Violence in the Bible

[Quiddity]

Sorry Victor, I am lost, what do you mean by that ?

If I answer I will be getting way off topic. I'll start up a thread on it sometime this week.

~Victor

 

[michel]

If I answer I will be getting way off topic. I'll start up a thread on it sometime this week.

~Victor

you could P.M me; I am sitting here with bated breath.......

 

[Quiddity]

you could P.M me; I am sitting here with bated breath.......

Will do.

~Victor

 

[Pah]

Incorrect!! It is bad to compare bad catholics who were not following church teaching to those good atheist. Hardly a comparison. Since your system is not even up and running yet, there is nothing to compare. The system is still being squabbled about.

~Victor

Who, on the other side of this debate, is talking about "bad catholics". I believe I addressed the scripture and those that took exception to my and Deuts morality in juxtaposition to the morality so blatantly shown in the Old Testament. Unless you consider yourself a "bad catholic", which I wouldn't.

But I'd love to address your comment about not being "up and running". Another thread perhaps?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do what strikes you fancy is much more loving...

To attribute such an attitude to atheists in general or me in particular is pure bigotry. That you can manage no better than to wallow in ad hominem speaks volumes.

You throw that word around much too often for something as impersonal as the world wide web. Little do you know.

So, it was not a bigoted statement? Very well - to whom do you attribute the ethic "Do what strikes you [sic] fancy" and based on what evidence?

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

I am by no means a moderator, but I just read this thread, and it seems to be getting way WAY off topic. Darkdale posed interesting questions, which I will paraphrase below.

1) Do you beleive in the Bible where it says to kill various people for various offenses?

Why or why not?

I personally do not buy into it. I would find it interesting to hear some replies from Biblical Literalists. Young Earthers and the like would fascinate me with their thoughts on this subject.

B.

 

[Quiddity]

Who, on the other side of this debate, is talking about "bad catholics". I believe I addressed the scripture and those that took exception to my and Deuts morality in juxtaposition to the morality so blatantly shown in the Old Testament. Unless you consider yourself a "bad catholic", which I wouldn't.

But I'd love to address your comment about not being "up and running". Another thread perhaps?

So, it was not a bigoted statement? Very well - to whom do you attribute the ethic "Do what strikes you [sic] fancy" and based on what evidence?

MdmSzdWhtGuy, is right. We will have to start another thread. I will start it sometime this week.

~Victor

 

[Scott1]

So, do those that believe in the Bible believe we should murder witches and homosexuals?

No.

Should I be killed for breaking the sabbath?

No.

As a Christian, what offenses do you feel I should be killed for?

None.

 

[JerryL]

I am not sure why it would interest you (how and on what I base my beliefs), since you quote no afilliation to any religion.

Why does anything interest anyone? I suppose it's some odd quest for intellectual honesty.

I think that describes my view to a tee. (and I used to worry that I was not a proper Christian for thinking that way).

I won't comment on what a "proper Christian" is, it's not my place to say, but I can tell you that you are not following the Bible (well, not all of it).

 

[Darkdale]

Is anyone required to followed these old testiment laws? If not... why does anyone even bother reading them? Why have an old testiment if nothing in them matters?

 

[Scott1]

Is anyone required to followed these old testiment laws?

The ones you listed? No.

If not... why does anyone even bother reading them?

They are part of the text.... they teach a valuable lessons---- to me at least.

Why have an old testiment if nothing in them matters?

You make the assumption that NOTHING matters from your few questions?

"Christians... read the Old Testament in the light of Christ crucified and risen. Such typological reading discloses the inexhaustible content of the Old Testament; but it must not make us forget that the Old Testament retains its own intrinsic value as Revelation reaffirmed by our Lord himself. Besides, the New Testament has to be read in the light of the Old. Early Christian catechesis made constant use of the Old Testament. As an old saying put it, the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New (CCC#129)."

 

[Darkdale]

So you just pick and choose from the OT. Are there any rules about what you are and are not allowed to find important in the OT?

 

[jewscout]

Is anyone required to followed these old testiment laws? If not... why does anyone even bother reading them? Why have an old testiment if nothing in them matters?

an othrodox jew would probably say so...that's the short answer

 

[Scott1]

So you just pick and choose from the OT.

More or less.... they are words on paper and can interpreted by the reader.... Jews would most certainly doubt most of my interpretation of the OT.... etc etc.

Are there any rules about what you are and are not allowed to find important in the OT?

Me personally? No.

My Church? Yes, we have several guidelines. We try to employ the new exegetical aids, above all those which employ the historical method-----a method which carefully investigates sources and defines their nature and value, and makes use of such helps as textual criticism, literary criticism, and the study of languages. In order to put the abiding truth and authority of the Gospels in their full light, we try to accurately adhere to the norms of rational and Catholic hermeneutics... which include the nature of Gospel testimony, into the religious life of the early churches, and most importantly the sense and the value of apostolic tradition ( the Church as our teacher).

There's more to it than this... but I hope you get the "gist" of things.

 

[Deut 13:1]

Is anyone required to followed these old testiment laws?

Yes, the Jews.

If not... why does anyone even bother reading them?

Because they want to be righteous gentiles... Noahides...

 

[Deut 13:1]

So much wrong...

So, do those that believe in the Bible believe we should murder witches and homosexuals?

If they are Jewish, know perfectly well it is forbidden, the witnesses are in line, and the PROPER court procedures are followed, then yes. *Note* It's impossible to convene a court, maybe you should find out why.

Should I be killed for breaking the sabbath?

No, you're actually performing the mitzvah by not following the Sabbath as a non-Jew.

 

[Darkdale]

There's more to it than this... but I hope you get the "gist" of things.

I do. Thank you. (You have to admit, it is a little confusing for an outsider; it seems like there are a hundred different views on the subject).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If they are Jewish, know perfectly well it is forbidden, the witnesses are in line, and the PROPER court procedures are followed, then yes. *Note* It's impossible to convene a court, maybe you should find out why.

You see, according to our fundamentalist friend here, stoning homosexuals is perfectly OK in principle. It's the technicalities that cause the problem.

 

[michel]

Why does anything interest anyone? I suppose it's some odd quest for intellectual honesty.

Fair enough; I'm sorry if I made it sound 'abrupt'; I guess I suddenly saw your questions are 'virtual religious voyeurism' - as if you were asking for me to dig a hole for myself, and then finding it amusing. Sorry, I guess I am tired.

I won't comment on what a "proper Christian" is, it's not my place to say, but I can tell you that you are not following the Bible (well, not all of it).

I don't follow the OT, but I do the new testament. I believe Christ gave us a 'revised' set of rules - which is why we are "Christ"ians.

 

[JerryL]

I don't follow the OT, but I do the new testament. I believe Christ gave us a 'revised' set of rules - which is why we are "Christ"ians.

Obviously, I consider this some combination of cherry-picking and revisionism. I'm happy to discuss it or agree to disagree on your personal choice.