www.ditl.org

Well who wouldnt want a Virginaian

Wow, I fall asleep and two whole pages come up during that time.
Anyway, responding to Peabody's earlier reply to me.

Excuse me, but I don't think that murdering millions of innocent Jews in cold blood exactly fits in with the spirit of "Whatever you do to the least of these, you do to me." So I think I have answered you.

Actually, as I pointed out, the Bible does encourage such slaughters.
In fact the very first rule in the second set of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 34:12 to 34:26, King James version) tells followers to:
Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves: For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.
Also, the Thou shalt not kill line does not even appear in the second set at all.

Because even the nicest, kindest person on Earth is still a sinner, a breaker of God's laws, and thus deserving of damnation.

Why? How has he sinned? Why is he treated no differently than the mass murderer? Rather unfair, don't you think?

Well, how many 'unpleasant people' do you know who are atheists? Bhuddists?

Red herring. Where did I ever even mention another religion?
All I pointed out is that there are a lot of genocidal maniacs in history, who did all that in God's name.

Actually, original sin is the most evident and obvious Christian doctrine. It merely says that we are by nature corrupted and prone to sin...is there really anyone here who doesn't believe that?

Yeah, it's human nature to want to steal, kill, covet thy neighbours wife, etc. So....why did God make us like this?

Granitehewer wrote:Ps Rochey, yes hitler was initially a catholic, and stalin was in a seminary to be a man of the cloth at one point, and lets not forget rasputin the mad monk, but we both could easily counter that with examples of despots and tyrants who have been at the helm of genocides, who have not related it to religion, for example pol pot and the killing fields of cambodia

Why does everyone seem to think I'm saying there was no non-christian psychopaths? Yes, there were plenty of genocides not caused by religion. I never said there wasn't.

Am I the only one that dislikes religious debate?

If you don't like them dont read them. I find other peoples opinions interesting.

Am I the only one that dislikes religious debate?

Probably not. But as Teaos said, we're not forcing you to read them.

Just remember, Rochey: claiming to have done something "in G-d's name" and actually basing your motivation on true religious principles are two very different things.

I know that. What I'm pointing out is that the Bible does encourage such actions.

The Bible describes times when such actions were undertaken, and perhaps condones them more than one might suspect - but it certainly doesn't encourage genocide as a hobby, or anything like that. And every example you've given is based on vainly claiming religious mandate, NOT on actually deriving motivation from the true principles of a religion.

Ok I don't have a Bible on hand at the moment sinve there isnt one in the house but there is a passage in the Old Testament that basically says your allowed to keep slaves so long as they are not of your nation and you can treat them as you like so long as you dont damage their teath of eyes. I always remember that since I find the bit about teath rather random.

It also says to kill anyone who tries to lead you away from your lord. This is vauge enough that people can say that by just existing they are trying to lead people away and thus you can kill them.

People claim the Bible is a great moral code to live your life by. Its a crap moral code with many contradictions and acts of evil. If you want a moral code to live by take one of the eastern ones that preach universal peace.

Teaos, I agree completely. Most of the people I have met who claim the Bible is a great moral standard have never actualy read it in the first place. Like I pointed out above, "Thou shalt not kill" was completely ommited from the second set of the Ten Commandmants. And lets not forget the many minor things which you would be put to death for, such as swearing at your parents.

Mikey wrote:The Bible describes times when such actions were undertaken, and perhaps condones them more than one might suspect - but it certainly doesn't encourage genocide as a hobby, or anything like that.

Well, there's the commandment I posted above, encouraging the killing of anyone who doesn't follow God. Then there's Ezekiel 9:5, where God outlines his prescribed treatment for idol worshippers:

show no pity; slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women

Then in Joshua 10:28-40, Joshua indiscriminately murders "all who breathed", including women and children, in the cities of Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, Eglon, Hebron, and Debir. All of these atrocities were ordered by God, and all of them were committed against cities that had done nothing except for the victimless crime of occupying land that God had promised the Israelites.

That day Joshua took Makkedah. He put the city and its king to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it. He left no survivors. And he did to the king of Makkedah as he had done to the king of Jericho.

Then Joshua and all Israel with him moved on from Makkedah to Libnah and attacked it. The LORD also gave that city and its king into Israel's hand. The city and everyone in it Joshua put to the sword. He left no survivors there. And he did to its king as he had done to the king of Jericho.

Then Joshua and all Israel with him moved on from Libnah to Lachish; he took up positions against it and attacked it. The LORD handed Lachish over to Israel, and Joshua took it on the second day. The city and everyone in it he put to the sword, just as he had done to Libnah. Meanwhile, Horam king of Gezer had come up to help Lachish, but Joshua defeated him and his army--until no survivors were left.

Then Joshua and all Israel with him moved on from Lachish to Eglon; they took up positions against it and attacked it. They captured it that same day and put it to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it, just as they had done to Lachish.

Then Joshua and all Israel with him went up from Eglon to Hebron and attacked it. They took the city and put it to the sword, together with its king, its villages and everyone in it. They left no survivors. Just as at Eglon, they totally destroyed it and everyone in it.

Then Joshua and all Israel with him turned around and attacked Debir. They took the city, its king and its villages, and put them to the sword. Everyone in it they totally destroyed. They left no survivors. They did to Debir and its king as they had done to Libnah and its king and to Hebron.

So Joshua subdued the whole region, including the hill country, the Negev, the western foothills and the mountain slopes, together with all their kings. He left no survivors. He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the LORD, the God of Israel, had commanded.

Maybe not genocide as such, but mass murder nonetheless.

And every example you've given is based on vainly claiming religious mandate, NOT on actually deriving motivation from the true principles of a religion.

All I'm doing is showing that the Bible does condone mass murder and such for little to no reason.

I obviously cannot disagree with you - what is written is written - although The Old Testament prescribes far better treatment of slaves than Teaos described. I have never claimed that there were no horrific killings described in the Bible. However, the Bible must also be taken in context. The earliest parts were written to differntiate a "monolatry" rather than a modern monotheism, which was the necessary first step to creating a monotheism.

Enslavement of defeated enemies was a common practice of the day. Rather than alienate the prospective readers of the Bible, Scripture rather allows for this common practice, and merely tries to effect its own morality into the practice.

Conquest is treated similarly. The important thing to remember is that the Bible is extraordinarliy old, and does not lend itself to fundamentalism. If so, we would all have to be grain farmers in order to follow the commandment of leaving the corners of our fields unreaped, in order to allow the poor to harvest.Any one particular part of Scripture may be taken on its own to justify any sort of action we wish to take; this fundamentalism, lack of context, and rigid interpretation have been used to justify any number of the things during history that have been ennumerated in this discussion; but this is not the entirety of the message of the Bible.

In addition, my own belief is that many parts of the Bible describing G-d's wrath - effected through human hands - are allegorical, and intended to instill a good deal of fear and loathing toward some common (and terrible, to our way of thinking) practices contemporary to the Old Testament. Such practices such as sacrificing infants to Ba'al, for example, weren't as abhorrent then as they are now, and required such stories to instill the proper amount of fear of divinely-inspired retribution against these practices.

That example shows up in a different way in some apocryphal Christian mythology. "Ba'alzebul," later corrupted into the name Beelzebub, is a term for the devil, no doubt inspired by the desire to further demonize (no pun intended) the name of a popular pagan cult at the time of the settlement of the Hebrews in Canaan.

Enslavement of defeated enemies was a common practice of the day. Rather than alienate the prospective readers of the Bible, Scripture rather allows for this common practice, and merely tries to effect its own morality into the practice.

I know it was common back then, but this does not change the fact that it is moraly wrong.

Conquest is treated similarly. The important thing to remember is that the Bible is extraordinarliy old, and does not lend itself to fundamentalism. If so, we would all have to be grain farmers in order to follow the commandment of leaving the corners of our fields unreaped, in order to allow the poor to harvest.

Of course, we simply cannot follow the Bible and still live in a modern society.

Any one particular part of Scripture may be taken on its own to justify any sort of action we wish to take; this fundamentalism, lack of context, and rigid interpretation have been used to justify any number of the things during history that have been ennumerated in this discussion;

Of course it can. That's my point, you can justify all sorts of horific things with the Bible, even without taking it out of context.

but this is not the entirety of the message of the Bible.

No, it isn't. Jesus was, for the most part, a nice guy. And the original Ten Commandments weren't too bad. But why should people be allowed to pick and choose which parts to believe? Who's word should we take as more important, God's or Jesus'? Which set of the Ten Commandments should we use, the first or the second? Should we believe in the great flood? Should we follow the rules as laid down in Leviticus?

In addition, my own belief is that many parts of the Bible describing G-d's wrath - effected through human hands - are allegorical, and intended to instill a good deal of fear and loathing toward some common (and terrible, to our way of thinking) practices contemporary to the Old Testament.

That's a more sensible outlook to take on it. But isn't it described specificaly as the word of God?

. Such practices such as sacrificing infants to Ba'al, for example, weren't as abhorrent then as they are now, and required such stories to instill the proper amount of fear of divinely-inspired retribution against these practices.

What about the stories where God's side massacred children? They didn't do much to vilify it there.

Teaos, I agree completely. Most of the people I have met who claim the Bible is a great moral standard have never actualy read it in the first place.

Actually, this really isn't a problem for Christians, since we are no longer bound by Old Testament laws and regulations. No Christian could ever take part in such mass-murder today, as a result of Jesus's commandments; in fact, when his disciples attempted to act in such a stead, he always rebuked them; for example, when he was travelling through (I think) Samaria, the inhabitants refused to give him hospitality (which back then was a big, big deal), his Disciples immediately wanted to call down fire from Heaven and consume them. But Jesus rebuked them, and told them they did not know "What manner of spirit you are of."
Back in the Old Testament days, God was attempting to set up his 'chosen people' and keep them alive in what was at the time a very violent world. But Jesus's commandments do not allow anything of the kind.
As for the codes of Leviticus, etc, these are also superseded by Jesus's teachings.

Am I the only one that dislikes religious debate?

Pretty much.

Rochey wrote:

Am I the only one that dislikes religious debate?

Probably not. But as Teaos said, we're not forcing you to read them.

I just meant in general. I am obviously not saying to stop or anything. Although it has not happened here, I find that most religious discussions get nasty after a short time. This discussion seems to be a bit more general and historical than most. It does not seem to be a "This is what I believe in and you are going to heck for what you believe" type debate that I have seen elsewhere.

It is hard to have a solid discussion on various religions simply because all religions require a level of faith. When faith is involved the foundations of the discussions tend to slid around a little. By that I mean that one person's faith does not necessarily match another person's faith and therefore they may not agree on "fundimental facts" to base the discussion on. Sort of moving target type of thing. Slippery slope. Whatever other analogy might fit.

It is quite cool that you guys are able to keep it going this long without it getting ugly.

Jim: Actually, I take just the opposite view on religious discussion. I have always hated the taboo that says that you can't discuss religion because its a matter of 'personal conscience.' So, in other words, the mistakes of a fictional Starfleet captain are worth discussing, but a man's opinion on the ultimate nature of reality and the universe are not.
But I would agree that too often such debates turn into excuses to show how much the arguers hate each other... But that's not always the case.

I put it down to our mutual love of Star Trek.