• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Blaming the innocent...

InChrist

Free4ever
Incorrect: based on what you wrote? You were *exactly* cherry-picking. I know -- I used to do the exact same thing.

You also admitted that picking a Random Bible Verse-- and doing what it says-- would get you arrested. That was why you objected to doing that little game!

Your "reasons" for refusing to play the Do What The Bible Says game? Were a fine example of pure cognitive dissonance at work-- because on some level, you recognize how immoral the bible's commands really are.
I am not sure what your little game is, but I/m am not playing games. The Bible and all the writings in it are written for specific people, times, and purposes. One does not simply ignore context a follow some random account just because it is in the scriptures. While reading, one must ask the questions: who, what, when, where, and why was the passage written. For example; Paul told Timothy to drink a little wine for his stomach's sake. Clearly, Paul was speaking specifically to Timothy because he had some kind of stomach aliment and advised him to drink a little wine for it. This is not a general instruction for every person who ever reads and follows the Bible to drink wine. The same goes for all the instances of recorded events which you are attempting to label immoral.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Since nobody-- in all the history of Earth, has shown that "god" or "gods" are real?

We do not blame this myth.

We DO blame people who claim to speak FOR gods, however.

Anyone who in one sentence claims "god cannot be knowable" but then goes on to say "but god says THIS" is the lowest form of hypocrite there is.

Prove this beast-god of yours is real?

Or quit claiming to speak FOR it.
I don't think of God as a beast
and yeah....I think God can be known
 

InChrist

Free4ever

There is nothing, not one shard, that suggests that Jesus is talking to people in the future when he says "I say to you" (the people listening to him in the moment), "this generation will by no means pass away..." To make it say what you mean, you have to invent it out of whole cloth.
Yes, there is and I will try to get back to addressing this when I have more time.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
yet the epidemic of depression has engulfed mankind as never before.
Society is going through lots of change, especially in regards to technology replacing industry. Such changes typically do bring worries and depression as people get too caught up on all the "what ifs." We've also never been more separated, disconnected, and physically present but mentally elsewhere. It doesn't meant the world is going to end though.
Tell the people of Syria or any of the refugees fleeing their countries how good it is to live in this world.....
It's not all perfect. But overall to so much of the world the chances of us dying from complications of old age has never been better.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Even some of them is too many.


The Bible is one book that tells one story from start to finish. It is not a book by men, but I believe, authored by the Creator using human secretaries.
You can choose to believe in him....or not. You can choose to believe the Bible...or not. You can choose some parts of it and not others....its up to you.

Good grief, what absolute nonsense.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
I am not sure what your little game is, but I/m am not playing games. The Bible and all the writings in it are written for specific people, times, and purposes. One does not simply ignore context a follow some random account just because it is in the scriptures. While reading, one must ask the questions: who, what, when, where, and why was the passage written. For example; Paul told Timothy to drink a little wine for his stomach's sake. Clearly, Paul was speaking specifically to Timothy because he had some kind of stomach aliment and advised him to drink a little wine for it. This is not a general instruction for every person who ever reads and follows the Bible to drink wine. The same goes for all the instances of recorded events which you are attempting to label immoral.

A nice bit of spin you have there-- it serves to illustrate you recognize the bible is mostly immoral, and only ever applied to those who were alive, 2000+ years gone, and has nothing relevant to say to anyone today.

Good!
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Society is going through lots of change, especially in regards to technology replacing industry. Such changes typically do bring worries and depression as people get too caught up on all the "what ifs." We've also never been more separated, disconnected, and physically present but mentally elsewhere. It doesn't meant the world is going to end though.


Can you tell me how people are supposedly better off if they need meds just to get through their day? o_O
That is a fake existence...not living.

It's not all perfect. But overall to so much of the world the chances of us dying from complications of old age has never been better.

Tell that to the poor souls who have no quality of life, "living" (existing) in nursing homes. All they are is a frail body in a bed earning other people money. There is little "care" in care facilities because poorly paid staff are usually run off their feet with no time to give their patients anything but a clean up and off to the next person who needs toileting. No time for a chat or to make them feel cared about.

"Dying from complications of old age"? Do you realize that death for them is preferable to their present life in many cases. I speak from experience. :(
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Can you tell me how people are supposedly better off if they need meds just to get through their day? o_O
In times past many people starved. People were living in extreme unhygienic conditions. Crime was higher, and there was more war. Our problems are different, but compared to even our great grandparents, grandparents, and some of us even our parents, we are so much better off, have so much more, and have it so much easier. Boomers, for example, is a generation where many were raised by alcoholic fathers returning from the war. Today we encourage people to talk about things instead of bottling them in and drowning their sorrow in drink.
Tell that to the poor souls who have no quality of life, "living" (existing) in nursing homes.
Sometimes tragic things happen. The body wears out, it gets sick, things break down, we die. It has been that way for all life for billions of years. Sometimes people go comatose. Sometimes they get polio. It has nothing to do with the end of the world.
"Dying from complications of old age"? Do you realize that death for them is preferable to their present life in many cases. I speak from experience. :(
That's what happens when the bulk of us aren't killed by insect bites, minor cuts, simple infections, and acts of war. Medicine has improved, our knowledge of health has improved, we aren't as violent, and we live longer. It has nothing to do with the end of the world.
Do keep in mind, I am discussing general trends. There are always exceptions, always have been, and always will be. Anymore, it seems in my opinion we are reaching a point where we can dismiss claims and desires for the end of the world as "death cults," or perhaps "cults of depression" as they focus and obsess over a few bad examples instead of looking at the larger picture as a whole. I'm not denying we have problems. I'm denying they are as bad as you claim. "Wars and rumors of war?" It's getting harder by the decade to justify that as we have less war than in years past, but people still obsess on it.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
For the record, what you are doing is called "eisegesis." It means "reading into" the Bible what you want it to say, rather than the more common (and more acceptable) exegesis, meaning trying to extract the meaning from what the words and context actually say.

Eisegesis, in my opinion (and in the opinion of many others, much smarter than I am) is very poor theology, and pretty much invariably dishonest.

I replay your own quotes back at you: "4 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away."

There is nothing, not one shard, that suggests that Jesus is talking to people in the future when he says "I say to you" (the people listening to him in the moment), "this generation will by no means pass away..." To make it say what you mean, you have to invent it out of whole cloth.

Reading into the Bible just makes things messy. That's why I love Finkleman and Silberman .. They seem disciplined enough to resist every impulse to do that.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Can you tell me how people are supposedly better off if they need meds just to get through their day? o_O
That is a fake existence...not living.



Tell that to the poor souls who have no quality of life, "living" (existing) in nursing homes. All they are is a frail body in a bed earning other people money. There is little "care" in care facilities because poorly paid staff are usually run off their feet with no time to give their patients anything but a clean up and off to the next person who needs toileting. No time for a chat or to make them feel cared about.

"Dying from complications of old age"? Do you realize that death for them is preferable to their present life in many cases. I speak from experience. :(

Retirement villages aren't like that.. They are often vibrant communities with plenty to do. Nursing homes are for older seniors or those who have some debilitating condition.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
How many times, in these forums, have I heard it said that "humans bring it all on themselves.

Is there nobody who can see what utter nonsense this is?

Think of it for a moment: what, right now, today, are most ordinary people doing everywhere in the world? They're trying to survive, trying to bring up their children, feed them and educate them. And trying not to get noticed by the "powers that be." This is true in America. It's true in China, and Russia and North and South Korea, Somalia, Chad, England and even Tuvalu. Everywhere...it's what humans do!

Where, in this world, can you find a place where everybody in the whole society is acting with the kind of depravity that Christian love to accuse the antediluvians, the Sodomites, the Canaanites, and so many others of? WHERE? NO WHERE---THAT'S WHERE.

When humans resort to human sacrifice -- that's religion, that's the priests using their wiles to convince ordinary folk that that's how to appease God, or get rain, or be fertile, or get the crops to grow. Ordinary folk just go out in the field and plant corn, like they always did, and hope there's enough sun and rain to make it grow. When temple prostitution is used to try to encourage fertility, that's religion, that's the priests, pretending they know how to get the gods to favour their tribe over others -- when in fact they know diddly squat. Ordinary people are too busy with survival to be concerned with any of that nonsense.

How is it, I ask myself, that so many Christians seem to get this simple, fundamental point so horribly wrong? Does their religion actually reduce their ability to think reasonably? I really want to know!
There are times when this can switch...like in Nazi Germany, in Rwanda or among the white folks of apartheid South Africa. Nature imposes a kind of "mean constraint" which is the ordinary life as we know it. But human nature can easily swing rapidly towards very good or very bad on a mass scale quite easily under certain circumstances.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
How many times, in these forums, have I heard it said that "humans bring it all on themselves.

Is there nobody who can see what utter nonsense this is?

Think of it for a moment: what, right now, today, are most ordinary people doing everywhere in the world? They're trying to survive, trying to bring up their children, feed them and educate them. And trying not to get noticed by the "powers that be." This is true in America. It's true in China, and Russia and North and South Korea, Somalia, Chad, England and even Tuvalu. Everywhere...it's what humans do!

Where, in this world, can you find a place where everybody in the whole society is acting with the kind of depravity that Christian love to accuse the antediluvians, the Sodomites, the Canaanites, and so many others of? WHERE? NO WHERE---THAT'S WHERE.

When humans resort to human sacrifice -- that's religion, that's the priests using their wiles to convince ordinary folk that that's how to appease God, or get rain, or be fertile, or get the crops to grow. Ordinary folk just go out in the field and plant corn, like they always did, and hope there's enough sun and rain to make it grow. When temple prostitution is used to try to encourage fertility, that's religion, that's the priests, pretending they know how to get the gods to favour their tribe over others -- when in fact they know diddly squat. Ordinary people are too busy with survival to be concerned with any of that nonsense.

How is it, I ask myself, that so many Christians seem to get this simple, fundamental point so horribly wrong? Does their religion actually reduce their ability to think reasonably? I really want to know!
Climate change and ecological catastrophe are examples of things humans have brought on due to their own actions. Other things that are also man made :- gun violence, drug epidemic, Brexit, Trump :p
Ordinary people leading ordinary human lives is no longer good enough. Our power over this world has increased exponentially. We have become gods on earth, and if we chose to forsake that responsibility, we will become like anti-gods and destroy this world.
Welcome to Anthropocene I guess.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Ok... you call it nationalism and mass murder and I call it sacrifice and in the name of the religion of unbridled atheism.


Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby, you can call it what you like, it does not make what you call it right or factual
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
What is it, exactly, that you are pleading for here? You seem to want to make it absolutely objectionable what Stalin did -- and you're right, it is absolutely objectionable! I couldn't agree with you more! Congratulations on your insight.

I just go one step further than you do, however. I say that when God does it, it is also absolutely objectionable. And there, you disagree. You are happy to invent as many excuses for the same behaviour by God that you can think of, that you would not grant anywhere else.

Well here's my philosophy: a wrong is a wrong, nobody who commits it.

And here's my objection to your religious reading: God's omniscience, if, as you say, it is being used to kill children who have yet to commit any crime at all, comes far, far too late. Omniscience means that God knew before it got that far, that it would come to their killing, and thus by taking any arbitrary earlier action, God could have PREVENTED all that useless killing. (And philosophically, that's the problem with assuming "omni" anything, since it will inevitably run into a logical morass from which there's no escape.)

I am really saddened at the downward spiral your posts are becoming. You have been schooled in the Bible and for you to omit or twist things is not the Evangelicalhumanist that used to be.

Questions:

1) The above suggests that case one is the same as case two. So, if killing Canaanites through the use of Israel is wrong, you are then saying that God should do nothing with child sacrifices and beastiality (which produces rampant contagious diseases that would affect all ages. So you are fine with that?
2) If God "could have PREVENTED all that useless killing" way before, you are saying two things, 1) that by removing Canaanites He wasn't stopping it, which is what He was doing as you suggested that He should. or 2) He should have stopped it before... How would you suggest He stop it without violating self-determination that He gave to man?
3) You are smart enough to know that God gave mankind self determination. So, but the use of the word "Omniscience" in your context, you are suggesting that mankind does NOT have self-determination because He could have stopped it. And could have stopped murder; could have stopped car accidents; could have stopped bullying; could have stopped broken bones; which eventually leaves one at the place of simply being a robot with no self-determination. Are you suggesting that God DIDN'T give man self-determination?
4) "(And philosophically, that's the problem with assuming "omni" anything, since it will inevitably run into a logical morass from which there's no escape.)" Really? So, "omni-potent" means that He is powerful enough to do ANYTHING! But He isn't powerful enough to give man self-determination and that if He gave man a lease on this world (to create anything they want for good or for bad) you have now a philosophical problem. You are in essence saying If He CAN'T give man self-determination and a lease in this world, then He is not OMNI-potent. Or if He DOES give man self-determination then He is NOT omnipotent because now man has power beyond His.

OR, as it is obvious to me and much more logical,

BECAUSE He is OMNI-POTENT, He has every capacity to give man self-determination and still not loose His capacity because He still is OMNI-POTENT.

The Biblical realty is that God is STILL trying to prevent people from doing evil by a new birth where man is reunited with the God of Love. Love God and Love your neighbor. But, we still have self-determination and can just decide there is no gods or God. Which, in its logical conclusion, means that man will determine the future of this world and the future of their individual lives making himself his own god and therefore there is no atheists because we become our own gods. A conundrum in and of itself.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Then you are unlearned, when it comes to history. It was never ABOUT ATHEISM. It was about Marxism, a political/economic theory turned into an ideology. You might notice that during the 70 odd years of the Communist party domination of Russia that the party did destroy churches, did kill clergymen, did flood the schools with atheist doctrines, etc. You may also have noticed that the vast majority of Russians retained their beliefs anyway, and that the Russian Orthodox Church continued to operate throughout the whole time.

Nice play on words. Never ABOUT ATHEISM..."70 odd years of the Communist party domination of Russia that the party did destroy churches, did kill clergymen, did flood the schools with atheist doctrines, etc."

BUT

It isn't ABOUT ATHEISM. Hmmmmmm... "That is illogical, Captain Evagelicalhumanist".

"You may also have noticed that the vast majority of Russians retained their beliefs anyway," Yes, there is always a Shadrach, Mesach and Abendego no matter what atheists try to shove down there throats. (Equal opportunity believer) There is always an atheist not matter what theists try to shove down their throats.

It is the definition of self-determination and free will that God gave mankind.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby, you can call it what you like, it does not make what you call it right or factual
Atheism is based on the faith that "there is no God". Faith is the foundation of a religion. That is a fact!
 

sooda

Veteran Member
I am really saddened at the downward spiral your posts are becoming. You have been schooled in the Bible and for you to omit or twist things is not the Evangelicalhumanist that used to be.

Questions:

1) The above suggests that case one is the same as case two. So, if killing Canaanites through the use of Israel is wrong, you are then saying that God should do nothing with child sacrifices and beastiality (which produces rampant contagious diseases that would affect all ages. So you are fine with that?
2) If God "could have PREVENTED all that useless killing" way before, you are saying two things, 1) that by removing Canaanites He wasn't stopping it, which is what He was doing as you suggested that He should. or 2) He should have stopped it before... How would you suggest He stop it without violating self-determination that He gave to man?
3) You are smart enough to know that God gave mankind self determination. So, but the use of the word "Omniscience" in your context, you are suggesting that mankind does NOT have self-determination because He could have stopped it. And could have stopped murder; could have stopped car accidents; could have stopped bullying; could have stopped broken bones; which eventually leaves one at the place of simply being a robot with no self-determination. Are you suggesting that God DIDN'T give man self-determination?
4) "(And philosophically, that's the problem with assuming "omni" anything, since it will inevitably run into a logical morass from which there's no escape.)" Really? So, "omni-potent" means that He is powerful enough to do ANYTHING! But He isn't powerful enough to give man self-determination and that if He gave man a lease on this world (to create anything they want for good or for bad) you have now a philosophical problem. You are in essence saying If He CAN'T give man self-determination and a lease in this world, then He is not OMNI-potent. Or if He DOES give man self-determination then He is NOT omnipotent because now man has power beyond His.

OR, as it is obvious to me and much more logical,

BECAUSE He is OMNI-POTENT, He has every capacity to give man self-determination and still not loose His capacity because He still is OMNI-POTENT.

The Biblical realty is that God is STILL trying to prevent people from doing evil by a new birth where man is reunited with the God of Love. Love God and Love your neighbor. But, we still have self-determination and can just decide there is no gods or God. Which, in its logical conclusion, means that man will determine the future of this world and the future of their individual lives making himself his own god and therefore there is no atheists because we become our own gods. A conundrum in and of itself.

The Hebrews were Canaanites and unaffiliated Bedouin.. no different from the Amorites, Midianites and Amalekites . When you understand the symbiotic relationship between Bedouin and particular cities and oases, your understanding will be helpful. Unaffiliated means they had no sustaining relationships and were landless... relationships that were essential to their survival.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
The Hebrews were Canaanites and unaffiliated Bedouin.. no different from the Amorites, Midianites and Amalekites . When you understand the symbiotic relationship between Bedouin and particular cities and oases, your understanding will be helpful. Unaffiliated means they had no sustaining relationships and were landless... relationships that were essential to their survival.
Yes... Abraham was among them before God said (paraphrased), "Come out from among your family, friends and local and start a new life, a new beginning, a new people (my people)".

I'm not sure you would call him Bedouins for, as you said, they were landless. But someone who lives in the city of Ur is not landless by the nature what a city means. However, there were the Bedouin types in that area.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Yes... Abraham was among them before God said (paraphrased), "Come out from among your family, friends and local and start a new life, a new beginning, a new people (my people)".

I'm not sure you would call him Bedouins for, as you said, they were landless. But someone who lives in the city of Ur is not landless by the nature what a city means. However, there were the Bedouin types in that area.

There was no city of UR in "Abraham's" time.. In fact, he's probably a literary device.

The Bedouin of the Canaanite tribes had to move eastward into hill country to grow their own grains.
 
Top