Castin

it was morally right, it has to be

Why does it have to be?

i would say no as clearly God had conditions on earning his favor 

discuss, debate

Eh, the bish incident really turned me off the site for a while.

i still miss Bish.

As a rule, I see a problem with looking at any ancient texts without taking into consideration the context of the time, people, language, and culture.

However, I also see a problem with looking at the Bible through the lens of inerrancy, as I believe it was a book written by quite fallible humans from quite a long time ago on the road of moral and intellectual progress.

The folks who wrote the bible were definitely fallible. But it really boils down to whether or not God exists, and actually leads, guides, and empowers weak fallible men. If God doesn't exist, then the skies the limit on how many errors would be in the Bible. If God exists, and actually did inspire the authors of scripture, and those who chose the canons, then why should I think there are errors?

Theoretically, after I pass on and meet the creator, it's possible He may tell me there's that one verse in Malachi that is wrong, and/or shouldn't be there. But why should I think any verse is wrong?

If God purposed for a written document to contain everything He wanted to convey, even if someone tried to sabotage the writings to contain error, it would most likely fail. The bible is full of attempts at defying God's plan, and inadvertently help fulfill God's plan (like Christ's crucifixion). Do you ever see those movies or tv shows where someone tries to run away from something, going the opposite direction, but ends up in the same location? In the context of Yahweh being real, it would be far more difficult to change the bible (into false literature) than writing divinely inspired words, and choosing which books should be included in the bible. Not even Thomas Jefferson could do it.

If you found out that  Yahweh exists, how would you view the fallible/infallible biblical issue? Do you think God would allow for scriptural error?

What I mean by contemporary view is exactly how Ludo, and many others view the text. They read it as a group of  little children mocking Elisha's lack of hair. Elisha gets offended because he's sensitive about it, throws a tantrum, commands 2 bears to come out and slaughter the little culprits.

Your understanding is correct,

although I'll point out that more than likely Elisha's life was in danger. So verbal insults was not the only issue at play here.

It is interesting that you think this means Abraham knew God would prevent the sacrifice, as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews seems to think it meant Abraham believed God would raise Isaac from the dead after Abraham had gone through with it and sacrificed him (Hebrews 11:17-19). Of course, that is a Christian perspective and I remind myself that Christians did not write Genesis.

Oh I know. Maybe a better way to put it would be prevention of Isaac's death.

But I don't think that passage in Hebrews eliminates the possibility that Abraham didn't assume he would have to plunge the knife into him.

8 Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” And the two of them went on together.

So for the sake of argument I will ask this: If Abraham knew God wouldn't let him go through with it, was it really a test? Was the angel really justified in declaring "Now I know you fear God"?

Yes. An example of this would be Peter who knew Jesus was the Son of God, had seen His miracles, etc. But, fear gripped him when he tried walking on water. The disciples had seen miracles, but were still inhibited in their faith when facing a large group of hungry people, with just a few fish and loaves of bread. Faith doesn't end with finding God. There's still the calling. If God told you to face a lion, and it will flee, you still have to face a 500 lbs. beast face to face. When a believer finds God, their calling is revealed

sometime after. The calling is usually something desirable, but impossible on our own ability. It's tough because we have to rely on God to see it through. If you found God today, you may find you're called to sing. You may say that singing karaoke is fun, but that's as far as you would ever go. You don't have to worry about forgetting your lines, talking in between songs to the audience, etc. So within your own strength, you can stick with karaoke, sing as you read along, and get a nice round of applause. But if you were called to sing in concert settings, you'd have to go on faith that God will enable you. So all that to say that yes, it was an act of faith for Abraham to take his son up the mountain because he still had to deal with the physical appearance of danger to his son.

In addition, there's even a possibility that the instruction didn't even come directly from God, as the Hebrew word for God in this text includes people in authority. Human sacrifice was common practice back then, and the instruction may have come from an authoritarian taken as a word/command from God. This was before an Israelite nation, so God was not yet perceived as the God of the Jews. Truthfully, I don't know if the command came directly from God, or authoritarians (and I'm comfortable either way), but imagine all the wasted hoopla over this subject if the command in this text came from perceived oracle's of God?

This is indeed interesting. To my knowledge, the text uses the two terms Elohim and Yahweh. Are you then referring to Elohim, which I know was sometimes used to refer to kings and profits (authorities)?

Yes.

I admit the Old Testament God does often come across as mean-spirited to me, but this does not strike me as unusual for the period at all. The gods of this time were very often fierce, brutal, and warlike. We are talking about a tribal people living very close to the edge of survival, constantly subjected to violence and warfare with other tribes, totally at the mercy of pestilence and nature. What we go through always shapes what we believe. What else can we realistically expect? They wanted a strong, fierce god who rewarded blind loyalty, favored only them, and rained wrath and destruction upon their enemies. Much later Jews, the ones who became the early Christians, wanted a different sort of God (a much better one, imo - ahem) and wrote a very different testament (a much better one, imo - ahem).

Yes, but they weren't masochists. They wanted a god like all the other nations. It was common for nations to embrace a national god, and erecting a statue of their god. That was the appeal of the golden calf. That was supposed to be the equivalent of Dagon, Bael, etc. They didn't want a God that would hold them accountable for their lifestyle.

The OT might appear mean-spirited, but so does "Scared Straight", which has been proven quite effective. The OT places a lot of emphasis on the judgments of peoples. If the OT were a fictional novel, the author would have placed a lot of emphasis on the crimes that brought on the judgments. But because the bible contains testimonies, it throws people off who assume it's fiction because fictional writers focus on qualifying it's heroes with details, whereas people who give testimonies present simply bare facts. In a court of law, that's all the judge is interested in ("just the facts ma'am" - Joe Friday).

 "Do you on some level think any parts of the Bible are wrong?"

In retrospect, a much easier entree into the discussion, wish I'd thought of it. 

All in the title. I've decided that if Jesus existed, he most likely resurrected. 

But did Jesus exist at all? Is the whole thing myth, or is it history? Share.

If you begin from the position of God's infallibility and the Bible's inerrancy as the inspired word of God, then it seems to me that no story in the Bible can be wrong enough that it is acceptable to hate or dislike it. If it seems wrong to you or to others, you will believe you or they have misunderstood it, that there is some deeper meaning you or they do not yet understand, or even refuse to believe (in the case of atheists/skeptics) - and your faith will drive you to find a meaning that is compatible with your faith. That is just what it means to look at the Bible through the lens of inerrancy, and it seems rather to me that you are asking if there are any Christians who don't look at the Bible through that lens.

Sort of...it's not really a lens of inerrancy anymore, though, it's more like a 'filter of contemporary.' The words in the bible are the words in the bible, and if it's not meant to be read or understood in anything but its native language, it shouldn't be published in any other language, because that risk misinterpretation. If these words are difficult, as they really are, for Christians to square with a character (god / Jesus) who they've been taught is nothing but love and justice and all things good, then you're correct, their faith seems likely to drive them toward any explanation, no matter how flimsy (see: Rod's explanation of the bible's instructions on who's okay to own as a slave, i.e.). These post-hoc rationalizations would indicate really clearly that there's a level of discomfort between the book and contemporary values. I don't expect a Christian to say 'the bible is wrong.' I hope there are some who wonder why the god they're taught about as a naive child isn't the same god in the book they're told is a modern manual to daily life. 

Welcome back [mildly]

Not to put you on the spot, but do you see the problem with assuming a contemporary interpretation of the Elisha texts disallowing all other consideration?

A key factor in these texts is that Abraham believed his son would live. He hung onto a specific promise that would require his young son to remain alive, marry, and have children. This portion of scripture always seems suspiciously absent in his referencing.

In addition, there's even a possibility that the instruction didn't even come directly from God, as the Hebrew word for God in this text includes people in authority. Human sacrifice was common practice back then, and the instruction may have come from an authoritarian taken as a word/command from God. This was before an Israelite nation, so God was not yet perceived as the God of the Jews. Truthfully, I don't know if the command came directly from God, or authoritarians (and I'm comfortable either way), but imagine all the wasted hoopla over this subject if the command in this text came from perceived oracle's of God?

I don't really think it's about inerrancy/infallibility, so much as the idea that the bible speaks of a mean spirited creator.

Have you been watching the new Snowpiercer television show?

If I snapped, which I don't recall, it would have been a long time ago.

See, the people who go with two are usually less educated, so providing them with the truth would be a lot easier in a fun, palatable format.

With that said: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f6-MDhygWc

Why is that complicated?

Who uses identity politics?

What you should do is create Maga masks for your family. They will surely wear them without question then.

For some reason this health crisis is being looked at through the lens of identity politics,...

For some reason???

It's been causing a bit of friend/family friction.

You let your family meet your friends? Rookie mistake.

I see the fear in the elite's eyes. I really do.

Now, time for some icecream.

For some reason...

Gee, wonder if this is all about power-grabbing? No really, elites do care about you, they really do.

Option 1) Corona virus is going to lead to human extinction if we don't all camp in our bunkers and stockpile TP immediately.

Option 2) Corona virus social distancing measures are just another part of a communist conspiracy to take over the world.

Option 3) Wearing a mask is kind of annoying.

So here is the mystery... why does it seem pretty much everyone is going with option one or two?

While you are sitting on the edge of your seat tracking what CNN calls "the greatest health crisis America has ever faced"

This little factoid comes from government census data.

For every COVID-19 death recorded since January, TWENTY new babies were added to the American population.

That's 2 with a zero folks.

Absolutely not!

Well, there actually wouldn't be any "Utopia" at all.

Some people seem to get upset when atheists (of the western humanist variety) are associated or equated with communist atheists (in response to equating 9/11 and the Spanish inquisition to Christianity).

American atheist activists are pro-atheism. Communist atheists, like in China are anti-religion. So there's really no difference other than a reshuffling on emphasis. And that's exactly what an atheist society in America would become. A totalitarian society that would be forced to use communist tactics to control religion.

There's this idea that because church attendance may decline at times, Christians will faze out eventually through lack of Christian reproduction. Christianity is not a racial/ethnic group, and the thorn-in-the-flesh for atheists would always be conversions. At best, cultural Christianity might become extinct, but what's to stop recurring conversions that constantly have frustrated communist States like China?

The autopsy will show he died of a heart attack or some kind of organ failure due to the drugs that were in his system at the time, not asphyxiation. Just saying. When it comes time to testify "under oath" the corner is gonna tell it like it really is. Forget what you have heard on the news.

That he was not a saint makes him no less a victim.

 I agree. He was a victim of murder. What more D'ya want?

do you remember that guy in NYC a bunch of cops piled on for selling cigarettes, he died, but I seem to recall he said the same thing and in the investigation or court proceedings, I forget the exact details but the gist of it is, if you can talk, you are breathing, I believe that is just a biological fact, if it's true this guy was saying that as soon as they pulled him out of the car then that could be a pretty powerful defense for him, hopefully we'll find out the truth one way or another.

after he stopped moving.....ignorance of medical stuff will be a defense I think, also he will probably claim he thought the guy had finally calmed down which is plausible from other videos I've seen, eventually they stop fighting in most cases.  I personally wouldn't believe the excuses they come up with but that is part of how our legal system works, but we'll see.

as a side note, the cop remained unemotional, calm if  you will, that does not mean he didn't care, that alone can't prove that.

It's possible the prosecution has evidence we don't - something in the body cam footage or elsewhere that further supports intent to harm.

It's more than possible. It is probable.

Welcome back, it's been a while :)

I get mild satisfaction knowing that I basically have top the charts in every forum category. Lol xD

Pinning this as an example “PC Culture” is wildly reductionist

   

• Claim that this was based on "preexisting personal hate"
  
• I don't know where you may have heard this. Bsh1 and I were friends (as of yesterday I would use the past tense.) Bsh1 and I have had our disagreements in the past but we were able to engage in civil and polite conversations and you can confirm this with him if you'd like. 
  

Really sad Castin had to remove herself instead of you making the correct decision

So to clarify, Castin is no longer a moderator? If so, this would obviously be a step in the right direction