Here's an idea (abortion)

#51
The ignorance echo chamber is apparently amplifying stupid. That's three so far.
Reply
#52
(May 23, 2019 11:38 PM)Syne Wrote: You're still making up shit that's not in the Levite's concubine story. And you are the one who just quoted the verse saying "In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes." "Every man [doing] that which was right in his own eyes" is not rigidly following the laws. So that contradicts you quoting the laws.

Nope. I just applied the law of the times to the story. Laws are merely a formal representation of rules and customs. You even used them to support your argument.

(May 20, 2019 04:29 AM)Syne Wrote: Since women were property in those times, it was certainly more appropriate to offer them for heterosexual sex than for a host to offer his guest, who ostensibly was under his protection, for homosexual rape.

You’re the one who threw down a book jam-packed with stories of people willing to sacrifice innocent children, adults, and animals to appease their gods to secure a better future for themselves. Whether it be to win a war, ensure a bountiful crop, or just to gain his favor. Obviously, the fruit of the ground wasn’t good enough. Oh, no, it was God himself that demanded an innocent life. Hell, even God was willing to sacrifice his own son for the sake of the world.

In fact, in Judges 11, Jephthah was willing to sacrifice his daughter’s womb to win a war. She remained a virgin, and even unto this day, chastity is classified as one of the seven virtues.

The real sacrifice is having and raising a child. If you want to prevent abortions, create a world in which women feel secure—secure enough to bring a child into this world. 

Hilarious watching the pious try to explain the Bible to each other. Talk about the blind leading the blind.  Cool
Reply
#53
I've been reading some inspiring blogs lately about the Bible, in terms of how to and how not to approach it. If we look at it as a complex book of human experiences, we may come away with a different understanding. OR - Maybe the key isn't to entirely understand the Bible at all, but to just read it for what it is - a set of human experiences, people trying to make sense of the world around them, many having existential trials, and how they viewed a higher power. The OT is definitely a rougher read than the NT.
Reply
#54
(Yesterday 02:47 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(May 23, 2019 11:38 PM)Syne Wrote: You're still making up shit that's not in the Levite's concubine story. And you are the one who just quoted the verse saying "In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes." "Every man [doing] that which was right in his own eyes" is not rigidly following the laws. So that contradicts you quoting the laws.

Nope. I just applied the law of the times to the story. Laws are merely a formal representation of rules and customs. You even used them to support your argument.

(May 20, 2019 04:29 AM)Syne Wrote: Since women were property in those times, it was certainly more appropriate to offer them for heterosexual sex than for a host to offer his guest, who ostensibly was under his protection, for homosexual rape.
No, you're just trying to weasel out of your own ignorant claim, trying to apply strict laws when you already quoted the story as saying every man did what they considered right, by equivocating about what are "laws". The laws you cited, not even from the same book of the Bible, were much more detailed than simple customs. IOW, you're either lying or you're actually that stupid.

Quote:You’re the one who threw down a book jam-packed with stories of people willing to sacrifice innocent children, adults, and animals to appease their gods to secure a better future for themselves. Whether it be to win a war, ensure a bountiful crop, or just to gain his favor. Obviously, the fruit of the ground wasn’t good enough. Oh, no, it was God himself that demanded an innocent life. Hell, even God was willing to sacrifice his own son for the sake of the world.
I've already refuted every sad, cherry-picked, and misunderstood example you tried to float. You didn't even bother to defend most of them. And now you're just repeat some of those, again, without any supporting argument. God commanded to sacrifice a child as a test, and Jesus was a voluntary sacrifice, being god incarnate, i.e. one and the same as god.

But hey, at least you finally added animals, so at least you eventually got around to getting one right. And we sacrifice animals all the time for food and medical research. And?

Quote:In fact, in Judges 11, Jephthah was willing to sacrifice his daughter’s womb to win a war. She remained a virgin, and even unto this day, chastity is classified as one of the seven virtues.
No, oh so confused one, he made a "burnt sacrifice" of his daughter...not whatever you think you mean by "sacrifice [her] womb" (apparently desperate to link whatever cherry-picked verse to abortion).
And his reaction is a cautionary tale about what you're willing to promise god, not anything demanded by god.

Quote:The real sacrifice is having and raising a child. If you want to prevent abortions, create a world in which women feel secure—secure enough to bring a child into this world. 
Guess what, no woman has to raise a child. A woman can put it up for adoption or even abandon it, no questions asked. Abortion is not about feeling secure in a society where welfare is readily available. And you're immensely thick if you actually believe that nonsense.

Just take this thread as an example of the lengths you feel you need to go to justify supporting killing human life.

Quote:Hilarious watching the pious try to explain the Bible to each other. Talk about the blind leading the blind.  Cool
Trolling by aping what I've said is just sad.



(Yesterday 04:19 PM)Leigha Wrote: I've been reading some inspiring blogs lately about the Bible, in terms of how to and how not to approach it. If we look at it as a complex book of human experiences, we may come away with a different understanding. OR - Maybe the key isn't to entirely understand the Bible at all, but to just read it for what it is - a set of human experiences, people trying to make sense of the world around them, many having existential trials, and how they viewed a higher power. The OT is definitely a rougher read than the NT.

While I think it can be understood, I do tend to agree that it is the history and perceptions of men, and their understanding of, and inspiration from, god.
Reply
#55
(Yesterday 11:54 PM)Syne Wrote: God commanded to sacrifice a child as a test.

I didn't know that. A test, you say? Wow! God is smart, isn't he? Big Grin

Syne Wrote:And Jesus was a voluntary sacrifice, being god incarnate, i.e. one and the same as god.

A voluntary sacrifice for what? A route for the great apes to enter heaven or a sacrifice to end all sacrifices?

Syne Wrote:But hey, at least you finally added animals, so at least you eventually got around to getting one right. And we sacrifice animals all the time for food and medical research. And?

And for god, silly boy. Yep, that's right, they're still doing it...blood sacrifices in the name of God. Fun-fun!
Reply
#56
(Today 01:12 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Yesterday 11:54 PM)Syne Wrote: God commanded to sacrifice a child as a test.

I didn't know that. A test, you say? Wow! God is smart, isn't he? Big Grin

Syne Wrote:And Jesus was a voluntary sacrifice, being god incarnate, i.e. one and the same as god.

A voluntary sacrifice for what? A route for the great apes to enter heaven or a sacrifice to end all sacrifices?

Syne Wrote:But hey, at least you finally added animals, so at least you eventually got around to getting one right. And we sacrifice animals all the time for food and medical research. And?

And for god, silly boy. Yep, that's right, they're still doing it...blood sacrifices in the name of God. Fun-fun!

Some critical bits your ignorant cherry-picking seems to have missed:

A test of Abraham's obedience that didn't require his son be sacrificed.
A voluntary sacrifice to extend a New Covenant to all people, instead of just the Jews (who are still bound by the Mosiac Covenant).


It's funny watching you think you're slinging zingers though. Keep it up. Wink
You're so witty. Rolleyes
Reply
#57
If we read parts of the Bible as allegory, it can become more digestible. If we choose to read it literally, then it becomes challenging to imagine that a god would ''command'' such atrocities to be carried out by his followers. But, what I've come to realize is that you have to read the Bible in its entirety, as it's an incomplete story with insane plotholes all over the place, if we just cherry pick the strange parts, and accentuate them. But, even so, God may have commanded Abraham to murder his son, and then he stopped Abraham. What would be the purpose of that? Maybe God wanted Abraham to see his own devotion to God, in that he would sacrifice his own son. I don't think it's to view God as being insecure and petty, although that would make sense. It could mean that when God asks tough things of people, that he wants them to see how strong their faith is. The test wasn't for God, it was for Abraham. It would seem likely that it could also work as an allegory.

I'm not suggesting anyone agree with me, but that's sort of how I've come to view some of the hard to make sense of passages. The Bible seems like a book for people of that time to share their perceptions of what was happening, in relation to their God. Their culture was very different than here in the west (if you live in the west) We can't relate to polygamy, harems, women being stoned to death for adultery, eye for an eye justice, etc... Those things weren't of God - imho. Those things were products of the culture, and they are woven into the stories in the Bible. Again, just a different perspective.

The NT offers a new covenant, so the script flips. Maybe there was a reason that the OT wasn't the end of the story.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)