I was careful NOT to take information from the Bible and twist it in order to create a straw man to attack. In the case of the Old Testament, I wasn't attacking it, I was making an extremely general statement that managed to encompass most of Leviticus (I think that's the book, anyway) and pointed out that the moral code was outdated and quite frequently bizarrely harsh. I took a very well-known commandment of Jesus in its original context and applied it to real-world scenarios. (You seem to be developing a bad habit of accusing me of taking things out of context whenever you disagree with my conclusions, Taz - I would like some evidence the next time as to how I am 'taking things out of context', i.e. provide the 'context' for my elucidation, and don't just ask me to read the Bible.)
I understand that you didn't deliberately take anything out of context, but the fact remains that you did - you ignore the Bible as a whole. Yes, you took a well-known commandment, and yes, you took it out of context. I responded to that by giving you a link to a page explaining the context of that particular aphorism.
I have no idea why you are saying that I am "developing a bad habit" of telling you that you are taking things out of context. It is absolutely true here, and even if I am saying it repeatedly, that doesn't mean that it is any less true. Hopefully you aren't going to resort to a personal attack.
I never made the assertion that the Bible-writers were insane. I have no intention of ever claiming that they were insane. (I disagree, however, that if they were insane they could not produce a coherent work. Nietzsche was insane, and he managed to be very coherent.) What I do claim, though, is that the writers of many of the Bible's books were writing without firsthand experience with their topics. They were using word of mouth, hearsay, oral tradition, and quite possibly even traditional stories to compile their works.
A majority of the Bible was nothing like that at all. Much of it is firsthand.Example: Genesis. How the devil is anyone going to know (besides God, that is) how God created the Universe? The whole thing is a metaphor, a semi-mythological Creation story. That doesn't make it evil, bad, or anything else like that - it just makes it incorrect. (As a pre-emptive strike against an accusation of secularism, the scientific theory of Creation does not deny the presence of God - in fact, it affirms it.)
You haven't made clear your position on this. First of all, I don't see your reasoning in saying that Genesis is incorrect. What you have basically said is, "It's incorrect, therefore it is incorrect." Secondly, what exactly do you mean by the "scientific theory of Creation"?
Poetry is not literature
Literature \Lit"er*a*ture\), n.
The class of writings distinguished for beauty of style or
expression, as poetry, essays, or history, in distinction
from scientific treatises and works which contain positive
knowledge; belles-lettres.
Sorry, I was on a roll.
I did actually look at this sub-link. I find it quite interesting how the author is able to decide that defending your property is permissable, but defending your life is not. What, are my shoes worth more than my life?
You're going to have to show me exactly where the author said that, because I don't see it in there, and that is certainly not what I or the Bible said.
The main point is to love your enemies. How does that mean that you should refrain from defending your life?Taz, the next time you're being brutally murdered by a psychopath, please find it in you to forgive him for his sins against you.
No problem.I'm sure God will appreciate it, but it will not benefit you in life in the slightest. Should I encounter a similar scenario, I will choose to follow St. Augustine's 'just war' theory and leave the forgiving up to God. Let's just chalk this particular debate up to philosophical differences and leave it behind.
We will probably have to, because this applies more to your soul than your intellect.
"Should we have loved the Nazis?" "Yes." Congratulations, with that statement you have proven either a) your total ignorance of World War II history, or b) your overwhelmingly naive approach to dealing with your fellow man.
Congratulations, with that rebuttal to my statement, you have proven your ignorance of christian love.
I didn't understand that last statement. I fail to see what 'turning the other cheek' has to do with little kids trying to demonize their parents' rules.
Here is what I said:what you're warping the meaning of "turn the other cheek" into is totally different. It reminds me of how little kids twist things their parents tell them to somehow prove that their simple childrens' rules are irrational and unjust.
I was referring to the way you are warping the meaning of something that is in the Bible - it's similar to when a child does that.
Why do you say that I am twisting it? Are madmen incapable of writing a perfect moral code and beautiful literature? How can you say with certitude that it is beyond their capabilities?
You are still ignoring the fact that it was written by several different people. If they are all liars, it simply would not have worked at all. They lived at different times and had no contact with each other (well, a couple of them did, sometimes).
The gospels, in particular: they are separate eyewitness accounts. It is illogical to believe that they were all making up what they saw, since they all saw the same things.
I did not criticize the Bible. I acknowledge FREEly that much of the information in the Bible is accurate historically, or has a basis in history. I merely point out that not ALL of the bible is accurate. Taz gave me a site which was supposed to answer my questions. I merely looked at the first page and found material to disagree with. Since it is highly presumable that whatever opinions are on the first page would be reflected throughout the entire selection of articles, and since my time was limited, I found it more expeditious to just argue what I saw as the core ideas behind that site's view of the Bible, as I felt that those two paragraphs summed up the author's viewpoint and provided sufficient material for a lucid argument. Not quite - that site is designed to answer questions. That was but one article that I was showing you. The sub-links aren't just additions to that article; they are separate articles which answer questions that you might have after reading that article. There are more articles all over that site, and I assure you that, if you search, there is an answer to all the things you brought up, on that very website.
And you only really looked at the first paragraph. That by itself does not provide sufficient material for a lucid argument, but you took it and attacked it as if it did. Again, let me quote what I said in my last post:people who attack the Bible always like to take only small pieces of facts and attack them as if it represents the entire meaning; whether it is a quote from the Bible itself or something someone says in defense of the Bible.
The Roman Catholic faith (mine) does not accept the entire Bible at face value. Whatever faith Taz belongs to quite obviously does. Thus, it is impossible for us to further debate this issue, since he will continue to insist that I must accept the entire Bible, as all of my answers are contained therein, and I will continue to insist that the Bible is accurate only up to a point, and that much of the moral code therein needs to be re-interpreted.
For that to be true, we would both have to have blind faith. It is by all means possible to continue the debate, as long as we can both put up arguments to defend our faith.
I think, Arkanor, that you are taking the entire scripture at face value and interpretting it all too litterally.
Actually, you have that exactly backwards. I do NOT take it literally, Taz does.
I am merely looking at it from Taz's point of view and pointing out flaws, to which he responds by pointing out flaws in my arguments, and to which I respond by clarifying my initial statements and pointing out flaws in his response.
Of course. That's called debating.
I am still not going to blindly accept anything...
Have a nice read, Jonny.
a brilliant Japanese cryptographer/physicist
developed binary code travelling the speed of intellectual property
in Ireland.
FORUM
SEARCH
WHO'S 
LOG 
RULES / FAQ
. 
