Interesting experiment with violence in Scriptures

[stvdv]

He knew that that was what I was doing. Which is why he got annoyed and shut me down.
Needless to say, we weren't the best of friends after that.

He tried his best to fail me as well... but seeing as I had almost perfect scores on all classes that actually mattered, it was an exercise in futility. And that just annoyed him even more.

Aha .. thanks, I understand. You were already much older when this happened. Then not much harm done
Strange though in this age that they still don't have the guts to discuss all Bible topics, because of inconvenience

Why is this you think (that they are unwilling to discuss certain verses)? Can't be just that it makes the Bible "primitive, barbaric and evil" I think.

IMO: Their major problem is "They believe that to admit this reality (these thoughts) might grant them a ticket into Hell, front row"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Aha .. thanks, I understand. You were already much older when this happened.

I must have been around 16-17 at the time.
First 2 years of high school I was in public school. They didn't have the direction I wanted to follow (science and IT) so I had to switch schools. I didn't really want to go to a catholic school, but the only other option was 40 minutes further away by bus.

So I entered 3rd year in that school and there, I had my first real exposure to religion and religious classes. At that point, I had never held a bible or even entered a church, except as a tourist on city trips visiting a cathedral or alike.

It was all new so I let it run over me a bit. By the time I hit 5th year of highschool, I started asking myself questions. The biggest being "I wonder what else this book says...". I had heared vague stories about the flood and the exodus and was curious. I remember going through those stories and asking myself "seriously, are there really people that believe all this stuff??? Huh?!?!".

Strange though in this age that they still don't have the guts to discuss all Bible topics, because of inconvenience

I'm guessing that my general attitude and the way I phrased the questions, didn't really help though. As I said, he pretty much instantly knew where I was going, so he probably understood that even only trying to "defend" it would end in a serious humiliation of losing the argument. 16-year olds can be real brutal and I was no different. Because indeed... what the heck can you say in defense of the practice of slavery or the "keeping to yourself" of virgin girls when going on infantacidal killing sprees? There is no context in which such things are okay, ever.

Another option is that he literally was instructed by the "catholic mangement" to stay away from such topics - which wouldn't surprise me either. This was in the early to mid 90s, a period where the catholic church was desperatly trying to stay relevant.

Why is this you think (that they are unwilling to discuss certain verses)? Can't be just that it makes the Bible "primitive, barbaric and evil" I think.

I briefly touched on it already...
I see several options:
- he knew it wasn't going to end well and didn't want to discuss it in front of the rest of the class
- he was instructed to stay clear from it
- or maybe it was innocent and he really was just trying to stick purely to the lesson plan. I consider this improbable, because it wouldn't explain the animosity between us that followed after those incidents. There was a very clear change in our relation after that. Before that, we got along quite fine. Afterwards, he became a bit cold and distant towards me. And I know for a fact he badmouthed me during teacher meetings. I had a mole there . A guy I knew from the tennis club and with whom I regurarly sparred also was a teacher at that school. The religion teacher didn't know that. lol.

IMO: Their major problem is "They believe that to admit this reality (these thoughts) might grant them a ticket into Hell, front row"

When it comes to guys like that... teachers, but also pastors and alike, who do their outmost best to avoid such topics... I believe they either simply know the entire thing is bullcrap, but it just happens to be their job. Or, they believe it and support it, but are ashamed to admit it as it conflicts with their inner moral self - or with the overall values and morals of the society they live in / teach at.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

There's nothing more fun on a COVID-19 weekday afternoon than to watch these mini outbreaks of sophomoric bible-bashing.

Huh... I happen to enjoy Bible-bashing. To each his own I guess.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Is it "bible bashing" to point out that the bible calls for the death of homosexuals?

Often.

is it "bible bashing" to point out that god in the bible ordered genocidal and infantacidel killing sprees?

Often.

Is it "bible bashing" to point out that god in the bible condones and regulates slavery?

Often.

I don't see how stating facts, qualifies as "bashing".

Hence the problem.

 

[blü 2]

There's nothing more fun on a COVID-19 weekday afternoon than to watch these mini outbreaks of sophomoric bible-bashing.

Why is pointing out that the God of the bible ordained invasive wars, massacres of populations, mass rape, human sacrifices, subservience of women, five-star religious intolerance, slavery, murders and so on, 'bible-bashing'?

Isn't it just pointing out that to modern eyes the bible bashes itself?

 

[firedragon]

There is popular religion, and there is scriptural literalism.
Christianity went through its periods of literal fundamentalism, but largely burned itself out. Today's Christians have no desire to repeat the bloodshed and repression of that period.
Islam had no bloody reformation, and has less experience with secular societies. I'd guess a higher proportion of the faithful are still literalists. Add to this the imperialism and economic exploitation from the west, and you get a perfect storm of resentment and fundamentalist backlash.

1. Can you give the exact period when Christianity went through "literal fundamentalism" and what verses were exactly taken literally and acted upon?

2. Also how do you "guess" that most muslims are literalists and what exactly do you mean by it, which verse, what's the literalist actions, when and by whom?

 

[thomas t]

What I read there, could be phrased as people that are kicking you while you are down. So any nation that takes advantage of you in a moment of weakness, could be compared here imo.

What I read is not just the kicking. It is the killing.
Kicking a people and killing its weakest parts is not necessarily one and the same thing, please.

Off course you could.

I was talking about a people killing the weakest parts of a Western civilization. You don't find that in the post-WWII era. Israel got under attack quite often, though.

Indeed, instead, they only (supposedly) had the most powerfull being in existance and the creator of literally everything in their camp.And God, or the Israelites with god's backing, didn't back in those days? Is that what you're saying?

God did back,... but the Israelites still had to do what they were able to.
God, in my opinion wanted to have them as responsible as possible when it comes to defence.

Clearly their only option was to kill everyone, including toddlers and babies, while keeping the young virgin girls as spoils of war

Of course, they could easily have let the toddlers alive. And then what?
Who was there to feed them? But you did ask yourself what happens to a toddler if both parents die?
I mean at that age - no foster parent available?

"repent" from what again?
Ow, right.... not upholding the treaties.

It even says later on that they (the polytheists) are the ones that draw first blood in 9:13

+

So does the Quran. But off course, if you are simply going to ignore those parst, you might miss it.

so you say "repent" means repenting from not upholding the treaties? If your interpretation is correct, that's Quran so then. Bible never says kill the ones who don't keep a treaty, so don't keep lumping these two books together, please.

The point is that you happily misrepresent the actual text just to get your dishonest point accross?
Sounds about right.[...]
a dishonest one. [...]
without misrepresenting it.

I wasn't dishonest. Praying and Zakat were explicitely mentioned directly after the call to kill.
When it says "repent" in that verse, the Quran didn't specify what exactly that was these folks should have been repenting from, so I left it out, since "prayer and Zakat" in contrast were mentioned explicitely.
So we have one "repent" and two Islamic things there.

such silly arguments

my arguments weren't silly.

Like the site you quoted itself says

but I answered this already: read my last post, please. I said, it's their interpretation.

And it might very well work on non-muslims by means of propaganda

I didn't resort to any propaganda here, I referred to your comparison between Bible and Quran which is invalid, IMO.

You're sticking to quite an aggressive posting style here, in my opinion. So many accusations from your side against me. Can we perhaps adopt a lighter tone in this debate?

Considering the timescales of abrahamic religion, I'ld say the nazi's pretty much qualify as "today".
So indeed, they sure could have went all biblical on the germans if they would have thought like that.

Glad they didn't do it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Isn't it just pointing out that to modern eyes the bible bashes itself?

Childish gloating is rendered no less childish by failed attempts to make oneself sound clever.

 

[stvdv]

Why is pointing out that the God of the bible ordained invasive wars, massacres of populations, mass rape, human sacrifices, subservience of women, five-star religious intolerance, slavery, murders and so on, 'bible-bashing'?

Isn't it just pointing out that to modern eyes the bible bashes itself?

Seems like a, maybe uncomfortable, but nevertheless reality/fact to me (finally 1 fact straightened out), at least assuming the facts in the Bible are true (**)

(**): I think that the fact in the Bible are a little different than people assume

 

[stvdv]

Why is pointing out that the God of the bible ordained invasive wars, massacres of populations, mass rape, human sacrifices, subservience of women, five-star religious intolerance, slavery, murders and so on, 'bible-bashing'?

Isn't it just pointing out that to modern eyes the bible bashes itself?

* Hypothetical this God of the Bible does exist and God "gave" the Bible to humanity

I had another thought:
Which came first, Bible or humans, obviously humans. I don't have a crystal ball, but I think it is safe to assume that the people (at least men) living in that era were very much capable, and as a matter of fact (like you said in your quote)...

...ordained invasive wars, massacres of populations, mass rape, human sacrifices, subservience of women, five-star religious intolerance, slavery, murders and so on

They did all these things perfectly themselves (even without and) prior to the Bible came into existence.

What I believe, considering the above hypothesis:
God, who is full of Love and Compassion, sees all these terrible misdeeds in "your quote" happening in the world, and decides, now it's time to educate these people, because obviously they don't educate themselves. So, God comes up with His Master plan to send the Bible. We all know from schools that it's educational to take a real life situation, but don't make it too personal, because people will block and end up in denial, and will fail exams. Of course education only works if you do point out the facts. The facts in your quote.

Accusing people they did what your quote illustrates was too much to digest for them, so God, in His goodness, decides to take all the blame, and pretends He is doing those horrendous acts Himself. Only in this way He could make His Bible a bestseller. Pointing out to the people they do those things would not have been smart; do you like to be told "I told you so?", most don't, so something like this makes more sense than God did it. And in a few 1000 years people get the hint.

So, in short: God never did the horror things from your quote. Those things were the day to day things happening in the world. God pointed it out.

 

[loverofhumanity]

In Holland they did a nice experiment. They took a Holy Scripture and highlighted some violent passages, and showed it to the people and asked some questions. Also interesting to see when those people found out from which scripture the verses came. All this to confront ourselves with our prejudices

Just 3m30s

I would have asked for which chapter and verse number as I would want to know the context of the story. In both the Quran and Bible context is of the utmost importance both grammatical, historical and cultural.

 

[blü 2]

Childish gloating is rendered no less childish by failed attempts to make oneself sound clever.

Pretending those parts aren't there is simply trying to make it say what you want it to say rather than understanding what it in fact says ─ in other words, censorship.

Ancient documents deserve more respect than that.

 

[blü 2]

in short: God never did the horror things from your quote. Those things were the day to day things happening in the world. God pointed it out.

The bible says God commanded and connived at those things. And the Tanakh is an important historical document, and in part a window on Bronze Age thought,, where such things were part of the realities of life (as you say).

 

[stvdv]

I would have asked for which chapter and verse number as I would want to know the context of the story. In both the Quran and Bible context is of the utmost importance both grammatical, historical and cultural.

The whole purpose of this little project was to show people how easy prejudices cloud us
So, yes, asking for specifics would have shown that you don't jump into prejudices

You would have aced the test

 

[stvdv]

The bible says God commanded and connived at those things. And the Tanakh is an important historical document, and in part a window on Bronze Age thought,, where such things were part of the realities of life (as you say).

That is true. This makes it problematic to believe in it. On the one hand "the loving God", on the other hand "the violent acts"

I know from Vedanta that, as seen from the highest truth, God is the doer of everything, as only God exists (as in "is Real", as in never changing)

So, from my POV there is no problem. God, as seen from Vedanta, indeed did all these things
But, from human POV God did not do these things, it were the humans who did them themselves

 

[blü 2]

That is true. This makes it problematic to believe in it. On the one hand "the loving God", on the other hand "the violent acts"

I know from Vedanta that, as seen from the highest truth, God is the doer of everything, as only God exists (as in "is Real", as in never changing)

So, from my POV there is no problem. God, as seen from Vedanta, indeed did all these things
But, from human POV God did not do these things, it were the humans who did them themselves

My own interest is historical., and in history, as you say, things are done by people, not gods.