The Bible is Brutal

by **jiminski** on Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:17 pm

hehe...Smart-arse!

by **2dimes** on Thu Oct 18, 2007 9:15 pm

So you have this concept of a mamby pamby Jesus that's all effeminate and nice, ignoring the facts?

by **jiminski** on Fri Oct 19, 2007 6:23 am

You think that the sacrifice of your life in tortured pain for an idea and as the greatest testament to that idea is namby pamby?

I find your slander towards Christ very offensive and I think you need to shed your cotton wool.

by **Knight of Orient** on Fri Oct 19, 2007 10:29 am

Itrade wrote:According to Leviticus, if you raped a girl you had to pay her father a dowry and get married to her and you could never divorce.

Also, irony: Moses, who was saved from a pharoah who was killing all male children to ensure docility in the slaves, ended up killing all the males of some tribe that he ambushed. This was in like chapter thirty-something of Deuteronomy or one of those books near the start. I'm very sure it was before Judges.

the tribe of benjamin had commited many attrocities, the most recent was the homosexual men of a city who raped one traveling mans wife all night long while he was stayin the night...if that was not punishable by death with the strict laws that were in effect back then.. then there could be problems

by **vtmarik** on Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:09 am

jiminski wrote:You think that the sacrifice of your life in tortured pain for an idea and as the greatest testament to that idea is namby pamby?

I find your slander towards Christ very offensive and I think you need to shed your cotton wool.

A measure of strength is not how hard you can hit, but how hard you can get hit.

by **MR. Nate** on Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:11 pm

MeDeFe wrote:In either case you're both off topic.

That's because the thread title is undeniably fact. The question became does the Bible as a whole effectively represent who God is.

by **Minister Masket** on Fri Oct 19, 2007 4:31 pm

MR. Nate wrote:
MeDeFe wrote:In either case you're both off topic.

That's because the thread title is undeniably fact.

Well done for noticing. But as I said, it had a ring to it, so I used it. It is of my creation, or perhaps God's?

But even after 11 pages of random arguing, I still haven't had a straight answer to my original post. WAS THE STONING ACT UNFAIR?

by **2dimes** on Sat Oct 20, 2007 10:08 am

jiminski wrote:You think that the sacrifice of your life in tortured pain for an idea and as the greatest testament to that idea is namby pamby?

I find your slander towards Christ very offensive and I think you need to shed your cotton wool.

The mamby pamby thing was not in anyway a statement of my view. I was questioning if that was your view. As you were accused of thinking he was a pacifist.

That was why I used this clever symbol that is supposed to be universally known to make the sentence a question. "?"

I don't think there was or is anything about the Christ that was timid. Wether he was being beaten to a pulp, killed as a criminal whilste being innocent, playing with children or showing love and kindness to some dirty gentile. I believe everything he ever did or does is done in boldness and with a level of courage available only to him.

Owooooooooo? I may be scruffy and smell really bad, turned away by most flocks, including some made up of real sheep, sometimes they apologize after getting to know me, at anyrate if you want my wool you'll need to grab the shears, I r sheep.

vtmarik wrote:A measure of strength is not how hard you can hit, but how hard you can get hit.

Dead and back to life after three days FTW!

Don't even start with the "dude was in a coma." bologna. Someone stuck him in the side with a spear and water came out instead of blood.

While he was in the custody of the Romans someone would have noticed he was breathing before Joe came around to ask for the body. "Hey this one's not dead, better finish him off."

Minister Masket wrote:But even after 11 pages of random arguing, I still haven't had a straight answer to my original post. WAS THE STONING ACT UNFAIR?

Yeah I did, Page one infact.

Yes it was fair, he was warned. All he had to do was either gather the wood before hand or wait a day shivering under a blanket eating cold leftovers.

2dimes wrote:Seems pretty fair to me, It's not like he wasn't warned.

by **MR. Nate** on Sat Oct 20, 2007 11:10 am

Minister Masket wrote:But even after 11 pages of random arguing, I still haven't had a straight answer to my original post. WAS THE STONING ACT UNFAIR?

No. Why would it be?

by **Snorri1234** on Sat Oct 20, 2007 11:32 am

2dimes wrote:Dead and back to life after three days FTW!

Don't even start with the "dude was in a coma." bologna. Someone stuck him in the side with a spear and water came out instead of blood.

While he was in the custody of the Romans someone would have noticed he was breathing before Joe came around to ask for the body. "Hey this one's not dead, better finish him off."

How do you know this is true? Were you there?

(A blatant stab at the people who reply to evolutionists with that..)

by **2dimes** on Sat Oct 20, 2007 11:35 am

Same way I know my grand father faught in france during world war one. Someone wrote about it. How would any of that be a reply to the theory of evolution?

by **Snorri1234** on Sat Oct 20, 2007 11:38 am

2dimes wrote:Same way I know my grand father faught in france during world war one. Someone wrote about it. How would any of that be a reply to the theory of evolution?

Well how do you know those writers weren't lying?

(And it's a common attack made by creationists.)

by **2dimes** on Sat Oct 20, 2007 11:44 am

Well let's start with something obvious you may wish to deny.

What would be the motive to lie?

I suspect the thing about water coming out when the spear pierced him was not really understood by the author when they wrote it.

Next, I trust the Canadian government of that time to keep accurate records.

by **Snorri1234** on Sat Oct 20, 2007 12:06 pm

2dimes wrote:What would be the motive to lie?

Well, for instance you'll get more followers. Noone is going to follow a bloke who claims to be the son of god if he can't peform any miracles.
The second reason would be exaggeration, which happens all the time with stories, especially ones that are passed on by word-of-mouth. (The bible wasn't written untill some time later.)

Both of these reasons don't apply to your granddad.

by **2dimes** on Sat Oct 20, 2007 12:18 pm

Read or re-read it.

The stories in the bible are not written in some intentionally miss leading way, by briilliant Catholic monks, to promote the pope's agendas, no matter how whistfully people hope this is true.

It's a collection of stories and letters by people that fully admit to being the least intellectual persons on the scene at the time.

The fact that it's contents became something to be argued to the point of emotions leading to thoughts of murder, with others denying it and accusing the authors of being genius masters of power is subjection.

I assure you none of that was not the intent during it's inception.

It's some dummies like me that were fourtunate enough to be present when some strange and wonderfull things happened, who couldn't help but write about them.

Most of them were waiting for him to return, wanted to share some exciting good news and had no interest in followers.

by **Minister Masket** on Sat Oct 20, 2007 12:26 pm

Ah, but the Bible has been edited in the past.
See my "King James" post.

by **Snorri1234** on Sat Oct 20, 2007 12:33 pm

2dimes wrote:Read or re-read it.

The stories in the bible are not written in some intentionally miss leading way, by briilliant Catholic monks, to promote the pope's agendas, no matter how whistfully people hope this is true.

Never claimed they were. You don't have to believe immediately that it's some catholic conspiracy to gain power. You read too many Chick-tracts.
All I said is that stories can get exaggerated because people either feel it's not cool enough or they can't convince other people of it.

It's a collection of stories and letters by people that fully admit to being the least intellectual persons on the scene at the time.

What does it matter they didn't claim to be smart? The first thing any smart person should do when in religion is claim they're not smart!

I assure you none of that was not the intent during it's inception.

It's some dummies like me that were fourtunate enough to be present when some strange and wonderfull things happened, who couldn't help but write about them.

Most of them were waiting for him to return, wanted to share some exciting good news and had no interest in followers.

Oh I don't doubt they wrote it with the best of intentions. But it's kinda silly to assume they didn't want any followers. The whole point of Christianity is that you get followers so that more people will accept Jesus and get saved.

If you firmly believe Jesus is god and our saviour, but the people you try to tell about him aren't listening because they find it boring, wouldn't you put in some little exaggerations that could possibly interrest them more?

by **satanspaladin** on Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:04 pm

haven't had the time to read the bible in full or any depth like my kate is trying to do .

But i have fond a poem that was inspired by the bible its called Triumph now,

Triumph now with joy and mirth!
The God of peace hath blessed our land:
We enjoy the fruits of earth
Though favour of his bounteous hand.

We through His most loving grace
A king and kingly seed behold,
Like a sun with lesser stars
Or careful shepherd to his fold;
Triumph then,and yield him praise
That gives us blest and joyful days.

So is the bible brutal i think not it has brutal parts in it .
Bits that are in comprehensible to me at this point in my life, but the over all message is one of Joyful days and that cannot be brutal

by **2dimes** on Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:14 pm

Minister Masket wrote:Ah, but the Bible has been edited in the past.
See my "King James" post.

I personally don't consider it edited. Though the translations seem different in wording. If you read them at the same time and compare, the information is the same from different points of view or linguistic styles.

Like this,

"The dark skinned fellow struck him and he lost conciesness."

vs.

"Nigga knocked him the f*ck out!"

It's the same event discribed by diferent means or translations.

The only people reading the "King James" are amiture linguists like me and BertrosBertros. Or people trying to use it for purpose.

It's loaded with things that are difficult to understand when you think of the statements being modern English instead of the dated language of another time that it is.

The best example I know of off hand is the phrase "where for", sometimes it means "what" some times it means "why" it never seems to mean where.

by **2dimes** on Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:31 pm

Snorri1234 wrote:
2dimes wrote:Read or re-read it.

The stories in the bible are not written in some intentionally miss leading way, by briilliant Catholic monks, to promote the pope's agendas, no matter how whistfully people hope this is true.
Never claimed they were. You don't have to believe immediately that it's some catholic conspiracy to gain power. You read too many Chick-tracts.
All I said is that stories can get exaggerated because people either feel it's not cool enough or they can't convince other people of it.
2dimes wrote:It's a collection of stories and letters by people that fully admit to being the least intellectual persons on the scene at the time.

What does it matter they didn't claim to be smart? The first thing any smart person should do when in religion is claim they're not smart!
2dimes wrote:I assure you none of that was not the intent during it's inception.

It's some dummies like me that were fourtunate enough to be present when some strange and wonderfull things happened, who couldn't help but write about them.

Most of them were waiting for him to return, wanted to share some exciting good news and had no interest in followers.

Oh I don't doubt they wrote it with the best of intentions. But it's kinda silly to assume they didn't want any followers. The whole point of Christianity is that you get followers so that more people will accept Jesus and get saved.

If you firmly believe Jesus is god and our saviour, but the people you try to tell about him aren't listening because they find it boring, wouldn't you put in some little exaggerations that could possibly interrest them more?

My point was not that they claimed to lack intelligent writing skills. More that they admited to having been known to everyone of the time as lacking verbal skills.

Second, you're completly correct in stating that the point of Christianity as in any religion is to gain maximum followers. Preferably with large loose wallets to provide financial support.

My contention is that if you read the bible without trying to make something out of it, the authors of it's contents were usually not engaged in religion. The parts where they were belong to specific times that I believe are past. An example being when there were sacrifices in tents or temples.

by **autoload** on Tue Oct 30, 2007 5:05 am

So, does this mean the argument is settled?

by **jiminski** on Tue Oct 30, 2007 6:23 am

Yeap it's settled.. we have decided on a world of metaphorical monotheism, where faith creates reality and truth is what each of us perceives it to be.