If you could make one currently legal thing illegal...

estebanrey said:
It doesn't debunk my position because I said is that the Bible advocates those things I said, I never claimed it was the main message or there aren't contradictory passages to be found elsewhere.
Click to expand...

It does debunk your position, because the Bible doesn't advocate those things you said, it quite clearly questions them (The antithesis i mentioned earlier and the Sermon on the Mount are just two exampes) and the whole point of the Bible is that much of the Mosaic Law is 'fulfilled' therefore the New Covenant supersedes that of the Mosaic Covenant. So the Bible does say these things you are correct in that, but when taken within the context of the New Testament, it doesn't advocate them, in that you are mistaken.


Nitefly said:
A pretty good response, although the whole 'kill your son' thing always bothered me. Seems thoroughly douchebaggy.

Did Isaac wake up in a dark room, find a cassette and hear "I want to play a game"?
Click to expand...

The ultimate 'Test of Faith'.....I suppose to us it is an abominable thing to countenance, but then it was supposed to be to Abraham as well as it was about his fear of God and faith in God, this goes back to what I was saying about the harshness of the world in which the Israelites lived and the God that they required.....incidently the ritual sacrifice derived from it is one of the things that the New Covenant expunges as is the fearful God of the Israelites for the more loving God of the Christians. The bible generally illustrates an evolution of Belief, not a contradiction of belief.

Now enough religion talk, I'm off to bed. :)
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
It does debunk your position, because the Bible doesn't advocate those things you said, it quite clearly questions them (The antithesis i mentioned earlier and the Sermon on the Mount are just two exampes) and the whole point of the Bible is that much of the Mosaic Law is 'fulfilled' therefore the New Covenant supersedes that of the Mosaic Covenant. So the Bible does say these things you are correct in that, but when taken within the context of the New Testament, it doesn't advocate them, in that you are mistaken.
Click to expand...

But again you are mistakenly thinking I was only talking about Christians. I wasn't, I was talking about all theists and where they get their morality from.

Jews for example, don't see the New Covenant as superseding the Old, but rather an addition to it.
 
estebanrey said:
But again you are mistakenly thinking I was only talking about Christians. I wasn't, I was talking about all theists and where they get their morality from.

Jews for example, don't see the New Covenant as superseding the Old, but rather an addition to it.
Click to expand...

You are talking about, referencing to and quoting from the Christian Bible however, therefore my answers are defined by your source....the concept of the New Covenant is derived in the Old Testament/Torah and it means different things to Christianity and Judaism and is not the same as The New Testament which related only to Christians which defines the New Covenant for them alone.
 
Castiel said:
You are talking about, referencing to and quoting from the Christian Bible however, therefore my answers are defined by your source....the concept of the New Covenant is derived in the Old Testament/Torah and it means different things to Christianity and Judaism and is not the same as The New Testament which related only to Christians which defines the New Covenant for them alone.
Click to expand...

I never used the term "Christian Bible", only "The Bible" which isn't exclusive to Christians.
 
estebanrey said:
In other words, the Bible is contradictory. You can find nasty bits, but also nice bits which seem to imply the opposite of the aforementioned immoral bit.
Click to expand...
Indeed, a book with endorses multiple moral stances ultimately endorses nothing.

If we have to pick & choose which elements from this apparent holy text to listen to & follow or selectively ignore then it shows how little it's needed for moral guidance.

The simple fact is that not everybody requires scripture or religion to obtain moral values & that most of societies moral values simply emulate what's accepted in society (not specifically religious texts).

Regions in the west adjust to remain palatable to the constantly evolving social morality (as displayed by the desire to change female equality, changes against historical homophobic views etc) - which is a good thing (but does in my opinion undermine the integrity of the religions).

The bible has quite a number of disgusting pieces of sexism & homophobia in the text - hardly surprising when it was written in a time the moral Zeitgeist that kind of thing was different.

Regarding morality & the bible, what of the Severn plagues of Egypt, the great flood? - this is genocide on a global scale.

What of a culture that reveres human sacrifice?, how de-sensitised the population has become (due to familiarity) to these concepts is a cause for concern.
 
estebanrey said:
I never used the term "Christian Bible", only "The Bible" which isn't exclusive to Christians.
Click to expand...

Sophistry. You referenced Christian Values, and Christianity in respect of the Bible (which refers to the Christian Bible..otherwise it would be The Torah or Hebrew Bible...or simply a bible).

:rolleyes:
 
Castiel said:
Sophistry. You referenced Christian Values, and Christianity in respect of the Bible (which refers to the Christian Bible..otherwise it would be The Torah or Hebrew Bible...or simply a bible).

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Not interested in your pedantry (especially when it as picky as whether I used a capital letter or prefixed it with the word 'Hebrew').

I was talking about theists and their source of morality. I could care less what religion or sect that person may be or what bits of their holy book they subscribe to or not.

We've had this argument before and I simply don't accept the word Bible on refers to Christian interpretation only, I use it to cover all Abrahamic religions (including Judaism) and you'll just have to accept that I'm afraid. I see you still haven't updated Wikipedia though given you think it's wrong...

The Bible (from Koine Greek τὰ βιβλία ta biblia "the books") is a canonical collection of texts considered sacred in Judaism or Christianity.
Click to expand...
 
rhysduck said:
Religion. 0 point in it.
Click to expand...
It had a use at the time, it was the only explanation for phenomenon which seems too magnificent to be understood by the limited science of the age.

As a species we strive for reason, to understand - religion was our first attempt to understand the stars, the moon, the sky, thunder & our place in the natural world.

Not that I think it should be banned at all, just that it's redundant.
 
elmarko1234 said:
It had a use at the time, it was the only explanation for phenomenon which seems too magnificent to be understood by the limited science of the age.

As a species we strive for reason, to understand - religion was our first attempt to understand the stars, the moon, the sky, thunder & our place in the natural world.

Not that I think it should be banned at all, just that it's redundant.
Click to expand...

I see religion's creation less about science and more about social engineering in a world without defined rules of law and established legal systems.

"How do we get people to behave as we want them to? Well we use a carrot (heaven) and a stick (hell) to define how they should behave and as we don't have a police force to monitor it we'll just frighten people with the notion that their actions are being constantly monitored by a big man in the sky"

IMO, 'God' was nothing more than an ancient form of CCTV.
 
That still doesn't change how you referenced the material in the stated context of 'Christian values' etc....

You're embarressing yourself now.
 
Castiel said:
That still doesn't change how you referenced the material in the stated context of 'Christian values' etc....

You're embarressing yourself now.
Click to expand...

Again, never mentioned 'Christian Values' either.

What is embarrassing is your reluctance to get the gist of someone's point or what they are trying to convey if it includes some minor (and often ridiculously technical) error in it; which means you completely sidetrack the issue at hand to attempt to belittle that person because they don't have a Masters Degree in Theology & Religious Studies.

Unlike you I'm disregarding your post above because it's rubbish and incongruent with the debate Theonany and I were having, not because you've spelt 'embarrassing' incorrectly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom