Thread: the bible and morals

Just a quick question(or questions), do christians use the bible for their morals? Is every word in there correct(morally speaking), or do you pick and choose your morals to suit and ignore the ones that dont?


genuine question guys

spoke to a jehovas witness yesterday. and it was shocking how he bent morals.
some guy asked him for some change, and he answered "i do not partake in this world, therefore i wont give you money"
he put up the killing of the firstborns of egypt as a just action, to punish the
pharaoh.
etc.

Originally Posted by dejawolf

spoke to a jehovas witness yesterday. and it was shocking how he bent morals.
some guy asked him for some change, and he answered "i do not partake in this world, therefore i wont give you money"
he put up the killing of the firstborns of egypt as a just action, to punish the
pharaoh.
etc.

Yeah, you're making crap up or you were talking to a guy that just escaped from a mental hospital.

I have family that are Jehovah's Witnesses and I know of the faith well. As all religions, they have their flaws, but they're not as nuts as the ignorant haters make them out to be. The basic differences I see with them and Catholics, is that they take the bible a little more literally than do the Catholics. Most religions speak of the bible as an enigmatic book filled with hard to decipher mysteries, but Jehovah's witnesses usually don't look at it with the same mysticism, but rather think from what I would call an almost economism fashioned perspective on the bible and God. It might take some analyzing to see it like that, but most religions do come down to logistics.

Originally Posted by Happydude

Most religions speak of the bible as an enigmatic book filled with hard to decipher mysteries,

How enigmatic is a bible if every deciphered mystery is something good. Kind of predictable, no?

anyone?

Upon further reflection, I guess for me, the only real puzzling thing about bible deciphering is that every decoding translates into something good. Why is this so?

I don't think Happydude or any other biblical scholar would ever consider that as enigmatic. Hear what you want to hear and disregard the rest. Do you think any bible believer is going to look for evil in God's words? Having a preconceived notion of what to expect hardly rates as enigmatic. What may be enigmatic is trying to figure out just what good message God is sending us despite some dubious text.

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

anyone?

Poor caveman, alright let me see if I can answer your question.

Just a quick question(or questions), do christians use the bible for their morals?

I'd think that would be the idea. If there's no judge waiting for you in the courtroom, wouldn't you do crap that you won't now?

Is every word in there correct(morally speaking), or do you pick and choose your morals to suit and ignore the ones that dont?

You're going to get types of all kinds on that one. I met a guy that had earlier in his life walked around dressed like Jesus, and smoked pot thinking that it was the only way to understand the mysteries of the bible. People just think differently, but logically there's no way of getting around the basics such as lying, stealing, fornicating and murdering. I'd say some still try, but that would technically count them as immoral based off of their own true beliefs whether they like it or not.

Also I don't know where to find it but I know I have read a scripture before that said something to the effect that all scripture is inspired and made beneficial for man or something like that. So if you're believin' in the bible, best be believin' the whole thing!



Oh and zin, could you please give me an illustration, I'm a little lost.

Originally Posted by Happydude

Oh and zin, could you please give me an illustration, I'm a little lost.

I'm not big on Bible quotes so I'll paraphrase Psalms 137 from memory, "blessed is he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks'.

Can you work some deciphering magic and turn that into a good thing. I've seen it done, so no googling. Just off the top of your head, please show me the good in your own words.

From my understanding of the bible's perspective, God considers all of those who do not serve him to be spiritually dead, which is suppose to be a bigger deal than being physically dead. And he was speaking of the deaths of Babylons children, which would relate to people who were not servants of God for our day. Considering how sin can actually be inherited into our blood, If I'm not mistaking something, I believe the bible has us see it as God actually considers us better dead than alive at this state of sinful tendency because as we continue to live, I believe we're supposedly only becoming more sinful in a world full of sin.

If this is all correct, then of course it's not going to sound good to us, we're humans and happen to like living. But seeing it from God's perspective as a creator who has to watch his vision dirty itself further as time goes on, also considering that he knows how easily he can bring us back from the dead, his perspective may not be so illogical from that point of view. But if you're asking me to see how we can view it as an enjoyable thing, I don't believe we are expected to see it that way. Who wants to see themselves as worthless dust, or better dead than alive? It's the bible's less diplomatic side I would say.

Cheers guys, i just think its odd that bible followers use certan aspects of the bible as the word of god on what morals to have but disregard other parts, surely its either all or nothing, else the whole thing falls down. You can say this is gods will but that must be stuck to, and then say ah but i wont do that bit

Is it morally right to pardon God for committing or encouraging atrocities? If God is so incomprehenible how come every Bible decoder can make even the most heinous god act useful, even though its cloaked in symbolism? Is symbolism only present in a scripture if God's actions are deemed uncharacteristic of a loving deity?

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

Cheers guys, i just think its odd that bible followers use certan aspects of the bible as the word of god on what morals to have but disregard other parts, surely its either all or nothing, else the whole thing falls down. You can say this is gods will but that must be stuck to, and then say ah but i wont do that bit

Absolutely agree, but come now, it's just as ridiculous for an atheist to celebrate holidays that have superstitious origin. It's like praying along at the dinner table because everyone else is still doing it. Mock them for the illogical behavior if you must, just don't forget they're not the only ones that contradict themselves.

Originally Posted by Happydude

And he was speaking of the deaths of Babylons children, which would relate to people who were not servants of God for our day.

If God spoke to you and told you He would bless you if you smashed in some children's skulls, would you do it, or sit and ponder about what He's really trying to say?

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by Happydude

And he was speaking of the deaths of Babylons children, which would relate to people who were not servants of God for our day.

If God spoke to you and told you He would bless you if you smashed in some children's skulls, would you do it, or sit and ponder about what He's really trying to say?

If?? What do you mean "if"?

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Is it morally right to pardon God for committing or encouraging atrocities?

Well if one believes in the God of the bible, they believe he made the moral rules, not us. And in the bible God only officially limits himself from one action, the lie.

No matter where you live, your country has some line that if crossed will be willing to terminate a life. Like it or not, so do you, so do I. Perhaps your line is like a gangster's and if someone badmouths you you're going to pump them with bullets, but it probably is limited to the point of protecting family and self-preservation mostly.

I remember this specific scripture because it was an exceptionally dramatic point in this old catholic bible I have musking up the room, in Genesis 6:6 that said, "When the LORD saw that wickedness of man on the earth was great, and that man's every thought and all the inclination of his heart were only evil, he regretted that he had made man on the earth and was grieved to the heart." And immediately after that point in the bible God decides to wipe man off of the earth by a flood. So apparently that was God's first last straw moment.

Maybe we should put it another way, is it justice or an atrocity to kill a serial killer, -serial rapist?

If God is so incomprehenible how come every Bible decoder can make even the most heinous god act useful, even though its cloaked in symbolism? Is symbolism only present in a scripture if God's actions are deemed uncharacteristic of a loving deity?

Huh? I'm going to need another illustration on that one.



You know, I just realized something that I find interesting, talking to people in RL I'm usually always playing the advocate for more liberal perspectives, but here I keep ending up going to bat for conservative positions.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by Happydude

And he was speaking of the deaths of Babylons children, which would relate to people who were not servants of God for our day.

If God spoke to you and told you He would bless you if you smashed in some children's skulls, would you do it, or sit and ponder about what He's really trying to say?

Well that's actually out of context, God was talking of the Babylonians and was directing it at them. But if you're asking if I'd think that God had to mean something else by telling me a thing like that, considering the context I have no idea how it would mean anything else. But if you can think of what the symbolic meaning might have been do share.

I just wanted you to know that I find the Bible repulsive, no wait the Bible is repulsive.

Proving the Bible is Repulsive

Originally Posted by Happydude

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Is it morally right to pardon God for committing or encouraging atrocities?

Well if one believes in the God of the bible, they believe he made the moral rules, not us. And in the bible God only officially limits himself from one action, the lie.

but dont we all learn by example, no wonder, religion kills so many, the bible, the word of god is evil.
there's nearly 850 evil things done by God, he has killed 32,920,770 people

Originally Posted by Happydude

No matter where you live, your country has some line that if crossed will be willing to terminate a life.

no wonder at it, when most countries, basic morality comes from religion, the more secular, the less likely to offend.

Originally Posted by Happydude

Like it or not, so do you, so do I. Perhaps your line is like a gangster's and if someone badmouths you you're going to pump them with bullets, but it probably is limited to the point of protecting family and self-preservation mostly.

for the people that dont get the morals out of a evil book, then it would be the latter, we are all born with a set of social skills these are the ones I follow and they dont tell me to kill anyone.

Originally Posted by Happydude

I remember this specific scripture because it was an exceptionally dramatic point in this old catholic bible I have musking up the room, in Genesis 6:6 that said, "When the LORD saw that wickedness of man on the earth was great, and that man's every thought and all the inclination of his heart were only evil, he regretted that he had made man on the earth and was grieved to the heart." And immediately after that point in the bible God decides to wipe man off of the earth by a flood. So apparently that was God's first last straw moment.
Maybe we should put it another way, is it justice or an atrocity to kill a serial killer, -serial rapist?

but he didn't stop at serial killers did he, he murdered women, children, and new born,s too, so your justice idea dont wash.

Originally Posted by Pikkhaud

I just wanted you to know that I find the Bible repulsive, no wait the Bible is repulsive.

Proving the Bible is Repulsive

That video is retarded. Of course no one follows half the things in the OT... the Bible is mainly about the new testament wherein Jesus basically says we no longer have to follow old testament laws. That guy needs some enlightenment...

Wow... about the stoning thing: Jesus himself threw out that law.

This guy is so ignorant.

Originally Posted by Happydude

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Is it morally right to pardon God for committing or encouraging atrocities?

If God is so incomprehenible how come every Bible decoder can make even the most heinous god act useful, even though its cloaked in symbolism? Is symbolism only present in a scripture if God's actions are deemed uncharacteristic of a loving deity?

Huh? I'm going to need another illustration on that one.

Sorry H-dude, it was late, golfed all day, partied after, couldn't think of the word metaphorical so I used symbolical which is pretty much the same but doesn't sound as good. What's the bible say about drinking and golf?

Literal bible scriptures are not changed if they agree with doctrine. Anything that doesn't agree is metaphorical and is thus interpretted to suit the doctrine. Can't have you going about bashing kid's heads, Babylonian or otherwise, even though that is exactly what God intended.

Do you think the following is close to the truth? why or why not?
http://russellsteapot.com/images/rsg.../000100000.jpg

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Of course no one follows half the things in the OT... the Bible is mainly about the new testament wherein Jesus basically says we no longer have to follow old testament laws. That guy needs some enlightenment...

Wow... about the stoning thing: Jesus himself threw out that law.

This guy is so ignorant.

Matthew 5:18 Jesus says OT law is still numero uno.

About the stoning thing, Jesus got some of it right. All Jesus wanted in the situation where he saved the adulterous girl was some fairness. In other words we just can't stone the girl and let the man get away with it. The classic 'it takes two to tango' approach. Justice for Jesus was either stone both or don't stone anyone. He didn't throw out the law, he just reformed it.

Originally Posted by geezer

but dont we all learn by example, no wonder, religion kills so many.

So are you saying there shouldn't ever be an executioner? Every society has the guy who pushes the button, swings the axe, signs off on the paper, and pounds the gavel. And when this is done, society calls this 'keeping order' but when the bible's universal creator and God of all things does this it's not his keeping of order, it's his being evil for the fun of it.

no wonder at it, when most countries, basic morality comes from religion, the more secular, the less likely to offend.

Right, because evolution clearly shows that the world was made of pink and purple and that love and peace had been all around before religion ever came onto the scene. But I'm sorry, you're actually right on that one, the more secular minded are far less likely to offend--unless of course they get a taste of extra ambition or get caught with their semen on a subordinate's dress and need to spin things.

for the people that dont get the morals out of a evil book, then it would be the latter, we are all born with a set of social skills these are the ones I follow and they dont tell me to kill anyone.

There was a period where the Israelites were told to slay because these pagans would have possibly got the Israelites to join in their worship of other gods, but then God expected them not to kill anyone. The bible tells people to 'learn war no more' despite what the governments want you to do. When a priest supports our troops, technically by the standards of the bible he'd be doing it alone, whether he believes it or not the God of the bible doesn't favor America or any of man's wars.

but he didn't stop at serial killers did he, he murdered women, children, and new born,s too, so your justice idea dont wash.

Actually it does, (I love being so blunt lol) you see from the bible's perspective and more specifically God's perspective, these pagans that neighbored his people were much like a disease of sin, a disease that if not quarantined would have many of his people infected, worshiping their gods and having relations with their women. Great king Solomon whom was known for his wisdom (gifted by God) had his heart change against God from what? His 700 pagan wives and 350 concubines. Man, talk about a womanizer... The point being made here is essentially, any pragmatic and strategic leader with a similar plan as the God of the bible, would see the pagans as being just as troublesome.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Of course no one follows half the things in the OT... the Bible is mainly about the new testament wherein Jesus basically says we no longer have to follow old testament laws. That guy needs some enlightenment...

Wow... about the stoning thing: Jesus himself threw out that law.

This guy is so ignorant.

About the stoning thing, Jesus got some of it right. All Jesus wanted in the situation where he saved the adulterous girl was some fairness. In other words we just can't stone the girl and let the man get away with it. The classic 'it takes two to tango' approach. Justice for Jesus was either stone both or don't stone anyone. He didn't throw out the law, he just reformed it.

You got that wrong. Jesus' intention was to show that no sin is greater than another; that's why he said "let him who is without sin cast the first stone". I see nothing about "the man" in that quote.

Analyze it carefully; you'll see that it's basically: you've sinned, so if you think casting a stone is the appropriate punishment for sin, then you deserve to be stoned as well (and, of course, everyone there has sinned, and thus everyone would deserve to be stoned--that's why the girl was spared).

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

You got that wrong. Jesus' intention was to show that no sin is greater than another; that's why he said "let him who is without sin cast the first stone". I see nothing about "the man" in that quote.

Analyze it carefully; you'll see that it's basically: you've sinned, so if you think casting a stone is the appropriate punishment for sin, then you deserve to be stoned as well (and, of course, everyone there has sinned, and thus everyone would deserve to be stoned--that's why the girl was spared).

Were you there?

There is nothing wrong with my analysis. Adultery has always consisted of more than one participant. The only difference is that your interpretation fits how Jesus is perceived by his followers better than mine. This is exactly the point of the entire thread.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Originally Posted by Pikkhaud

I just wanted you to know that I find the Bible repulsive, no wait the Bible is repulsive.

Proving the Bible is Repulsive

That video is retarded. Of course no one follows half the things in the OT... the Bible is mainly about the new testament wherein Jesus basically says we no longer have to follow old testament laws. That guy needs some enlightenment...

Wow... about the stoning thing: Jesus himself threw out that law.

This guy is so ignorant.

I think the point here is that the bible is the word of God, and a true christian would follow everything in it instead of cherry picking what is right and wrong when first following it.

Originally Posted by Happydude

Originally Posted by geezer

but dont we all learn by example, no wonder, religion kills so many.

So are you saying there shouldn't ever be an executioner? Every society has the guy who pushes the button, swings the axe, signs off on the paper, and pounds the gavel. And when this is done, society calls this 'keeping order' but when the bible's universal creator and God of all things does this it's not his keeping of order, it's his being evil for the fun of it.

pretty soon there wont be a need for executioners at all, with education brings wisdom, wisdom brings sense and intellect, it is an extremely rare occurance where a person of intellect kills another.

it was only because holy books, and the word of god/gods, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, comes to mind, that got people executed. and this from religions that preach forgiveness. go figure.

Originally Posted by Happydude

no wonder at it, when most countries, basic morality comes from religion, the more secular, the less likely to offend.

Right, because evolution clearly shows that the world was made of pink and purple

no because the world wasn't made, it came together, that would be a better terminology.

Originally Posted by Happydude

and that love and peace had been all around before religion ever came onto the scene. But I'm sorry, you're actually right on that one, the more secular minded are far less likely to offend--unless of course they get a taste of extra ambition or get caught with their semen on a subordinate's dress and need to spin things.

how is having ambition, and sex, offending.

Originally Posted by Happydude

for the people that dont get the morals out of a evil book, then it would be the latter, we are all born with a set of social skills these are the ones I follow and they dont tell me to kill anyone.

There was a period where the Israelites were told to slay because these pagans would have possibly got the Israelites to join in their worship of other gods, but then God expected them not to kill anyone.

firstly you know this how, where in scripture does it say that, is it just like when god delivers the Og and the people of Bashan, to moses to kill, Num 21:33-35 just like he did to Sihon and the Amonites.

Originally Posted by Happydude

The bible tells people to 'learn war no more' despite what the governments want you to do. When a priest supports our troops, technically by the standards of the bible he'd be doing it alone, whether he believes it or not the God of the bible doesn't favor America or any of man's wars.

then why does your bible incite so much war and murder. how can a god expect people to follow and understand if he doesn't hold his own commandments, and breaks 6.5 of the seven deadly sins, it's contradictory and hypocritical.

Originally Posted by Happydude

but he didn't stop at serial killers did he, he murdered women, children, and new born,s too, so your justice idea dont wash.

Actually it does, (I love being so blunt lol) you see from the bible's perspective and more specifically God's perspective, these pagans that neighbored his people were much like a disease of sin, a disease that if not quarantined would have many of his people infected, worshiping their gods and having relations with their women. Great king Solomon whom was known for his wisdom (gifted by God) had his heart change against God from what? His 700 pagan wives and 350 concubines. Man, talk about a womanizer... The point being made here is essentially, any pragmatic and strategic leader with a similar plan as the God of the bible, would see the pagans as being just as troublesome.

your unbelieverble,how can you justify your gods "justice" when if he created us all then he created the pagans, an all powerful all knowing god should not create people who he knows are bad just so he can kill them later, unless he is wholly evil, and well he did bring evil into the world if you follow your scriptures, so quite simply you arguement is quite moot.
a loving god would have no thoughts of evil, war, murder, killing, etc.... there would be nothing like that in the bible if he was loving, and a loving god would most certainly not want you to fear him.

pretty soon there wont be a need for executioners at all, with education brings wisdom, wisdom brings sense and intellect, it is an extremely rare occurance where a person of intellect kills another.

Or are they just smart enough to make it so no one finds out? Put your faith in the United Nations or whatever you want, but I'm willing to bet that pragmatic intellectuals with something at risk will start a war or have some one assassinated when the opportunity arises. There are a lot of smart people that are concerned with overpopulation, and I'm confident that a lot of these people will be willing to put into action a destructive type of thinning process in order to resolve it. I've met cold hearted intellectuals of all opinions and having done so, I can't remotely share your sentiment.

it was only because holy books, and the word of god/gods, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, comes to mind, that got people executed. and this from religions that preach forgiveness. go figure.

And that comment is why I have no faith in mankind...

You have trouble with 'an eye for an eye' type of reasoning? Well then you must be pro anarchy. Maybe you're right, the world might be a better place if instead of making the punishment suit the crime, we just made murderers take a ten minute time out and stare at the wall, or perhaps sending them to bed with no supper would be better. I think you should run for president, I'd vote for you!

no because the world wasn't made, it came together, that would be a better terminology.

Poor Geezer, you couldn't figure out anything intelligent to say?

By the way, you earn the right to say 'it came together' when you can explain why the Big Bang happened and not just how it happened. Until that point, you're just using circular reasoning that should be beneath an intellectual.

how is having ambition, and sex, offending.

You didn't catch the joke, and I explained that earlier and also did it again earlier in this post.

firstly you know this how, where in scripture does it say that, is it just like when god delivers the Og and the people of Bashan, to moses to kill, Num 21:33-35 just like he did to Sihon and the Amonites.

Alright I'll somewhat give you this one, but not entirely. Technically in the verses that it speaks of this it doesn't say that exactly, however the whole bible is to be used to understand the ultimate messages and find understanding in the God of the bible. If you've read it you should know that God had made it clear how he felt of his people interacting with pagans, and that he had to even punish his people multiple times for swaying on this and spending too much time with pagans and even taking on some of their beliefs and rituals.

then why does your bible incite so much war and murder. how can a god expect people to follow and understand if he doesn't hold his own commandments, and breaks 6.5 of the seven deadly sins, it's contradictory and hypocritical.

Dammit this is all explained in the executioner point, and even further in my 'eye for an eye' comment earlier in this post. Stop repeating a question answered! You don't have to like the answer, but it's the answer.

your unbelieverble,how can you justify your gods "justice" when if he created us all then he created the pagans, an all powerful all knowing god should not create people who he knows are bad just so he can kill them later, unless he is wholly evil, and well he did bring evil into the world if you follow your scriptures, so quite simply you arguement is quite moot.

Actually your argument is moot by the fact that you never seemed to either follow the scriptures or at least never caught on to what they were saying. Did you not get a word of Genesis? You never understood the whole Adam and Eve situation with them committing the sin of eating the forbidden fruit after the angelic cherub that later came to be Satan lied to Eve enticing her? The bible explains that once we sin, we're made imperfect, and our children inherit our sinful tendencies. Those who strive to sin less are suppose to inherit less sinful tendencies to our children, thus the pagans were a people that indulged in sin while the Israelites strove for the moral purity that is good in God's eyes. That's the whole point of it all, to be as sinless as you can until you are made morally perfect by God. That's the whole point that you I guess never caught, as simple as it is.

a loving god would have no thoughts of evil, war, murder, killing, etc.... there would be nothing like that in the bible if he was loving, and a loving god would most certainly not want you to fear him.

So every trooper and policeman that believe they are killing and possibly going to die for those they love at their homeland are not actually capable of love then? So every judge and jury member that votes for someone's execution believing that it is justice can not possibly know of what love is? Are you telling me that all of these people, kings, queens, presidents and their bodyguards ready to protect and kill for their country and their leaders and their families, are all truly just sociopaths completely incapable of loving anything or anyone?

Please don't repeat the questions if you're going to post again. If you do, at least try to do it in a clever way for a little spice, because seriously...

Originally Posted by Happydude

it was only because holy books, and the word of god/gods, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, comes to mind, that got people executed. And this from religions that preach forgiveness. Go figure.

And that comment is why I have no faith in mankind...

exactly and what control's 80% of mankind.

Originally Posted by Happydude

You have trouble with 'an eye for an eye' type of reasoning? Well then you must be pro anarchy. Maybe you're right, the world might be a better place if instead of making the punishment suit the crime, we just made murderers take a ten minute time out and stare at the wall, or perhaps sending them to bed with no supper would be better. I think you should run for president, I'd vote for you!

now you show your true colours. The child has awakened, mummy will make you some breakfast.
read what it is in reply too. I repeat we learn by example.

Originally Posted by Happydude

no because the world wasn't made, it came together, that would be a better terminology.

Poor Geezer, you couldn't figure out anything intelligent to say?

then I'm in good company.

Originally Posted by Happydude

By the way, you earn the right to say 'it came together' when you can explain why the Big Bang happened and not just how it happened. Until that point, you're just using circular reasoning that should be beneath an intellectual.

and you earn the right to say it was made when you prove a god exists. Until that point you make a fool of yourself trying to be clever.

Originally Posted by Happydude

how is having ambition, and sex, offending.

You didn't catch the joke, and I explained that earlier and also did it again earlier in this post.

it's funny when people get caught out the try to explain it away, by saying they were joking, lol, very funny ha ha.

Originally Posted by Happydude

firstly you know this how, where in scripture does it say that, is it just like when god delivers the Og and the people of Bashan, to moses to kill, Num 21:33-35 just like he did to Sihon and the Amonites.

Alright I'll somewhat give you this one, but not entirely. Technically in the verses that it speaks of this it doesn't say that exactly, however the whole bible is to be used to understand the ultimate messages and find understanding in the God of the bible. If you've read it you should know that God had made it clear how he felt of his people interacting with pagans, and that he had to even punish his people multiple times for swaying on this and spending too much time with pagans and even taking on some of their beliefs and rituals.

and yet again the age old you cant interpret the bible, you don’t understand it, you cant comprehend it,. lol, stop stop your making my side hurt.

Originally Posted by Happydude

then why does your bible incite so much war and murder. how can a god expect people to follow and understand if he doesn't hold his own commandments, and breaks 6.5 of the seven deadly sins, it's contradictory and hypocritical.

Dammit this is all explained in the executioner point, and even further in my 'eye for an eye' comment earlier in this post.

you have failed to answer anything yet all your doing is repeating, that your imaginary god has the right to kill, maim, and number of numerous other atrocities, all he likes, that is not an answer.

Originally Posted by Happydude

your unbelieverble, how can you justify your gods "justice" when if he created us all then he created the pagans, an all powerful all knowing god should not create people who he knows are bad just so he can kill them later, unless he is wholly evil, and well he did bring evil into the world if you follow your scriptures, so quite simply you argument is quite moot.

Actually your argument is moot by the fact that you never seemed to either follow the scriptures or at least never caught on to what they were saying.

here we go again with the you cant possibly understand the bible, lol..You are funny.

Originally Posted by Happydude

Did you not get a word of Genesis? You never understood the whole Adam and Eve situation with them committing the sin of eating the forbidden fruit after the angelic cherub that later came to be Satan lied to Eve enticing her?

well it abundantly clear you didn't.

Originally Posted by Happydude

The bible explains that once we sin, we're made imperfect, and our children inherit our sinful tendencies.

yes your correct there, however it is clear from the Adam and Eve story, that they were coerced and manipulated by god, as they could not have known they were doing evil by eating the fruit. God wanted evil but had a funny way of bringing it about.

Originally Posted by Happydude

Those who strive to sin less are suppose to inherit less sinful tendencies to our children, thus the pagans were a people that indulged in sin while the Israelites strove for the moral purity that is good in God's eyes. That's the whole point of it all, to be as sinless as you can until you are made morally perfect by God. That's the whole point that you I guess never caught, as simple as it is.

and yet again we are back to who made the pagans why make them bad just so you can kill them later that is pure evil.
And as I said before also god brought sin in. man was used purely as a scapegoat.

Originally Posted by Happydude

a loving god would have no thoughts of evil, war, murder, killing, etc.... there would be nothing like that in the bible if he was loving, and a loving god would most certainly not want you to fear him.

So every trooper and policeman that believe they are killing and possibly going to die for those they love at their homeland are not actually capable of love then?

your playing that childish card again, we are not discussing men , we are discussing a an omnipotent god a aledged god of love.

Originally Posted by Happydude

Please don't repeat the questions if you're going to post again. If you do, at least try to do it in a clever way for a little spice, because seriously...

it appears, you still keep going back to the same crap, therefore so must I.

By the way, you earn the right to say 'it came together' when you can explain why the Big Bang happened and not just how it happened. Until that point, you're just using circular reasoning that should be beneath an intellectual.

Why did an oak tree happen?

Just maybe it was because there was a space to fill, so an oak tree was as good as anything else.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

You got that wrong. Jesus' intention was to show that no sin is greater than another; that's why he said "let him who is without sin cast the first stone". I see nothing about "the man" in that quote.

Analyze it carefully; you'll see that it's basically: you've sinned, so if you think casting a stone is the appropriate punishment for sin, then you deserve to be stoned as well (and, of course, everyone there has sinned, and thus everyone would deserve to be stoned--that's why the girl was spared).

Were you there?

There is nothing wrong with my analysis. Adultery has always consisted of more than one participant. The only difference is that your interpretation fits how Jesus is perceived by his followers better than mine. This is exactly the point of the entire thread.

No, your analysis is quite wrong. You still fail to show me where this "man" was mentioned in that quote.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

You got that wrong. Jesus' intention was to show that no sin is greater than another; that's why he said "let him who is without sin cast the first stone". I see nothing about "the man" in that quote.

Analyze it carefully; you'll see that it's basically: you've sinned, so if you think casting a stone is the appropriate punishment for sin, then you deserve to be stoned as well (and, of course, everyone there has sinned, and thus everyone would deserve to be stoned--that's why the girl was spared).

Were you there?

There is nothing wrong with my analysis. Adultery has always consisted of more than one participant. The only difference is that your interpretation fits how Jesus is perceived by his followers better than mine. This is exactly the point of the entire thread.

No, your analysis is quite wrong. You still fail to show me where this "man" was mentioned in that quote.

Believe or not you have mentioned the 'man' more than once. Here we go...the biblical text 'He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her'.

The fact that you didn't recognize that Jesus was obviously speaking to a man shows that your interpretation is totally biased. I can see how you can derive that interpretation from the verse but there is more than one way to look at it. You cannot prove to me that Jesus was talking to all men (and women I hope) or to just one man in particular.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

You got that wrong. Jesus' intention was to show that no sin is greater than another; that's why he said "let him who is without sin cast the first stone". I see nothing about "the man" in that quote.

Analyze it carefully; you'll see that it's basically: you've sinned, so if you think casting a stone is the appropriate punishment for sin, then you deserve to be stoned as well (and, of course, everyone there has sinned, and thus everyone would deserve to be stoned--that's why the girl was spared).

Were you there?

There is nothing wrong with my analysis. Adultery has always consisted of more than one participant. The only difference is that your interpretation fits how Jesus is perceived by his followers better than mine. This is exactly the point of the entire thread.

No, your analysis is quite wrong. You still fail to show me where this "man" was mentioned in that quote.

Believe or not you have mentioned the 'man' more than once. Here we go...the biblical text 'He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her'.

The fact that you didn't recognize that Jesus was obviously speaking to a man shows that your interpretation is totally biased. I can see how you can derive that interpretation from the verse but there is more than one way to look at it. You cannot prove to me that Jesus was talking to all men (and women I hope) or to just one man in particular.

Ok, now you're not making any sense. So if He were addressing this "man" you're talking about, and not the entire crowd, then why did not the crowd continue to throw the stones, seeing as He wasn't talking too them.

A simple grammatical analysis will reveal that he refers to every man in the crowd.

He even further goes on to say: '...Neither do I condemn thee: go and sin no more.'

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

A simple grammatical analysis will reveal that he refers to every man in the crowd.

He even further goes on to say: '...Neither do I condemn thee: go and sin no more.'

What grammatical error? The story is ambiguous, open to more than one interpretation. Why get so upset about it? This is how people are, we all see things different.

Your rebuttal quote is a good example of a sentence with more than one meaning. The word 'thee' can be singular as well as plural. Is Jesus telling one man or more than one to go and sin no more?

I've shown you how the text is not foolproof so I think it only fair that you prove Jesus was talking to more than one guy.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

A simple grammatical analysis will reveal that he refers to every man in the crowd.

He even further goes on to say: '...Neither do I condemn thee: go and sin no more.'

What grammatical error? The story is ambiguous, open to more than one interpretation. Why get so upset about it? This is how people are, we all see things different.

Your rebuttal quote is a good example of a sentence with more than one meaning. The word 'thee' can be singular as well as plural. Is Jesus telling one man or more than one to go and sin no more?

I've shown you how the text is not foolproof so I think it only fair that you prove Jesus was talking to more than one guy.

"Your rebuttal quote is a good example of a sentence with more than one meaning. The word 'thee' can be singular as well as plural. Is Jesus telling one man or more than one to go and sin no more? "
Umm... do you even know the story? He was talking to the girl when He says "I [don't] condemn thee: go and sin no more".

Further, Jesus addressed the crowd. It's explicitly stated in the Bible that He addresses the crowd, not one specific man...

A quick google search provided me with this:

According to the Gospel of John, the Pharisees, in an attempt to discredit Jesus, brought a woman charged with adultery before him. Then they reminded Jesus that adultery was punishable by stoning under Mosaic law and challenged him to judge the woman so that they might then accuse him of disobeying the law. Jesus thought for a moment and then replied, “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.” The people crowded around him were so touched by their own consciences that they departed. When Jesus found himself alone with the woman, he asked her who were her accusers. She replied, “No man, lord.” Jesus then said, “Neither do I condemn thee: go and sin no more.”

from: http://www.bartleby.com/59/1/lethimwhoisw.html

What a red herring this discussion is.

This story of the woman caught in adultery fits into the theme of the Bible as a whole which clearly points out that no one is able to live life without violating some Godly law or principal.

For that reason, we are all condemned to die, and to the best of my knowledge, no one who is dead seems to have physically survived life and it does not appear than any of the rest of us will either. Anyone who reads this is going to die someday.

Beyond that, as Heb. 9:27 says, "And it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this, the judgment." The truth of the first half of that statement should provide some suggestion that the second part is right, too.

Those of us who are Christians believe that those who are not in Christ when they die are subject to the wrath of God and condemned to hell and doomed to spent eternity (which is one hell of lot longer than life) in agony, torment and despair. We don't want to see that happen to others. Not even to Jeremy!!! or Geezer.

That is the reason I am here and should be the reason that other Christians are here, to make the effort to warn non-believers of their current condemnation and pending doom.

Not believing in God does not excuse one from the judgment.

We engage in this silly little discussions but we know there is no intellectual element in belief in God.

God's laws are not God's effort to frivolously manipulate us so much as they are meant to show us that we cannot attain perfection and thus gain God's favor. Certainly, his laws relating to civil conduct are so beneficial that most society's follow them whether or not they attribute them to God or not. Most societies do not approve of lying, stealing, murdering, promiscuity, dealing deceitfully with others or many other things that the Bible says are unproductive conducts.

The point is never how good we are or how bad we are. We cannot be good enough to earn our way into God's eternity and we can never be bad enough that we cannot avoid eternal doom.

We Christians also believe that God provided a means by which we can avoid that eternal doom when he sent His Son to live a perfect life and to die the same physical death that we will experience and then to be resurrected to take His place in God's eternal kingdom. We believe that trusting the actions of Jesus to have satisfied God's wrath in our place is our only hope to escape the condemnation we have earned.

That is the plain and simple two-part message of the Bible – 1. We all fail to attain perfection and are, therefore, doomed to hell. 2. Our only hope to escape that doom is trusting Jesus for eternal life with God.

All the rest of that stuff is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

Anyone who reads this is going to die someday.

SHOCK HORROR !! I'M GOING TO DIE !!!

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

Just a quick question(or questions), do christians use the bible for their morals? Is every word in there correct(morally speaking), or do you pick and choose your morals to suit and ignore the ones that dont?


genuine question guys

Jesus did not write the New Testament; nor as the savior of the Jews, their God, did he instruct the Old.

His believers did.

Althougth his believers were meant to be the embodiment of Christ, and thus having Christ be the author of the Bible, indirectly, and thus as for what his believers decided to compile in his honor, that is by their determination of social achievement in the name of morals and virtue and whatever else it is you are putting under the heat lamp with your question.

The Bible is a way to access a source, a "best of the best" listing of how to "access" a source. That is what "prayer" is. . . . . . . that is what the Bible is used for. . . . . . . . "prayer, "access". . . . . . . . .to highlight that the gift was offered, of absolute power and ability, but never gained in the form of honor to God outside their own ability to write.

To ask questions about the Bible is to ask about a road to a destination that ultimately the Bible cannot directly reach alone.

Actually there are Jehovah's Witnesses in my family and they don't believe the bible actual does say hell is a burning place of torment. From what I've heard, though I haven't verified this, there are bible scholars that agree with them on this view.




Geezer, alright I give up on you, you make absolutely no sense, you never had to agree with me, but you are suppose to at the very least try to use logic in your replies. You've wasted my time, and it's enough.

Originally Posted by Happydude

Geezer, alright I give up on you, you make absolutely no sense, you never had to agree with me, but you are suppose to at the very least try to use logic in your replies. You've wasted my time, and it's enough.

I make no sense, lol. Yeh right, rotflmao.
How can you, whose life evolves around the irrational, talk of using logic, rotflmao...
Give me a break.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Umm... do you even know the story? He was talking to the girl when He says "I [don't] condemn thee: go and sin no more".
l

I said from the beginning I was paraphrasing. I haven't looked at the story in years, so you got me on that one.

And now for a 3rd interpretation. Really far fetched, just to show how text can be misinterpeted. 'He that is without sin among you'...Jesus could be referring to himself. 'Let him cast the first stone'...same thing. If the crowd knows Jesus is without sin then maybe they waited for him to throw first or they knew there would be no stone from Jesus that day. Maybe they knew she was Christ's mistress and they killed her later.

Regardless, there is more than one interpretation. We cannot know just by reading the words if there was any inflection in Christ's voice, if he was smiling or if he was just pissed off. Maybe he was just plain smarter and was able to shame the crowd into leaving. If you're writing this story from hearsay 600 years later how's the author going to know?

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Umm... do you even know the story? He was talking to the girl when He says "I [don't] condemn thee: go and sin no more".
l

I said from the beginning I was paraphrasing. I haven't looked at the story in years, so you got me on that one.

And now for a 3rd interpretation. Really far fetched, just to show how text can be misinterpeted. 'He that is without sin among you'...Jesus could be referring to himself. 'Let him cast the first stone'...same thing. If the crowd knows Jesus is without sin then maybe they waited for him to throw first or they knew there would be no stone from Jesus that day. Maybe they knew she was Christ's mistress and they killed her later.

Regardless, there is more than one interpretation. We cannot know just by reading the words if there was any inflection in Christ's voice, if he was smiling or if he was just pissed off. Maybe he was just plain smarter and was able to shame the crowd into leaving. If you're writing this story from hearsay 600 years later how's the author going to know?

Well, I guess we'll just settle on that. I never liked long, winding debates anyway... I'm hungry for new issues to bicker about.

Uhh. The story of the woman caught in adultry appears in the book of John which scholars agree was written perhaps as early as 80 CE (Christian Era) but no later than 110.

That is a far cry from the 600 years later which zingy reports.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

Uhh. The story of the woman caught in adultry appears in the book of John which scholars agree was written perhaps as early as 80 CE (Christian Era) but no later than 110.

That is a far cry from the 600 years later which zingy reports.

Ok, ok. A 80-110 years, whatever. Thanks for the correction. In that time frame I'm sure everything would still be spot on. I guess after 600 years Christ would have saved her and then taken down the Roman Empire single handed.