Is the Bible really out of date? (page 4)

designs

I am a Born Again Atheist, I was born an atheist and by the grace of God I have been returned to my roots

On the retarding influence of morality derived from the Bible accounts, eg slavery, don't forget about Genesis 9:25, where Jehovah sentences the descendents of Ham to serve as slaves to the others (interpreted by many Christians as the blacks who inhabited Africa: how convenient to ease a guilty conscience, BTW!), even COMMANDING that slavery be instituted and practiced to PUNISH Ham's descendents right after the Flood. The curse God put on the children of Ham gave scriptural justification to claim God's blessing to buy and sell slaves:

The story of the curse put upon Ham, his son Canaan and their descendants played a pivotal role in Christian objections to the abolition of slavery during the 19th century. The descendants of Ham were considered by some Biblical literalists to be have been divinely selected as slaves to the 'higher' races:

"Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers". (Genesis 9:25).

One book on the subject by the Presbyterian minister Josiah Priest, 'Bible Defence Of Slavery: On The Origin, History And Fortunes Of The Negro Race’, proved so popular it was reprinted eight times in the first five years after it's publication in 1843. Another highly influential work taking a literal Biblical view, as well as a pseudoscientific approach, was ‘Essai Sur l’inégalité des Races Humaines’ or ‘Inequality of the Human Races’ by Arthur de Gobineau, first published in French in 1853. The following passage from de Gobineau succinctly demonstrates the extreme nature of the wholly unscientific views a literal interpretation of the Bible has taken us:

".......there is nothing to show that, in the view of the first compilers of the Adamite genealogies, those outside the white race were counted as part of the species at all”.

Adam

adamah

Jeffro said-

The Bible only suggests that marrying one's sister is against the Mosaic law - which Christians can apparently ignore. Abraham was purportedly married to his half-sister.

Yeah, that's an interesting case, as Exodus clearly reveals that he asked his wife/half-sister to DECEIVE OTHERS by only revealing the 'sister' bit, "forgetting" to tell potential suitors that she was MARRIED to Abraham, even profiting from the deception in order to ACCEPT gifts from Egyptian men, and counting on God's angels to protect them to profit from the little confidence scheme. Moral? Hardly, unless you think profiting from deceiving others by deception is ethical or moral, as the account would indicate it IS.

Perry, you need to Google for "Pascal's Wager Fallacy", as you're wasting the only life you'll EVER have, based on some common logical fallacies/traps. After all, you DO place the search for TRUTHS above DESIRES to hold onto comforting beliefs and falsehoods, supported not by FACTS, but by needs to appeal to a need to FAITH?

(I'm asking because the FACT is, some people DON'T value truths above faith, and you may be one of those people.)

Adam

jam

MP: In regards to Matt;19:12. Males born without penis one in 5-6 million, people born with red hair 1-2% of the human population. So it is definitely a rarity. This is the point I was making. In the ancient world, including ancient culture ( as reflected in the Talmud) "natural" or "born" eunchs were not associated with missing johnson (testicles). Rather, they were associated with sterotypically effeminate characteristics and behavior (just like modern gay men). Moreover, eunuchs were commomly associated with homosexual desires. As a reasonably informed person of his time, Jesus would have been aware of this common view of eunuchs. Yet he matter- of-fact asserts that some people are simply born that way. A profound statement, God created gay people the way they are.

Perry

If I am put on trial by a loving God I have nothing to fear Perry.

What you are saying is that God is good. And, you are right. He is a good God. He is also a good judge.

The love you speak about that would give you a pardon on your judgment day is ONLY offered through the blood of Jesus, the New Covenant. It's free in the sense that you don't have to work for it. It is costly because it will cost you your ego and pride.

You can have your ego, or you can have God's pardon, but you cant have both.

cofty

I used to revel in the christian gospel - forgiven and justified by Jesus' blood who died for my sins. Adopted as a child of god and safe for eternity.

I now find the concept of vicarious punishment to be repulsive.

Get off you knees. You were not born in sin and there is no judgement to come.

Superstition is the enemy of human progress.

frankiespeakin

" The Bible is timeless and does not change, nor does the Father or Jesus."

Pure wishful thinking, not to mention magical thinking and extremely black and white.

Diest

Perry it is ok that it took God to change you. Some of us can find our own way, and others need a sky daddy to waggle his finger at them. If threats of eternal punishments are what you needed that ok. Just remember that some people grow up and dont need a father figure to guide them.

Perry

I now find the concept of vicarious punishment to be repulsive.

There is a prolific poster on here named Terry. He went to prison for avoiding the draft (and alternative service) at the behest of Watchtower policy.

He wrote one time that his dear mother asked the FBI agents (or some such authority) if she could somehow serve his sentence for him because he was so young. It was a natural desire for someone with a strong enough love bond.

The idea of substitutionary atonement is ETCHED or hardwired into our consciousness. It is the basis for many of our greatest literary stories. And, it is as simple as a mother wishing to take the punishment due her son for herself......which is exactly what God did.

In the classic book and movie Last of the Mohicans, the theme of substitution is illustrated to the fullest. In the below clip, the Indian Cheif had just declared that the brunette daughter of the British general would die to avenge the loss of Magua's children. Then, Daniel Day Lewis tellls the chief in English that he would offer himself to die in her place.

However, the british officer had to translate the request into french to the French-allied chief. In that translation, he did not do it correctly. Instead, he offered himself to die in her place. Both men loved her. The chief agreed to the exchange.

When they took the british officer to be killed, Daniel Day Lewis understands what the british officer had done, and starts screaming "Take Me, Take Me". This is where the clip begins:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tiKM4fxY1U

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.- Jn 15: 13

designs

Perry, you should at least acknowledge that 'substitute' sacrifices and atonements were twisted by 'Paul' as can be read in Romans and Hebrews among his other writings. Apparently James Fenimore Cooper was influenced by 'Paul' and not the Jewish Rabbis who could have straightened him out about 'original sin' and substitute atonements.

In Jewish literature God does not come down to 'save' Adam in some substitution but Adam saves himself through repentence and each person does the same for themselves alone, that is the point of the Sabbath. The Christians should at least acknowledge they have made up their own version.

Is the Bible really out of date?

Share this