Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: an0n on December 07, 2006, 03:52:33 pm
-
Seriously.
They're both basically ancient versions of Good Housekeeping.
I mean, not eating pork. You might think there's some religious significance to it, but there really isn't. It's just that back in the day eating pork was likely to kill you. Pigs roll around in ****, for **** sake. So the Bible doesn't tell you not to eat unclean animals because it will offend God, but because at the time of it's writing there was no Board Of Health And Hygiene around to knock out health certificates to make sure your butcher wasn't ****ing the mince in the back room while you waited for him to fill your order (ba-dum-tsh). So eating unclean animals would probably have resulted in your catching typhoid or cholera and ****ing dying.
Same with the Kama Sutra. It's all about eating leaves to freshen your breath and keep your teeth nice.
The only difference between the two is that while the Kama Sutra is going "Dude, just pull her leg up and to the right, then kind slide the police baton into her while sucking on her toes" the Bible goes "Don't have sex - kill queers instead. Use rocks."
Discuss.
-
Except the punishment for eating these animals was death. :lol:
-
Yeah, because you could start a ****ing plague of cholera.
-
Well, I wouldn't have phrased it quite so....colourfully, but yes, the restriction on eating pork is related more to hygeine than religion. If you read the Iliad by Homer, there's a lot of repetition about how offerings are made to Gods etc, in it's own way it's an instruction manual for the masses on how religion was supposed to be practised at the time, cleverly wrapped up into a story. The Bible is very similar in a lot of ways, and just as Zeus smote people who offended him and rewarded those who pleased him, a similar 'stick and carrot' method is used in the Bible.
I wouldn't say that it's an instruction book on how to kill people but, once again, just as the Iliad used common prejudice to get a message across to the public (witches chopping up babies etc.) the Bible also was a reflection of public opinion. Releasing a book called 'Worship God, he likes man-sex' would not have been a good political move at the time, people like to hear their own prejudices confirmed from a higher source. The Bible, in reality is no more in favour of wholesale slaughter than just about every book around at the time.
-
Your argument's a little schizoid here. On the one hand you're making the point it was about how to keep people alive, on the other you're saying it's not that.
Matter of fact you bother with much more support for the Public Hygenie Manual than the Killing People Manual. So it's really more of a "not killing people" manual?
-
A killing people manual would tend to focus more on methodology rather than reason/justification, methinks.
-
I know it's not a killing-people-manual.
I just wanted a catchy thread title.
But the main point was that they're both Good Housekeeping Guides, but then the Kama Sutra has Good Housewife ****ing sections, and the Bible has Good Neighbour-Stoning sections.
-
If you read closely, there is this one part that God tells this guy to eat a so-called unclean pig. It goes a little like this, IIRC:
God: Hey you, go preach
Person: I need food though!
God: *POOF* (food appears)
Person: ACK!! UNCLEAN!!!!11!!
God: made by me = clean. EAT!!!!
Person: okay fine *eats food
As you can see, I don't remember it very well.
And where in the Bible does it tell you to kill people? I know where it says not to kill people, but that is kind of the exact opposite of killing people.
-
I mean, not eating pork. You might think there's some religious significance to it, but there really isn't. It's just that back in the day eating pork was likely to kill you. Pigs roll around in ****, for **** sake. So the Bible doesn't tell you not to eat unclean animals because it will offend God, but because at the time of it's writing there was no Board Of Health And Hygiene around to knock out health certificates to make sure your butcher wasn't ****ing the mince in the back room while you waited for him to fill your order (ba-dum-tsh). So eating unclean animals would probably have resulted in your catching typhoid or cholera and ****ing dying.
Exactly. Which rule is more understandable -- "Don't eat pork, because there's this whole system of biology that increases your risk of food-borne illness; but you won't learn about that for a few thousand years" -- or -- "Don't eat pork because God says not to"?
Yes, it's condescending, but 1) this is God talking; and 2) people are morons. If you tell people that something shouldn't be done because it's bad for them, the first thing they try to do is prove you right. Heck, God made his master plan about as plain as he could -- "Follow me, go to heaven; don't follow me, go to hell" -- and people still manage to screw it up. ;)
And the penalty for violating dietary restrictions was ceremonial uncleanness (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=3&chapter=11&version=31) (which was basically quarantine), not death.
The only difference between the two is that while the Kama Sutra is going "Dude, just pull her leg up and to the right, then kind slide the police baton into her while sucking on her toes" the Bible goes "Don't have sex - kill queers instead. Use rocks."
Biblical rules on sex are all about economics. Sex is valuable, and God wants to keep it that way. Sleeping around is a good way to devalue sex until it's worth practically nothing.
-
If you read closely, there is this one part that God tells this guy to eat a so-called unclean pig. It goes a little like this, IIRC:
...
As you can see, I don't remember it very well.
You remembered it well enough. :) The full story is in Acts 10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2010;&version=31;).
There are a bunch of different interpretations of that vision. The interpretation implied in the text says that Gentiles (who had been historically regarded as "unclean" or "savage" from the Jewish perspective) were just as clean, or just as "human", as any Jew. The literal interpretation simply declares all foods clean, freeing Jews from the constraints of Old Testament dietary law.
And where in the Bible does it tell you to kill people? I know where it says not to kill people, but that is kind of the exact opposite of killing people.
Perhaps when he ordered the Israelites to wipe out the peoples of the land of Canaan:
Deuteronomy 9:1-6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%209:1-6;&version=31;)
Hear, O Israel. You are now about to cross the Jordan to go in and dispossess nations greater and stronger than you, with large cities that have walls up to the sky. The people are strong and tall—Anakites! You know about them and have heard it said: "Who can stand up against the Anakites?" But be assured today that the LORD your God is the one who goes across ahead of you like a devouring fire. He will destroy them; he will subdue them before you. And you will drive them out and annihilate them quickly, as the LORD has promised you.
After the LORD your God has driven them out before you, do not say to yourself, "The LORD has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness." No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is going to drive them out before you. It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, the LORD your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Understand, then, that it is not because of your righteousness that the LORD your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are a stiff-necked people.
But see that he prefaced the entire military campaign by a stern warning that the Canaanites were being destroyed on account of their wickedness.
-
And where in the Bible does it tell you to kill people? I know where it says not to kill people, but that is kind of the exact opposite of killing people.
Perhaps when he ordered the Israelites to wipe out the peoples of the land of Canaan:
Deuteronomy 9:1-6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%209:1-6;&version=31;)
*snip*
But see that he prefaced the entire military campaign by a stern warning that the Canaanites were being destroyed on account of their wickedness.
Ok, I thought an0n meant stuff like "I LIKE KILLING POEPLE!!! YAY=KILLING!!!" :)
-
It also tells you to stone witches and homosexuals to death.
Somewhere in Leviticus, IIRC.
-
Frankly, I would rather read the Kama Sutra than the bible.
Which is evidenced by the fact that I have read the former, and barely touched the latter :D
Stoning people and annihilating civilizations on moral grounds isnt quite as fun as sex. :p
-
It also tells you to stone witches and homosexuals to death.
Somewhere in Leviticus, IIRC.
Witches, duh, (they are not really people anyway; more of spawns of satan) but I'm not quite sure about the homos, because IIRC, it's not bad be a homo, it's just bad if you have gay sex and other gay stuff like that. :p
-
Witches, duh, (they are not really people anyway; more of spawns of satan)
I can't quite believe you actually said that...
Most witches were guilty of nothing more than being old widows who lived on their own, if a farmers cow died, of course it was down to the wierd old woman.
As for the second half of that post. Not going near it.
-
Witches, duh, (they are not really people anyway; more of spawns of satan)
I can't quite believe you actually said that...
Most witches were guilty of nothing more than being old widows who lived on their own, if a farmers cow died, of course it was down to the wierd old woman.
As for the second half of that post. Not going near it.
GEEZ!! Do you honestly think those were real witches? ::)
Of course not! For the exact reason you said! :)
I don't mean the Salem witch thing (Wasn't that just because a whole bunch of people had epilepsy, and the people thought they were doing magic, but were just having spasms of some sort?).
I mean the kind that don't really exist. When was the last time that there was a real witch? I was simply emphasizing the fact that if they did exist, that it would be less bad to kill them. :D :P
-
Wait-- You're not joking?
-
Sigh... YES I AM JOKING!! [not sarcasm]
witches = not exist ::)
sheesh... I thought it was kinda obvious...
Except the Salem witch part. IIRC the rye they had made them sick and stuff because of some fungus, then they had seizures, but when that happened the people tending to them thought they were really cursing people and stuff.
EDIT: I'll put in some smileys into that one post to make it more obvious.
-
Heh, that's ok then, just remember those smileys ;)
I did a fair bit of studying on the persecution of witches during the Middle Ages, and I was utterly disgusted at what was done in the name of 'Christianity' at the time. Basically, the Church not only decided that only God could heal people, but that women, to quote the Malleus Maleficarum, were more likely to be witches...
'Because the female sex is more concerned with things of the flesh than men;' because being formed from a man's rib, they are 'only imperfect animals' and 'crooked' whereas man belongs to a privileged sex from whose midst Christ emerged.'
Basically, it was barely disguised Fundamentalism with a lot of blatant chauvenism and gender insecurity.
Anyway, I digress :)
-
Heh, that's ok then, just remember those smileys ;)
I did a fair bit of studying on the persecution of witches during the Middle Ages, and I was utterly disgusted at what was done in the name of 'Christianity' at the time. Basically, the Church not only decided that only God could heal people, but that women, to quote the Malleus Maleficarum, were more likely to be witches...
'Because the female sex is more concerned with things of the flesh than men;' because being formed from a man's rib, they are 'only imperfect animals' and 'crooked' whereas man belongs to a privileged sex from whose midst Christ emerged.'
Basically, it was barely disguised Fundamentalism with a lot of blatant chauvenism and gender insecurity.
Anyway, I digress :)
Yeah, the christian church had a lot of problems during the middle ages.
-
The Christian church was the problem during the middle ages. And most other ages, too. :doubt:
-
It's a shame... Almost all the good Popes are wasted fixing the problems of the bad ones...
-
the kama sutra endorses rape, not okay with that
also not okay with the whole eunuch blowjob thing it endorses
and we might check new testament, and we might check that whole god using metaphors thing
-
eunuch blowjob thing
I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume that I'm not the only one who would appreciate some edification on this point.
-
Basically, the Church not only decided that only God could heal people
Not arbitrarily, mind you. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal#Miracle)
but that women, to quote the Malleus Maleficarum, were more likely to be witches...
'Because the female sex is more concerned with things of the flesh than men;' because being formed from a man's rib, they are 'only imperfect animals' and 'crooked' whereas man belongs to a privileged sex from whose midst Christ emerged.'
I would agree, but not for the reason given above. Rather, the devil used Eve to get to Adam, not Adam to get to Eve. One could interpret from that event that women are more susceptible to evil.
As for whether a particular person is in fact a witch, well, there are self-proclaimed witches around today. But it is also quite easy for hysteria to label someone a witch without any objective rational evidence.
-
Perhaps when he ordered the Israelites to wipe out the peoples of the land of Canaan...
Excerpts from the Book of Vile Darkness
...But see that he prefaced the entire military campaign by a stern warning that the Canaanites were being destroyed on account of their wickedness.
Translation: genocide is fine, as long as we're the ones doing it.
GIVE ISRAEL BACK TO THE CANAANITES! DOWN WITH THE ISLAMOFACISTS AND ZIONISTS! ;)
Or pull out and nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be certain...
-
Exactly. Which rule is more understandable -- "Don't eat pork, because there's this whole system of biology that increases your risk of food-borne illness; but you won't learn about that for a few thousand years" -- or -- "Don't eat pork because God says not to"?
Yes, it's condescending, but 1) this is God talking; and 2) people are morons. If you tell people that something shouldn't be done because it's bad for them, the first thing they try to do is prove you right. Heck, God made his master plan about as plain as he could -- "Follow me, go to heaven; don't follow me, go to hell" -- and people still manage to screw it up. ;)
And the penalty for violating dietary restrictions was ceremonial uncleanness (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=3&chapter=11&version=31) (which was basically quarantine), not death.
Biblical rules on sex are all about economics. Sex is valuable, and God wants to keep it that way. Sleeping around is a good way to devalue sex until it's worth practically nothing.
Ummm....surely if God wanted to stop people getting bacterial infections, he'd just get rid of the bacteria? Or is this one of those 'test of faith' things? y'know, the excuse used for every piece of inexplicable suffering left on an earth supposedly overlorded by a caring diety?
Incidentally, why is sex valuable (in the bible)? I mean, I know the reproductive advantage (well, survival of offspring advantage) of not sleeping around, but why is the act itself viewed as to be constrained (every sperm is sacred and whatnot)? does the bible actually intimate anything that even vaguely forsees protection ala condoms and the pill, or does it only speak of knocking up a woman and then not taking responsibility for it?
Also, wasn't there a bit in the bible where god effectively gives his supporters carte blanche to do whatever they want to conquered, um, infidels?
Oh, and what's the technical definition of a witch, anyways? Because I could say I was a warlock, it doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to raise an army of zombies or something.
-
Most modern day witches follow a pagan religion called [urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca]wicca[/url], much of which follows druidic tradition IIRC.
-
The value of sex in the Bible is social, but it's also very tangible.
Children were treated how we treat cattle now. Strong men were paired with beautiful women, at the expense of the bride's family. And given that sexual promiscuity - or even simply a single stupid choice - can lead not only to STDs, but also to pregnancy and it's associated difficulties (which can render a woman infertile), the value of virginity was very high indeed.
And if virginity is valued, prized and protected then the economics of supply and demand come into play. There's a very high demand and a tightly controlled supply....
-
Ummm....surely if God wanted to stop people getting bacterial infections, he'd just get rid of the bacteria? Or is this one of those 'test of faith' things? y'know, the excuse used for every piece of inexplicable suffering left on an earth supposedly overlorded by a caring diety?
God wants people to choose to obey him. If he just got rid of the bacteria, that removes the consequences of choice. I suppose you could call it a "test of faith" if you wanted to.
Incidentally, why is sex valuable (in the bible)? I mean, I know the reproductive advantage (well, survival of offspring advantage) of not sleeping around, but why is the act itself viewed as to be constrained (every sperm is sacred and whatnot)? does the bible actually intimate anything that even vaguely forsees protection ala condoms and the pill, or does it only speak of knocking up a woman and then not taking responsibility for it?
There's nothing in the Bible along the lines of "every sperm is sacred". The act of sex was created by God to be a good thing, something that strengthens the bond between a married couple. But sleeping around renders the bond meaningless, because it 1) dilutes the bond among many people; and 2) it hardens your heart: you have to immediately disregard the bond you just made with someone, because you're not likely to see them again.
As for birth control, there's nothing in the Bible that explicitly permits or disallows it. However, whenever the ability to have children is mentioned, fertile women are described as "blessed" and barren women are described as "cursed".
Also, wasn't there a bit in the bible where god effectively gives his supporters carte blanche to do whatever they want to conquered, um, infidels?
Dunno. You'd have to give me a quote.
Oh, and what's the technical definition of a witch, anyways? Because I could say I was a warlock, it doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to raise an army of zombies or something.
Someone who relies on a supernatural power other than God to do stuff. For example, to tell the future, contact the dead, arrange circumstances, etc. Voodoo would qualify.
-
God wants people to choose to obey him. If he just got rid of the bacteria, that removes the consequences of choice. I suppose you could call it a "test of faith" if you wanted to.
But why does God care? Surely an omnipotent, omniscent diety is clearly above the necessity for worship or gratitude, and more than capable of instilling any values he/she/it desires in a creation. The whole concept of faith needing testing, to me either implies a Loki-like trickster god 'playing' with humanity, or a god with limited powers incapable of shaping the world in the best way (and instead giving guidelines). I've never understood this concept of 'God wants choice'; why would God want Man to damn itself? Why would a caring God allow that possibility?
I guess that's the mean reason I'm an aetheist or, at the very least, rejectionist of Christian theology (and those of a similar ilk).
There's nothing in the Bible along the lines of "every sperm is sacred". The act of sex was created by God to be a good thing, something that strengthens the bond between a married couple. But sleeping around renders the bond meaningless, because it 1) dilutes the bond among many people; and 2) it hardens your heart: you have to immediately disregard the bond you just made with someone, because you're not likely to see them again.
So why need marriage? Sex has an important evolutionary role in bonding between couples, but I don't see why it's restricted to marriage because no marriage is guarenteed to work, especially if you disregard the important selection role sex plays (something documented in studies) in forming a pre-marital relationship.
As for birth control, there's nothing in the Bible that explicitly permits or disallows it. However, whenever the ability to have children is mentioned, fertile women are described as "blessed" and barren women are described as "cursed".
(loaded terminology, surely?)
So there's really nothing wrong with non-reproductive sex? Sweet :)
Dunno. You'd have to give me a quote.
This isn't actually the bit I was looking for, but it's related (Numbers)
31:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
31:2 Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.
31:3 And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the LORD of Midian.
31:4 Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, shall ye send to the war.
31:5 So there were delivered out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand of [every] tribe, twelve thousand armed for war.
31:6 And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of [every] tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand.
31:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.
31:8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; [namely], Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.
31:9 And the children of Israel took [all] the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.
31:10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.
31:11 And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, [both] of men and of beasts.
31:12 And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which [are] by Jordan [near] Jericho.
31:13 And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.
31:14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, [with] the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.
31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
This is still not it (Deuteronomy)
6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
I think this was it (Deut again)
20:11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.
20:12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:
20:13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
20:14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
20:15 Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations.
20:16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth
20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:
Albiet because I can't find the bloody thing I was thinking of, I suppose the above is really just a quaint aside. I'm sure there's a nice bloody bit about killing every man, woman and child in a 'heretic' town, though.
Someone who relies on a supernatural power other than God to do stuff. For example, to tell the future, contact the dead, arrange circumstances, etc. Voodoo would qualify.
Is that a christian/biblical definition or a universal one?
-
Because I could say I was a warlock, it doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to raise an army of zombies or something.
I hope not, since everyone knows that Warlocks summon demons, steal souls, and melt faces in PvP.
-
I would like to take the opportunity to state, for the record, sex is awesome.
Sex should be shared resposibility, but liberally, with other consenting adults with usage of appopriate protection in whatever type of relationship you wish to involve yourself.
A marriage that is sexless prior to existing is a marriage more likely to result in strife. The sexual compatability of a couple is a must.
-
Sorry for the tangent, just got reminded by this snippet by Aldo: "But why does God care? Surely an omnipotent, omniscient deity" and needed to vent
BINGO! You just hit the nail on the head and my biggest roadblock to organized faith. GOD (under any name you want to use) is all knowing period. He knows Humanity is a flawed creation, he knows what acts will happen over the whole of material existence, and more importantly he knows how it will end (presumably badly, a Pyhrric victory separating the truly "faithful" from the masses probably at a ratio of 1/10,000 by my guestimation).
Here is MY big question no one seems able to answer: "If he conceptualized existence as we know it before making it (unless he/she/it was just screwing around one step at a time like a kid with a home science kit), WHY even bother making it happen when you know:
A.) It's fundamentally flawed B.) You're ultimately and sorely responsible for creating any and ALL evil that arises from it! You can't blame "SINNERS" cause according to "THE PLAN" God's will determined that they be born sinners and die sinners... WTF? Free will my ass! I think it's a cop-out for "God", instead of taking responsibility for his screw up (creation) and saying "My bad!"
Here I am a mere Human and even I would have said to the "almighty", "Nope that's a stupid idea. I really wouldn't do that if I were you."
(but then we wouldn't have FS2, so maybe it was worth it after all?) ;)
I like to think Jesus was God's way of making it up to Humanity for being a half-assed landlord... :)
-
But why does God care? Surely an omnipotent, omniscent diety is clearly above the necessity for worship or gratitude, and more than capable of instilling any values he/she/it desires in a creation. The whole concept of faith needing testing, to me either implies a Loki-like trickster god 'playing' with humanity, or a god with limited powers incapable of shaping the world in the best way (and instead giving guidelines). I've never understood this concept of 'God wants choice'; why would God want Man to damn itself? Why would a caring God allow that possibility?
God wants to love people, and he wants them to love him back. A person must be able to choose to love, or not love; or else the love isn't real.
If all God wanted were automatic worshippers, there would be no need for free will. But true love requires an opt-in contract.
Shouldn't we regard it as a Good Thing (tm) for God to give us the dignity of making a choice? :)
So why need marriage? Sex has an important evolutionary role in bonding between couples, but I don't see why it's restricted to marriage because no marriage is guarenteed to work, especially if you disregard the important selection role sex plays (something documented in studies) in forming a pre-marital relationship.
Marriage is not all about sex. Sex is (from a holistic viewpoint) only a fringe benefit. Marriage is all about a couple entering into a contract to love and care for one another. You're right; no marriage is guaranteed to (or is even inclined to) work, not automatically anyway. Marriage requires effort on both sides.
Of course sex is a good selection tool; if you plan to have sex with someone on a regular basis, it makes sense that you'd be more inclined to do it with someone you enjoy having sex with. But a marriage that's only about sex is a marriage that's only superficial.
This isn't actually the bit I was looking for, but it's related (Numbers)
[snip]
Okay. Midian was one of the tribes that tried to turn Israel away from God. God is saying to repay them by wiping out their leadership (males and their wives).
This is still not it (Deuteronomy)
[snip]
Okay. An Israelite who tries to turn a fellow Israelite to a foreign god is essentially a traitor. God is saying here that traitors deserve the dealth penalty.
I think this was it (Deut again)
[snip]
Okay. So God is making certain exceptions to his "wipe out everybody" clause -- namely, that if they surrender, they will live.
Albiet because I can't find the bloody thing I was thinking of, I suppose the above is really just a quaint aside. I'm sure there's a nice bloody bit about killing every man, woman and child in a 'heretic' town, though.
There is. Again, these are the countries that have built up a massive sin debt over many years; and their cumulative sin debt earns them the punishment of being wiped out. God is using Israel as his instrument of punishment.
He could have used a natural disaster as his instrument of punishment, as he has on many other occasions, but he wanted to demonstrate clearly to the neighboring nations that he was the one behind it all.
Someone who relies on a supernatural power other than God to do stuff. For example, to tell the future, contact the dead, arrange circumstances, etc. Voodoo would qualify.
Is that a christian/biblical definition or a universal one?
Here's an applicable passage:
Deuteronomy 18:9-14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2018:9-14;&version=31;)
When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you. You must be blameless before the LORD your God. The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the LORD your God has not permitted you to do so.
Voodoo would qualify. So would certain other pagan religions. Some Wiccans cast spells to pass their tests, or find a boyfriend/girlfriend, etc.
Sorry for the tangent, just got reminded by this snippet by Aldo: "But why does God care? Surely an omnipotent, omniscient deity" and needed to vent
BINGO! You just hit the nail on the head and my biggest roadblock to organized faith. GOD (under any name you want to use) is all knowing period. He knows Humanity is a flawed creation, he knows what acts will happen over the whole of material existence, and more importantly he knows how it will end (presumably badly, a Pyhrric victory separating the truly "faithful" from the masses probably at a ratio of 1/10,000 by my guestimation).
Here is MY big question no one seems able to answer: "If he conceptualized existence as we know it before making it (unless he/she/it was just screwing around one step at a time like a kid with a home science kit), WHY even bother making it happen when you know:
A.) It's fundamentally flawed B.) You're ultimately and sorely responsible for creating any and ALL evil that arises from it! You can't blame "SINNERS" cause according to "THE PLAN" God's will determined that they be born sinners and die sinners... WTF? Free will my ass! I think it's a cop-out for "God", instead of taking responsibility for his screw up (creation) and saying "My bad!"
Here I am a mere Human and even I would have said to the "almighty", "Nope that's a stupid idea. I really wouldn't do that if I were you."
(but then we wouldn't have FS2, so maybe it was worth it after all?) ;)
I like to think Jesus was God's way of making it up to Humanity for being a half-assed landlord... :)
Good points -- especially the one about FS2. :)
I think God decided it was worth it. But that's probably because God can see the end of the story, while we can only see the middle. Sam's speech from The Two Towers seems applicable here. :)
I know. It’s all wrong. By rights we shouldn’t even be here. But we are. It’s like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger they were. And sometimes you didn’t want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened?
But in the end, it’s only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer.
I would like to take the opportunity to state, for the record, sex is awesome.
Cool. :)
Sex should be shared resposibility, but liberally, with other consenting adults with usage of appropriate protection in whatever type of relationship you wish to involve yourself.
A marriage that is sexless prior to existing is a marriage more likely to result in strife. The sexual compatability of a couple is a must.
Can I assume then that you're married? Or that you're in a steady relationship?
If so, then how would your spouse/partner feel if you occasionally had sex with a random other consenting adult?
-
Sorry for the tangent, just got reminded by this snippet by Aldo: "But why does God care? Surely an omnipotent, omniscient deity" and needed to vent
BINGO! You just hit the nail on the head and my biggest roadblock to organized faith. GOD (under any name you want to use) is all knowing period. He knows Humanity is a flawed creation, he knows what acts will happen over the whole of material existence, and more importantly he knows how it will end (presumably badly, a Pyhrric victory separating the truly "faithful" from the masses probably at a ratio of 1/10,000 by my guestimation).
Here is MY big question no one seems able to answer: "If he conceptualized existence as we know it before making it (unless he/she/it was just screwing around one step at a time like a kid with a home science kit), WHY even bother making it happen when you know:
A.) It's fundamentally flawed B.) You're ultimately and sorely responsible for creating any and ALL evil that arises from it! You can't blame "SINNERS" cause according to "THE PLAN" God's will determined that they be born sinners and die sinners... WTF? Free will my ass! I think it's a cop-out for "God", instead of taking responsibility for his screw up (creation) and saying "My bad!"
Here I am a mere Human and even I would have said to the "almighty", "Nope that's a stupid idea. I really wouldn't do that if I were you."
The medieval mystics would argue that the concepts of omniscience and omnipotence are rooted in our own inescapably finite being. To theologians like Pseudo-Dionysius and Eckhart, God cannot be separated from God's creation in the same discursive process that separates a human from his/her creations. God is infinite as compared to our finitude, necessary as compared to our contingency, and is ontologically prior to creation, not temporally prior. God didn't create something the outcome of which is known, because this model is dependent on the temporal component of causality, which is meaningless when applied to God. Rather, God is "simultaneously" the creator and the created, the cause and the result, determinate and infinite. I think these writings tend to be conveniently forgotten because they lend themselves to a more existential relationship between people and God. God is no longer "out there", as a party in some contractual relationship of punishment and reward. Even after acknowledging God, we're still condemned to the freedom of determining our morals. (Note: I don't believe in God, but I think Christianity would benefit greatly from getting in touch with its own philosophers.)
-
eunuch blowjob thing
I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume that I'm not the only one who would appreciate some edification on this point.
there is a bit about parlours and it goes into inferrence of eunuchs and fellation <kama sutra>
it's not all orgies and upside down sumersaults
actually, it's a lot less fun stuff then people are lead to believe
-
But why does God care? Surely an omnipotent, omniscent diety is clearly above the necessity for worship or gratitude, and more than capable of instilling any values he/she/it desires in a creation. The whole concept of faith needing testing, to me either implies a Loki-like trickster god 'playing' with humanity, or a god with limited powers incapable of shaping the world in the best way (and instead giving guidelines). I've never understood this concept of 'God wants choice'; why would God want Man to damn itself? Why would a caring God allow that possibility?
God wants to love people, and he wants them to love him back. A person must be able to choose to love, or not love; or else the love isn't real.
If all God wanted were automatic worshippers, there would be no need for free will. But true love requires an opt-in contract.
Shouldn't we regard it as a Good Thing (tm) for God to give us the dignity of making a choice? :)
So if people don't want to love God, why is he vengeful? You know, the whole hell bit and stuff.... sounds like a poor loser.
-
Okay. Midian was one of the tribes that tried to turn Israel away from God. God is saying to repay them by wiping out their leadership (males and their wives).
Okay. An Israelite who tries to turn a fellow Israelite to a foreign god is essentially a traitor. God is saying here that traitors deserve the dealth penalty.
So basically preaching non-christianity is a capital offence. Kinda supports the karma sutra of killing thing.
Okay. So God is making certain exceptions to his "wipe out everybody" clause -- namely, that if they surrender, they will live.
Submit or Die. Again, not doing wonders for the image.
There is. Again, these are the countries that have built up a massive sin debt over many years; and their cumulative sin debt earns them the punishment of being wiped out. God is using Israel as his instrument of punishment.
He could have used a natural disaster as his instrument of punishment, as he has on many other occasions, but he wanted to demonstrate clearly to the neighboring nations that he was the one behind it all.
One would imagine natural disasters would be an event more convincing of divinity than a bunch of guys with swords and a history of violence but there ya go.
Christianity should really drop the old testament, it makes god look like a skitso.
-
Christianity should really drop the old testament, it makes god look like a skitso.
Agreed, somewhat. Here's my good friend Lewis Black's take on that issue (starts on it around 3:00) :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jCCam6l9GY&mode=related&search=
-
there is a bit about parlours and it goes into inferrence of eunuchs and fellation <kama sutra>
it's not all orgies and upside down sumersaults
actually, it's a lot less fun stuff then people are lead to believe
Wikipedia (for whatever that's worth) says that "eunuch" is not exactly an accurate translation of the Hindi word "Hijra", which actually refers more to effeminate homosexuals or transgender individuals. Apparently ritual castration was not particularly common.
-
I am not too interested in this thread but I will say this,
The times when homosexuals were killed in mass was when almost the entire tribe of benjamin was wiped out for raping a servant girl and the intent to have sex with a prophet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe_of_Benjamin
-
Nowt about homosexuals in there but feck me, those israelites were a right bunch of cnuts. Killed all their women and children then gave them a gift of 400 virgins from another town they massacred? If thats the sort of stuff your god encourages he can go way and ****e for himself.
-
there is a bit about parlours and it goes into inferrence of eunuchs and fellation <kama sutra>
it's not all orgies and upside down sumersaults
actually, it's a lot less fun stuff then people are lead to believe
Wikipedia (for whatever that's worth) says that "eunuch" is not exactly an accurate translation of the Hindi word "Hijra", which actually refers more to effeminate homosexuals or transgender individuals. Apparently ritual castration was not particularly common.
Hijras are considered a 'third gender' with male and female aspects. From an outsider's perspective they might be viewed as homosexual or transgender but within their own culture they are simply 'Hijras.'
Now the Phillippines are a case of biological males taking on a female social role. Of course these people are highly offended if called a homosexual, and do not view themselves as such even if from a biological definition they are. Local christian churches don't view it as such due to the mix of local and foreign beliefs, but foreign groups scream about the un-godly homosexual heathen practices of the Phillippines.
While gender is not entirely a social construct, it is an *incredibly* malleable concept.
-
Nowt about homosexuals in there but feck me, those israelites were a right bunch of cnuts. Killed all their women and children then gave them a gift of 400 virgins from another town they massacred? If thats the sort of stuff your god encourages he can go way and ****e for himself.
As I understand it, most of the men were killed as well. I also don't think that article from the wiki is really complete or unbiased. In other words, it is incomplete in that it doesn't really discuss the massacre nor the reasons for such.
-
there is a bit about parlours and it goes into inferrence of eunuchs and fellation <kama sutra>
it's not all orgies and upside down sumersaults
actually, it's a lot less fun stuff then people are lead to believe
Wikipedia (for whatever that's worth) says that "eunuch" is not exactly an accurate translation of the Hindi word "Hijra", which actually refers more to effeminate homosexuals or transgender individuals. Apparently ritual castration was not particularly common.
I don't know how good the translation I looked over was, it had some footnotes in that section I didn't bother looking at as I was trying to speed through it as quickly as possible anyhow
and I do know, at least now some devotees of shiva undergo ritual castration, whether that bears any on historical practices, no idea, haven't looked enough at the history of the area to see how that would be affected
-
As I understand it, most of the men were killed as well. I also don't think that article from the wiki is really complete or unbiased. In other words, it is incomplete in that it doesn't really discuss the massacre nor the reasons for such.
Can you post a link to the relevant chapters, because theres something seriously wrong with killing a whole people over rape then giving them 400 girls whose familys you've just slaughtered, or are we supposed to believe these girls went willingly to their new fellas?
-
Judges 19-21
-
...are we supposed to believe these girls went willingly to their new fellas?
They did because it was god's will... Gaius...
-
Sorry for the tangent, just got reminded by this snippet by Aldo: "But why does God care? Surely an omnipotent, omniscient deity" and needed to vent
BINGO! You just hit the nail on the head and my biggest roadblock to organized faith. GOD (under any name you want to use) is all knowing period. He knows Humanity is a flawed creation, he knows what acts will happen over the whole of material existence, and more importantly he knows how it will end (presumably badly, a Pyhrric victory separating the truly "faithful" from the masses probably at a ratio of 1/10,000 by my guestimation).
Here is MY big question no one seems able to answer: "If he conceptualized existence as we know it before making it (unless he/she/it was just screwing around one step at a time like a kid with a home science kit), WHY even bother making it happen when you know:
A.) It's fundamentally flawed B.) You're ultimately and sorely responsible for creating any and ALL evil that arises from it! You can't blame "SINNERS" cause according to "THE PLAN" God's will determined that they be born sinners and die sinners... WTF? Free will my ass! I think it's a cop-out for "God", instead of taking responsibility for his screw up (creation) and saying "My bad!"
Here I am a mere Human and even I would have said to the "almighty", "Nope that's a stupid idea. I really wouldn't do that if I were you."
(but then we wouldn't have FS2, so maybe it was worth it after all?) ;)
I like to think Jesus was God's way of making it up to Humanity for being a half-assed landlord... :)
Is humanity flawed? Or is it exactly as He wanted it to be?
You have to look at the parent-child analogy of things.
You don't want your child to be a mindless zombie following your every whim. You want it to think and act for yourself, to grow and learn, even if it is sometimes a painfull process.
Do you blame the parent if the child doesn't listen to him and makes wrong choices?
All evil his fault? Yes and no. Ultimately, it is our choices that make that evil happen. I can give you a gun, but it's your choice to use it to shoot people.
Besides, there's no way to tell how it will all end and will it be worth it all in the end.
And you musn't forget the old saying - every dark cloud has a silver lining. For all that evil, somme good things were also created (and vice-versa)
He didn't create a "perfect" world, but then again does he have to?
-
God wants to love people, and he wants them to love him back. A person must be able to choose to love, or not love; or else the love isn't real.
If all God wanted were automatic worshippers, there would be no need for free will. But true love requires an opt-in contract.
Shouldn't we regard it as a Good Thing (tm) for God to give us the dignity of making a choice?
Why does God need to be worshipped? Isn't it said somewhere in the bible it's an offence to claim the mind of God, anyways?
Marriage is not all about sex. Sex is (from a holistic viewpoint) only a fringe benefit. Marriage is all about a couple entering into a contract to love and care for one another. You're right; no marriage is guaranteed to (or is even inclined to) work, not automatically anyway. Marriage requires effort on both sides.
Of course sex is a good selection tool; if you plan to have sex with someone on a regular basis, it makes sense that you'd be more inclined to do it with someone you enjoy having sex with. But a marriage that's only about sex is a marriage that's only superficial.
Um, what's that got to do with my quote? Perhaps it'd be clearer if I said "why need marriage before sex?"
Okay. Midian was one of the tribes that tried to turn Israel away from God. God is saying to repay them by wiping out their leadership (males and their wives).
Okay. An Israelite who tries to turn a fellow Israelite to a foreign god is essentially a traitor. God is saying here that traitors deserve the dealth penalty.
Okay. So God is making certain exceptions to his "wipe out everybody" clause -- namely, that if they surrender, they will live.
So, essentially, God says to kill unbelievers? (because it's not like God discourages conversion, after all.... who'd have thought a diety could be so hypocritical?)
There is. Again, these are the countries that have built up a massive sin debt over many years; and their cumulative sin debt earns them the punishment of being wiped out. God is using Israel as his instrument of punishment.
He could have used a natural disaster as his instrument of punishment, as he has on many other occasions, but he wanted to demonstrate clearly to the neighboring nations that he was the one behind it all.
Right....by using men. That makes perfect sense.
Nooooo.....wait a sec. Men. Crikey. You could almost think - and I'm sure we've never seen this before - God was being used to justify the settling of old scores with extreme violence and cruelty.
Here's an applicable passage:..snip..
Righty-o. Biblical, then.
-
Perhaps it'd be clearer if I said "why need marriage before sex?"
Exactly. Doesn't make sense at all given the obviously non-monogamous nature of males; the whole 'spreading our seed' trait of our psychology which directly contradicts all this "marriage" bollocks. You'd have thought that God, given he designed us [rather badly, i'd say], would have either programmed out this trait or at the very least preached a polygamous marriage system.
-
Perhaps it'd be clearer if I said "why need marriage before sex?"
Exactly. Doesn't make sense at all given the obviously non-monogamous nature of males; the whole 'spreading our seed' trait of our psychology which directly contradicts all this "marriage" bollocks. You'd have thought that God, given he designed us [rather badly, i'd say], would have either programmed out this trait or at the very least preached a polygamous marriage system.
Ah, but God wants every second of our lives to be a struggle against some combination of exterior stress and interior contradiction, rigidly sticking to a 20 century old set of morals written by people who might or might not have made it all up to suit their own goals like slightly less (more?) whacky Scientologists.
Just because he loves us.
-
God wants to love people, and he wants them to love him back. A person must be able to choose to love, or not love; or else the love isn't real.
If all God wanted were automatic worshippers, there would be no need for free will. But true love requires an opt-in contract.
Shouldn't we regard it as a Good Thing (tm) for God to give us the dignity of making a choice?
Why does God need to be worshipped? Isn't it said somewhere in the bible it's an offence to claim the mind of God, anyways?
First of all, the Bible does say God desires worship and love, so that isn't "claiming" anything. :)
Second of all, God doesn't "need" anything from us. He owns "the cattle on a thousand hills"; he created the universe; etc. He wants to demonstrate love and grace and goodness, and the proper response to that is worship.
Marriage is not all about sex. Sex is (from a holistic viewpoint) only a fringe benefit. Marriage is all about a couple entering into a contract to love and care for one another. You're right; no marriage is guaranteed to (or is even inclined to) work, not automatically anyway. Marriage requires effort on both sides.
Of course sex is a good selection tool; if you plan to have sex with someone on a regular basis, it makes sense that you'd be more inclined to do it with someone you enjoy having sex with. But a marriage that's only about sex is a marriage that's only superficial.
Um, what's that got to do with my quote? Perhaps it'd be clearer if I said "why need marriage before sex?"
Actually, the biblical rule is that once you have sex with someone, you are married to them -- two people becoming one flesh. The marriage "ceremony" is just a public declaration of your intent to enter into a marriage covenant. It's a celebration, which is good; and it's an invitation for friends and family to uphold the marriage, which is also good. But once you have sex, the covenant exists, whether or not you had a ceremony.
So taking this into consideration, "sex before marriage" isn't possible. If you have a bunch of partners, all you're basically doing is marrying and abandoning a whole bunch of people until you find one you like.
So, essentially, God says to kill unbelievers? (because it's not like God discourages conversion, after all.... who'd have thought a diety could be so hypocritical?)
He's not being hypocritical. These people were being wicked; they deserved judgement. So God judged them. God extends mercy in certain situations and in certain ways, but he is under no obligation to show mercy in particular circumstances. This was just one of those times.
He could have used a natural disaster as his instrument of punishment, as he has on many other occasions, but he wanted to demonstrate clearly to the neighboring nations that he was the one behind it all.
Right....by using men. That makes perfect sense.
Nooooo.....wait a sec. Men. Crikey. You could almost think - and I'm sure we've never seen this before - God was being used to justify the settling of old scores with extreme violence and cruelty.
Not really. The Israelites' quarrel was with the Egyptians; they held no particular animosity to the people in Canaan.
Look at the larger picture. The Israelites had just been divinely rescued through a great series of miracles, and news of their deliverance had spread all over the world. Now the Israelites were invading Canaan, also with God's help. God's objective was to demonstrate his role in both situations. The same God who delivered Israel from Egypt was also helping them invade Canaan.
Exactly. Doesn't make sense at all given the obviously non-monogamous nature of males; the whole 'spreading our seed' trait of our psychology which directly contradicts all this "marriage" bollocks. You'd have thought that God, given he designed us [rather badly, i'd say], would have either programmed out this trait or at the very least preached a polygamous marriage system.
Actually, nothing at all in the Bible prohibits polygamy. On the contrary, God expressly makes provisions for how husbands are to treat their wives, and lays down several rules. (For example, a man should not take the sister of a current wife as a new wife, because they'll become rivals.)
The requirement for a man to have only one wife at a time is a human invention, and a rather recent one at that. IIRC, it was part of Roman culture, and when the Roman Empire established Christianity as a state religion, it became part of Christian practice.
-
First of all, the Bible does say God desires worship and love, so that isn't "claiming" anything.
Second of all, God doesn't "need" anything from us. He owns "the cattle on a thousand hills"; he created the universe; etc. He wants to demonstrate love and grace and goodness, and the proper response to that is worship.
So God doesn't give a damn (appropriately enough) whether you worship him or not when the whole heaven/hell bit is judged?
Actually, the biblical rule is that once you have sex with someone, you are married to them -- two people becoming one flesh. The marriage "ceremony" is just a public declaration of your intent to enter into a marriage covenant. It's a celebration, which is good; and it's an invitation for friends and family to uphold the marriage, which is also good. But once you have sex, the covenant exists, whether or not you had a ceremony.
So taking this into consideration, "sex before marriage" isn't possible. If you have a bunch of partners, all you're basically doing is marrying and abandoning a whole bunch of people until you find one you like.
That seems all rather tenuous; does the biblical rule anticipate either non-reproductive sex or articifical methods (such as surrogate mothers, IVF, etc)?
He's not being hypocritical. These people were being wicked; they deserved judgement. So God judged them. God extends mercy in certain situations and in certain ways, but he is under no obligation to show mercy in particular circumstances. This was just one of those times.
If God doesn't care about worship, and allows free will, then why punish the consequences? If I said to a guy 'fine, throw rocks anywhere you like; I'll join in', and then beat him up for hitting my petunias, isn't that hypocritical?
Not really. The Israelites' quarrel was with the Egyptians; they held no particular animosity to the people in Canaan.
Look at the larger picture. The Israelites had just been divinely rescued through a great series of miracles, and news of their deliverance had spread all over the world. Now the Israelites were invading Canaan, also with God's help. God's objective was to demonstrate his role in both situations. The same God who delivered Israel from Egypt was also helping them invade Canaan.
So God demonstrates his prescence by trying to start a genocidal sectarian war? A diety who could click his metaphorical fingers and replace the entire Canaanite society with a big empty desert and a "God Woz 'Ere" sign, decides to instead get his followers to die and murder for him? (of course, Canaan wasn't utterly destroyed anyways because the southern part of it became Phoenicia; tut-tut to the Israelites then)
What sin was exactly being punished in attacking Canaan, anyways?
(Nitpick: I doubt the Chinese, for example, were much aware of the Israelite 'deliverance')
-
Shagging.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2018;&version=31;
-
So God doesn't give a damn (appropriately enough) whether you worship him or not when the whole heaven/hell bit is judged?
I'm not sure what you mean here, but judgement is about justice, not necessarily worship.
That seems all rather tenuous; does the biblical rule anticipate either non-reproductive sex or articifical methods (such as surrogate mothers, IVF, etc)?
Whether sex results in reproduction or not is irrelevant, as far as the Bible is concerned (see Gank's link).
As for artificial reproduction, consider that these methods have only been around for the past few years and would have been completely irrelevant for most of human history. The Bible says nothing one way or the other about either cloning or IVF.
So I don't think it's tenuous at all. Sex creates a marital bond between two people, regardless of reproduction.
If God doesn't care about worship, and allows free will, then why punish the consequences? If I said to a guy 'fine, throw rocks anywhere you like; I'll join in', and then beat him up for hitting my petunias, isn't that hypocritical?
It's a bit of a leap to claim that "doesn't need" implies "doesn't care".
In any case, God dispenses justice as well as love. I don't know if lack of worship per se is a sin, but theologically that's irrelevant, as people have plenty of sin to deal with regardless of whether they worship God.
So God demonstrates his prescence by trying to start a genocidal sectarian war? A diety who could click his metaphorical fingers and replace the entire Canaanite society with a big empty desert and a "God Woz 'Ere" sign, decides to instead get his followers to die and murder for him? (of course, Canaan wasn't utterly destroyed anyways because the southern part of it became Phoenicia; tut-tut to the Israelites then)
One of the ways God demonstrates his presence is by executing justice. In this particular case, the instrument of justice was war.
What sin was exactly being punished in attacking Canaan, anyways?
"You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them." (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:23;&version=31;)
This is repeated in several places in the Old Testament. Mostly in relation to idolatry, sexual immorality, filicide, and so forth.
-
Pardon me for throwing in a tangent.
I thought I'd stay out of this, but I just wanted to comment:
A marriage that is sexless prior to existing is a marriage more likely to result in strife. The sexual compatability of a couple is a must.
This is a common myth. In fact, one of the major pre-marital predictors of marital satisfaction and stability is little to no premarital sex for both partners. For a concise discussion of this research, you could refer to Jeff Larsen, Ph.D. (not the Far Side guy, but it's the same name) and his book "Should We Stay Together," with a discussion that is very "lay-person" friendly. He has done a wonderful meta-analysis in his scholarly works (available through a scholarly search engine), and they say a lot about this issue.
In short, sexual compatiblity is more accurately the product of the degree to which each partner can be sensitive to the other's needs, wants, and experience. Everything else is mostly just unfounded popular assertions and social constructs that do not hold up under scrutiny.
So, under the weight of the empircal evidence, the exact opposite of the quoted statement is true.
-
I'm not sure what you mean here, but judgement is about justice, not necessarily worship.
So it wouldn't matter one jot at the Pearly Gates about whether or not I was Christian when I died?
Whether sex results in reproduction or not is irrelevant, as far as the Bible is concerned (see Gank's link).
As for artificial reproduction, consider that these methods have only been around for the past few years and would have been completely irrelevant for most of human history. The Bible says nothing one way or the other about either cloning or IVF.
So I don't think it's tenuous at all. Sex creates a marital bond between two people, regardless of reproduction.
Sex exists because of a 'marital bond', surely; because clearly mutual attraction is a necessity prior to consensual intercourse (note; not including prositution in this). What exactly does sex add beyond a swapping of - potentially - bodily fluids?
I mean, I'm not a fan of one night stands and I believe sex is worthless unless it's with someone you genuinely care about, but i'm not sure there's anything there which automatically ramps up a relationship 'state'. Certainly it's a bonding excercise, but also one which requires a strenghtening of a relationship beforehand.
Incidentally, apparently some religions - well, Buddhism at least - include opinions on artificial methods of reproduction. Also, surely an omniprescent god would at least hint on these things, I mean it's not like the Bible was due to be sent back to the copywriters every century, is it?
It's a bit of a leap to claim that "doesn't need" implies "doesn't care".
In any case, God dispenses justice as well as love. I don't know if lack of worship per se is a sin, but theologically that's irrelevant, as people have plenty of sin to deal with regardless of whether they worship God.
Why care? Is god subject to human emotions of want, now?
One of the ways God demonstrates his presence is by executing justice. In this particular case, the instrument of justice was war.
Genocide, you mean. And it failed. D'oh.
"You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them."
This is repeated in several places in the Old Testament. Mostly in relation to idolatry, sexual immorality, filicide, and so forth.
So they were being punished for being different. Wow, we've never seen that in history before.......
-
So it wouldn't matter one jot at the Pearly Gates about whether or not I was Christian when I died?
It might get you bonus points, but if you were good person, it does not REALLY matter what race, color, nationality or religion you are... in the long run anyway.
-
It might get you bonus points, but if you were good person, it does not REALLY matter what race, color, nationality or religion you are...
Well, except if you're gay.
-
It might get you bonus points, but if you were good person, it does not REALLY matter what race, color, nationality or religion you are...
Well, except if you're gay.
:lol:
-
I'm not sure what you mean here, but judgement is about justice, not necessarily worship.
So it wouldn't matter one jot at the Pearly Gates about whether or not I was Christian when I died?
Pedantically, no. Practically, yes.
In other words, everybody has sinned, therefore everybody is automatically bound for hell. Only those covered by Jesus's sacrifice make it into heaven. This would include Christians (excluding "nominal" or "cultural" Christians).
Now the interesting thing is that God judges everybody based on what they know. So for instance, a man in a culture isolated from all outside contact, who nevertheless seeks earnestly after God, based on the natural law written on everybody's hearts, would be an excellent candidate for being covered. The same goes true for anybody who lived before the time of Christ.
On the other hand, if that same man was visited by a missionary and clearly told about Christianity, yet deliberately hardened his heart against it, he would most likely lose his candidacy. This is because his knowledge of God increased but his faith did not increase accordingly.
I think faith is the deciding factor. "Without faith it is impossible to please God" (Hebrews 11:6). You could probably make the case that worship is a facet of faith though.
Sex exists because of a 'marital bond', surely; because clearly mutual attraction is a necessity prior to consensual intercourse (note; not including prositution in this). What exactly does sex add beyond a swapping of - potentially - bodily fluids?
I mean, I'm not a fan of one night stands and I believe sex is worthless unless it's with someone you genuinely care about, but i'm not sure there's anything there which automatically ramps up a relationship 'state'. Certainly it's a bonding excercise, but also one which requires a strenghtening of a relationship beforehand.
Sex creates a physical connection by definition. It also, according to Biblical theology, creates a spiritual connection. Ideally, and usually, it creates an emotional connection, but this has no affect on the other two.
Look at the Old Testament laws regarding rape. If a man rapes a virgin, he is required to take her as a wife. On the other hand, if a man rapes somebody else's wife, he is guilty of adultery. This makes little sense unless rape is actually an act of marriage. And rape is only an act of marriage because sex is.
Incidentally, apparently some religions - well, Buddhism at least - include opinions on artificial methods of reproduction. Also, surely an omniprescent god would at least hint on these things, I mean it's not like the Bible was due to be sent back to the copywriters every century, is it?
That's like saying "surely on omniscient God would hint about stem cell research". Well, it's never mentioned in the Bible, but that's probably because it would have been irrelevant during the vast majority of human history. On the other hand, Christians can form reasonable conclusions based on established theology, exegesis, and (most importantly) prayer.
Now I'm fairly certain that no major Christian denomination prohibits assisted fertilization, for example; but again, sex is the defining marital event, not reproduction. Old Testament laws on sex do not say "if a man sires a child with..." but rather "if a man has sexual relations with...".
Why care? Is god subject to human emotions of want, now?
What do you mean, "subject to"? God is the origin of human emotions. Happiness, sadness, joy, anger, jealousy, pride, humility, love, grief, satisfaction, etc. About the only emotion that God does not have is fear.
Genocide, you mean. And it failed. D'oh.
Yeah, well, the Israelites had a terrible track record of completely following God's commands. :)
So they were being punished for being different. Wow, we've never seen that in history before.......
No, they were punished on God's authority, for breaking God's laws.
-
Pedantically, no. Practically, yes.
In other words, everybody has sinned, therefore everybody is automatically bound for hell. Only those covered by Jesus's sacrifice make it into heaven. This would include Christians (excluding "nominal" or "cultural" Christians).
Now the interesting thing is that God judges everybody based on what they know. So for instance, a man in a culture isolated from all outside contact, who nevertheless seeks earnestly after God, based on the natural law written on everybody's hearts, would be an excellent candidate for being covered. The same goes true for anybody who lived before the time of Christ.
On the other hand, if that same man was visited by a missionary and clearly told about Christianity, yet deliberately hardened his heart against it, he would most likely lose his candidacy. This is because his knowledge of God increased but his faith did not increase accordingly.
I think faith is the deciding factor. "Without faith it is impossible to please God" (Hebrews 11:6). You could probably make the case that worship is a facet of faith though.
So if I'm an aetheist (which, shockingly, I am), yet a perfectly good person, God effectively hates me?
Sex creates a physical connection by definition. It also, according to Biblical theology, creates a spiritual connection. Ideally, and usually, it creates an emotional connection, but this has no affect on the other two.
Look at the Old Testament laws regarding rape. If a man rapes a virgin, he is required to take her as a wife. On the other hand, if a man rapes somebody else's wife, he is guilty of adultery. This makes little sense unless rape is actually an act of marriage. And rape is only an act of marriage because sex is.
You're kidding me - rape must be followed by marriage? Isn't that a convent to torture the victim by reminding them of their abuse? Does the bible understand consensual and non consensual sex?
That's like saying "surely on omniscient God would hint about stem cell research". Well, it's never mentioned in the Bible, but that's probably because it would have been irrelevant during the vast majority of human history. On the other hand, Christians can form reasonable conclusions based on established theology, exegesis, and (most importantly) prayer.
Now I'm fairly certain that no major Christian denomination prohibits assisted fertilization, for example; but again, sex is the defining marital event, not reproduction. Old Testament laws on sex do not say "if a man sires a child with..." but rather "if a man has sexual relations with...".
Um.... an omniscent God would see all human history, not start to end. Unless you're anticipating the end of the planet in, ooh, a century or so it'd seem a perfectly fair thing to hint. We all know, after all, how misleading personal interpretation - the existance of so many churches arguing over the same bloody book indicates that pretty well IMO.
What do you mean, "subject to"? God is the origin of human emotions. Happiness, sadness, joy, anger, jealousy, pride, humility, love, grief, satisfaction, etc. About the only emotion that God does not have is fear.
So God is needy? It's nice to have a vindictive, egotistic person with their finger on the trigger.
No, they were punished on God's authority, for breaking God's laws.
For not being Christian. What - and this is an honest question - had God done for them anyways? What laws did they break? Who told them of these laws, and what case was made? Since when has breaking religious laws been justification for collective genocide, anyways (I'm sure you wouldn't suggest wiping out all Muslims, or Sikhs, or Buddhists, etC)?
-
For not being Christian. What - and this is an honest question - had God done for them anyways? What laws did they break? Who told them of these laws, and what case was made? Since when has breaking religious laws been justification for collective genocide, anyways (I'm sure you wouldn't suggest wiping out all Muslims, or Sikhs, or Buddhists, etC)?
Given that the God of the Old Testament was genocidal, unfair, unjust, vindicive and racist; what exactly do you expect the guy to wish upon non-believers? Baskets of scented candles!?
-
I figured this would be the best place to post my "Hell is awesome" theory.
Ok, so how do you get to Heaven? By being a good Christian. Which means no sex, no drugs, no violence, no partying, no nothing. How do you go to Hell? By having lots of sex, drugs, partying, mosh pits, etc. So where do you think all the fun parties and stuff happen? In Hell! In Heaven, you have none of that, because all of it is a "sin" - so why would you want to go there.
Thus, in conclusion, "Hell is awesome". You don't see any first person shooters set in heaven, do you? ;)
-
:Homer voice: The holy bible, it's the pranksters bible son! :/Homer voice:
:lol:
-
For not being Christian. What - and this is an honest question - had God done for them anyways? What laws did they break? Who told them of these laws, and what case was made? Since when has breaking religious laws been justification for collective genocide, anyways (I'm sure you wouldn't suggest wiping out all Muslims, or Sikhs, or Buddhists, etC)?
Given that the God of the Old Testament was genocidal, unfair, unjust, vindicive and racist; what exactly do you expect the guy to wish upon non-believers? Baskets of scented candles!?
That's largely why I'm aetheist, really. Although, to be fair, the aetheism bit is primarily down to being exposed to the judgemental, hypocritical nature of Abrahamite religion rather than all religion.
There's nothing quite like reading the bible to make me think "Crikey, God's one total bastard, isn't he?".
-
Well, the New Testament God isn't so bad. Sure, he's still completely up himself; talking of 'inheriting the universe' or some such bollocks, but he certainly straightened himself out. He is supposed to be the same God as in the Old Testament, right? I mean, there's wasn't some cosmic switchery-doo between the two Testaments that we mortals missed while we were in the can, was there?
-
Well, the New Testament God isn't so bad. Sure, he's still completely up himself; talking of 'inheriting the universe' or some such bollocks, but he certainly straightened himself out. He is supposed to be the same God as in the Old Testament, right? I mean, there's wasn't some cosmic switchery-doo between the two Testaments that we mortals missed while we were in the can, was there?
Maybe he went to AA.
-
It might get you bonus points, but if you were good person, it does not REALLY matter what race, color, nationality or religion you are...
Well, except if you're gay.
Not necesarily... Depends on what person you are and how you live your life.
AS for other religions - someone born in a jewish/islamic/christianic family will in 99,9% cases take on the religion of his parents.
All of them belive in a single God (just call him by a different name and worship him differently) As long as a person is good and just he is a prime candidate for Heaven..
-
Almost forgot, there is a big difference betwene the two testaments- one must take into the account the time and specific geopolitical and historical circumstances sorroundgin the writing of both and the mental state of humanity.
The old testament was passed down like a story for generation before being written down (and thus is probably coloured and influnced by the people who carried it over). It's also not far fetched that some powerfull religious leders of that time put some views of their own in there (for instance, the meat thing).
Regardless, there is also the problem of translating and interpreting the Bible..
That's why I'm sticking to hte New Testament a lot more than hte old one.. and that's wh I leave tje interpretation to people more knowledgable (ion history, language nad theology) than I.
-
It might get you bonus points, but if you were good person, it does not REALLY matter what race, color, nationality or religion you are...
Well, except if you're gay.
Not necesarily... Depends on what person you are and how you live your life.
AS for other religions - someone born in a jewish/islamic/christianic family will in 99,9% cases take on the religion of his parents.
All of them belive in a single God (just call him by a different name and worship him differently) As long as a person is good and just he is a prime candidate for Heaven..
I'd suggest that 99.9% figure to be vastly overinflated, otherwise the church wouldn't be declining so dramatically in 'established christian' countries (at least 15% each year in the UK).
Almost forgot, there is a big difference betwene the two testaments- one must take into the account the time and specific geopolitical and historical circumstances sorroundgin the writing of both and the mental state of humanity.
The old testament was passed down like a story for generation before being written down (and thus is probably coloured and influnced by the people who carried it over). It's also not far fetched that some powerfull religious leders of that time put some views of their own in there (for instance, the meat thing).
Regardless, there is also the problem of translating and interpreting the Bible..
That's why I'm sticking to hte New Testament a lot more than hte old one.. and that's wh I leave tje interpretation to people more knowledgable (ion history, language nad theology) than I.
If you're going to adopt the bible as the word of God, then you can't pick and choose which bits are 'coloured and influenced', because then it's simply cherry picking to remove the inconvenient bits (like Genesis). And you're absolutely right - the catholic church (for example) has a history of modifying via translation to make the bible more palatable, and eventually it's going to become an 'interpretation' rather than literal translation (if not already); in which case it exists, not as the supposed word of god, but as some clerics propaganda....
-
it wasn't god that changed between testaments, it was the people he was talking to
society develops, and even from an athiestic view this can make sense to you, that a more barbaric civilization would interpret things.... differently
god just finally got a voice to cut that second hand bull**** <and then of course he let his buddies write everything down, frustrating>
there are logical reasons for the discontinuity that are not breaking
-
So god changes himself to suit the whims of man? Not very diefic, in my view.
-
no man changes and thus his perception of god changes
I apoligize for inclarity
-
no man changes and thus his perception of god changes
I apoligize for inclarity
And yet surely a diety with omniscence would present the image that, across all generations, he wished to show? I mean, the bible is taking about direct commandments from god to kill x and y for not being christian, it strikes me that the intent behind that type of instruction is pretty unequivocal regardless of your social and historical viewpoint.
-
Well, the New Testament God isn't so bad. Sure, he's still completely up himself; talking of 'inheriting the universe' or some such bollocks, but he certainly straightened himself out. He is supposed to be the same God as in the Old Testament, right? I mean, there's wasn't some cosmic switchery-doo between the two Testaments that we mortals missed while we were in the can, was there?
Maybe he went to AA.
Hi, I'm god... I'm a power freak who likes manipulating people...
Hi god.
"So god, what brought you here?"
Well... I realized that turning a woman into a pillar of salt Star Trek: The Original Series style wouldn't be taken seriously.
Ha! Pillar of Salt? At least I do things like tear Phlan out of the sky and surround the Moonsea with a vale of fog! Damn... stupid... aventurers and incompetent Zhents...
"Bane, this isn't about you..."
Hrmm... tearing Jerusalem out of the ground? Haven't thought of that yet. Definately that will show them that the Zoroastrainists are the one true believers of my faith as opposed to these damned Christians, Jews, Muslims who are all going straight to hell. Thanks!
"That's not what we're supposed to be learning here..."
-
As I hinted at earlier, if one stops at the Bible when examining the Christian God, the result will be an incomplete picture. The Bible is Christianity's founding mythology, but deeper examinations of Christian spirituality come from elsewhere, especially the medieval mystics.
-
no man changes and thus his perception of god changes
I apoligize for inclarity
And yet surely a diety with omniscence would present the image that, across all generations, he wished to show? I mean, the bible is taking about direct commandments from god to kill x and y for not being christian, it strikes me that the intent behind that type of instruction is pretty unequivocal regardless of your social and historical viewpoint.
free will also means the free will to misunderstand, there seem to be a set of lines in the sand in terms of making things obvious to everyone
-
I'm reluctant to get involved in this as I am just about certain everyone here already has an opinion they aren't willing to relinquish, but here goes...
The discrepancy between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New always bothered me. To an extent, it still does, but I think the best way to think about it is that humanity has done a lot of growing up during all that time. In a parent-child relationship, the parent does not deal with the child the same way the entire time. To start out with, there are a lot of rules because a child cannot be trusted to make sound decisions about important things. They just don't know any better yet. They are still learning. But, as the child grows up, the relationship changes. The child gradually gets more and more freedom, and with that freedom, responsibility to make the right choices on its own not because they will get a spanking if they don't, but because it is the "right thing to do."
So, I don't think God changed so much as our relationship with him changed. [shrug] Take that where you will.
-
Actually, that's where my theory about Jesus comes in.
He came as "one of us" and was sacrificed, then went to Hell (Evil) and Purgatory (neutrals) and brought all those people in Purgatory to Heaven (get out of jail free card, cause Purgatory was now obsolete, no one goes there anymore, it's heaven or hell only).
Wow, if you were in that category you were supposed to spend "Eternity" in purgatory but that only lasted a few thousand years. (God's clock must be off a LITTLE). OPPS! My bad we don't NEED a Purgatory anymore. Is this evidence of God's first Mistake?
Which brings up a more disturbing thought... WE are not infallible and since we are made in "God's Image" if that goes beyond mere appearance but substance as well GOD might also make a flub now and then, but on a COSMIC scale we might not be able to grasp yet.
God figured, "****, this old testament stuff isn't working. I need a new marketing plan or it's ALL going to Hell. Ok preach peace, love, and repentance only and you get in the door (meaning Heaven). THAT should be so easy even an idiot can follow that. And on top of that you can't blame me anymore..." ;)
Nowadays the only belief that gets me through the day is that BILLIONS have died to make the Source Code Project possible (whether they knew it or not is irrelevant) it was FOR THE CAUSE!!!. :yes: God's Plan in action... :)
-
The way I see it, Jesus and God had two distinctive personalities in the New Testament. Even in the New Testament God was not opposed to a little smiting, remember that when Jesus was on the cross, the skies darkened, a huge storm was brewing and Jesus saved the Romans by saying, "Forgive them Father, They know not what they do!"