestors. It is a continuum of the ancient literature found in the Pentateuch.

What is profound about Gilgamesh is that it represents the dark side of Civilized humans (Gilgamesh), and the confrontation with the primal human Enkidu.

dfnj said:

This is just wrong:

"And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son to morrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son...." (II Kings 6:28-29)

Click to expand...

Well of course it is wrong, that’s the point! It is told to show how horrible the situation was that it would drive a mother to do such things. It was written so people would change and do the right things.

siti said:

Would you recommend this procedure for child training? Deuteronomy 21:18-21.

Click to expand...

I would if it was used in conjunction with the rest of scripture. Because if it was then no rebellious son would ever be stoned. Let me know if you want me to explain why that is so. By the way you are misapplying the verse. It could not apply to a child, but only to those that of adulthood.

You know what? God said the Sabbath was a special sign between Him and His chosen people. If you find it so stupid then just maybe you are not among the chosen ones.

Probably "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" or "always learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." There's one other one I forgot. Probably my favorite would be "The desire to get rich is the root of all evil."

Hockeycowboy said:

If there was no child training, maybe the parents should face the consequences?

I doubt that was never the case.

Apparently, these were grown children, being drunkards. You were probably thinking 6 or 7 year olds, huh?

Click to expand...

and

Shaul said:

I would if it was used in conjunction with the rest of scripture. Because if it was then no rebellious son would ever be stoned. Let me know if you want me to explain why that is so. By the way you are misapplying the verse. It could not apply to a child, but only to those that of adulthood.

Click to expand...

No I wasn't - but since you have now raised another anomaly or two in regard to Leviticus 21:18-21 - why would parents be responsible for the actions of their adult children? And even if they were, do you really think that capital punishment is appropriate for being drunk and disorderly? Huh? I certainly wouldn't have survived past my teens on that basis. You?

Grandliseur said:

It would seem so. Of course, if you realize that the NT is what Christians rely on for their restrictions, the question then becomes what things does the NT contain as permissible that the OT dis-permits.

Click to expand...

Right - so the NT (a reinterpretation of bronze age Hebrew mythology that was devised in late antiquity as a result of Hellenization and state-sponsored Roman syncretism) retained the "God hates faggots" bit, limited the fisheries support scheme restriction to Fridays only (actually that's not in the NT but it was in the tradition it spawned for a long time) and put bacon back on the breakfast plate (that is in the NT)...and I certainly agree with this

Grandliseur said:

This is where much of the disagreement of non believers and believers happen and even exists among various denominations. With the astronomical number of denominations, it is each to his own with their own reasons also.

Click to expand...

But the reaffirmation of the bronze age Levitical restriction against homosexuality on pain of death in Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 would also be among my least favourite scripture verses. Of course many Christians feel that the real meanings of these are lost in translation or inappropriately applied to modern human societies. I think I would redact these verses if I were doing a new version for our days.

Grandliseur said:

Just want to address this one point. I am non-denominational. My beliefs are my own; others may share some points of dogma, but which ones and to what extent is the question. I no longer care at all what others believe in whether they be Christian, Buddhist, Shinto, Pagan, Wicca, or atheist. If I find I need to modify some of my beliefs I do so without consideration of any church. I am not Trinitarian, nor JW, or LDS. I simply go by the Bible.

Click to expand...

I respect that. And my question was not intended to appear dismissive or disrespectful.

Hockeycowboy said:

The Sermon on the Mount quote by Mahatma Gandhi:
"When your country and mine shall get together on the teachings of Christ in this Sermon on the Mount, we shall have solved the problems not only of our countries but those of the whole world."

It seems that Mahatma Gandhi had been approached by Lord Irwin, the British viceroy. Irwin asked him what he considered to be the solution to the problems of India and his country. Gandhi took the Bible and opened it to Matthew chapter 5, and said the above.

A Hindu appreciated the value of the Bible, at least the part that he said, if applied, would ‘solve the world’s problems.’

That doesn’t sound simplistic to me.

Click to expand...

It doesn't? So where is the complexity in the Sermon on the Mount? And were Gandhi and Lord Irwin able to get their countries together and solve the problems of the world on that basis? Or were the problems of India (never mind the world) in reality far more complex and intractable than Gandhi's optimistic and religiously conciliatory sound byte suggested?

YmirGF said:

Possibly one of the most horrid concepts ever invented.

Click to expand...

Oh yeah! That's one heaping helping of crazy

My least favorite Bible passage? Deuteronomy 22:28-29, which seems to imply women should be sold off to their rapist. I can't imagine the trauma if that were ever done.

siti said:

Right - so the NT (a reinterpretation of bronze age Hebrew mythology that was devised in late antiquity as a result of Hellenization and state-sponsored Roman syncretism) retained the "God hates faggots" bit, limited the fisheries support scheme restriction to Fridays only (actually that's not in the NT but it was in the tradition it spawned for a long time) and put bacon back on the breakfast plate (that is in the NT)...and I certainly agree with this

But the reaffirmation of the bronze age Levitical restriction against homosexuality on pain of death in Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 would also be among my least favourite scripture verses. Of course many Christians feel that the real meanings of these are lost in translation or inappropriately applied to modern human societies. I think I would redact these verses if I were doing a new version for our days.

Click to expand...

OK. For a moment push the books aside and the history lessons.

Humans are a bigoted lot. That is why the voting system is used. Unfortunately, that has become a joke now.
But, you have the right to do what you like and if it is illegal, perhaps you might be caught and prosecuted.
The same for me. So, there are going to be things in general in society that people take sides on.
If you are Wicca, you will have likes and dislikes that Muslim do not have and where their eyes bore daggers into the other person when such things are practiced. The same goes for atheists versus Christians, or Muslims, etc.

We don't need books to kill each other. Neighbors who have stepped on a neighbor's grass have been killed, etc. Parking feuds have cost lives.

In society, people can vote about the big stuff and get a gun for the small stuff. In the past, in the South (US) I think a black who married or had a child with a white woman had a good chance of being dead soon. (Am I wrong?) Thus, we do mind where others put their vaginas and penises. Just because someone is homosexual that predilection we have toward biases does not go away, neither can it - we are human.

siti said:

I respect that. And my question was not intended to appear dismissive or disrespectful.

Click to expand...

I know. But, I just wanted to answer your question.

I am open to answer question on my beliefs if desired.

Grandliseur said:

We don't need books to kill each other.

Click to expand...

Right - but they do come in handy for justifying killing each other.