Rescuing The Bible From Fundmentalism

[Coolhand]

Homosexuality has been around just as long bro

I understand why you want to avoid the issue. I just thought that had to be stated.

Right, I agree.

Edited November 4, 2010 by Coolhand

[Dan56]

I would be equally opposed to the Jewish laws too as I see them as equally barbaric. Yet, being opposed is not the same thing as wanting to wipe the people out. So no I doubt I would have joined you in mass killings.

Sorry to hear that... Laws with no teeth are useless and ineffective. Your anti-violence stand is admirable, but I doubt it would have brought much comfort to those poor Canaanite kids who were being used as roman candles?

I have found that I believe you are being deliberately blind on this topic. See:- what the bible says about it.

If I'm blind, its not deliberately. Why do you suppose the passage suddenly turns from sacrifice to virginity? Why did Jephthah's daughter suddenly request 2 months to bewail her virginity? (Judges 11:37). She was sad over the fact that she would never marry, not that she was going to die. The daughter didn't bewail her coming death, but her virginity. Does that make sense to you? Did God flip-flop against his own law? At the end of two months, the daughter returned to her father, and he carried out his vow (now notice what it says) "She knew no man." That was the sacrifice made imo.

They perish because of another barbarism rather than it being God's actions. I mean if God wants to remove a people do you think he needs the help of man.

Imo, it was a test of faith and obedience for Israel.

I'm sure Jesus would have been right by your side with a sword in his hand helping to.

You are correct sir, we know the Lord was certainly with Joshua.

Where were the priests or prophets of God who preached to those towns about God. I don't remember hearing anything about anyone who done so.

I guess for the same reason God hasn't sent any preachers to preach to Osama bin Laden, it would have been a suicide mission.

Yes your God it seems from the way you portray him is one full of Justice and lacking any forgiveness or compassion for mankind.

Forgiveness is there for the asking... If your idea of compassion is a God who stands idly by while people burn children alive in sacrifice to false gods, then I think your asking a bit much?

[Coolhand]

Forgiveness is there for the asking... If your idea of compassion is a God who stands idly by while people burn children alive in sacrifice to false gods, then I think your asking a bit much?

Yeah, good point Dan, who was the advocate for those children? It appears that YHWH was on their side.

[Youch]

It is thought by many scientists that the land will drop into the sea in fragments rather than all at once and is therefore it is thought unlikely to carry the full force described but who knows. Its a bit like Los Angeles and it being built on a earthquake fault or the yellowstone park potential for a mega volcano, they have strong possibilities that they will happen one day and if it does it is more to do with nature and the places mankind chooses to live rather than the rantings of a self made prophet (IMO).

Either you meant to say "thought by many science fictionists" or it is utter nonsense. Nothing in plate techtonics could lead anyone to think what you are suggesting.

[Youch]

I'm assuming one of those condemned behaviors of which you speak is homosexuality. With the growing genetic evidence that many people are born with such sexual orientations how can one justify such condemnation.

After all people are born chimeras, hermaphrodites and every other genetic combination possible.

Would a just God allow children to be born condemned from birth? What I do think these births speak highly of is that God plays no hand in the process of DNA recombining and spitting out a random pair of 23 chromosome that becomes humans. He may have created the process and engines which makes it possible, but it is quite clear to me he does not get involved in the random outcomes.

True. People are born with a whole host of abnormalities, and none should be "condemned" by any religion or otherwise.

"Random outcomes" such as the whole host of abnormalities SHOULD be dealt with by way of natural selection. But today, it is cleary not. What religion has to say about that I will leave to others.

It seems to me that many of you are talking about things outside the realm of nature. The super-natural, perhaps?

Edited November 5, 2010 by Hooka

[Brother Michael Sky]

I hear ya. Ever since I took a class in research and writing, I always have to ask if a person is quoting original sources, for example: reading what was the cited by the original author in the original language it was written and being the interpreter, versus, reading another person’s translation of what the original author said in a different language. Do you see the difference?

The reason I ask this because I like to save work that I can use in my academic work, such as an annotated bibliography or a critical review. However, I think my professors will fail to see the value in "The Long Island Mystic" who writes with no academic credential or authority.

Imagine how carefully he would critique you if you did start using Cronshaw as a source - He'd walk on eggshells... ... wondering for your sanity.... but thats just how it is...... I admit to reading his words and checking his sources just to follow his train of thought... some of it will get your mind spinning with ideas... but you ALWAYS have to make up your own mind.... thats just being reasonable...

and yes, I understand what you mean very well.... and yet I still had a completely different picture in my mind of that conversation I mentioned, than how it turned out to strike me when I did first read it... There was something visceral about taking that conversation in..Reading of Origins life and history in the foreward..... The impression you get of Celsus ... The topics, the insinuations, heck ... the very nature of the fact Celsus' part is fragmentary.... like I said... I like to read it once in a while... a moment in time...

I'm rather excited, as my sister implies that she has a four book set, about the Jews lives, experiences, and influences, during the early years of Christianity... in literature of the period... she's been at the thrift store again... sound like she hit gold, huh?

Edited November 5, 2010 by Brother Michael Sky

[Pete]

<br />If I'm blind, its not deliberately. Why do you suppose the passage suddenly turns from sacrifice to virginity? Why did Jephthah's daughter suddenly request 2 months to bewail her virginity? (Judges 11:37). She was sad over the fact that she would never marry, not that she was going to die. The daughter didn't bewail her coming death, but her virginity. Does that make sense to you? Did God flip-flop against his own law? At the end of two months, the daughter returned to her father, and he carried out his vow (now notice what it says) <b>"She knew no man."</b> That was the sacrifice made imo. <br /> <br /><br />Imo, it was a test of faith and obedience for Israel. <br /><br /><br />You are correct sir, we know the Lord was certainly with Joshua. <br /><br /><br />I guess for the same reason God hasn't sent any preachers to preach to Osama bin Laden, it would have been a suicide mission.<br /><br /><br />Forgiveness is there for the asking... If your idea of compassion is a God who stands idly by while people burn children alive in sacrifice to false gods, then I think your asking a bit much?<br />

<br /><br /><br />

Dan, I gave you the verses. I pointed out that the only vow that was made was to sacrifice the first thing by fire that came to greet the father. There was no other vow to be carried out. Sure she was burned as a virgin. Not that I am sure made much diffence to her.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Pete

[Cornelius]

2Ki 2:22 So the waters were healed unto this day, according to the word of Elisha which he spake.

2Ki 2:23 And he went up from thence unto Beth–el: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

2Ki 2:24 And he looked behind him and saw them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she–bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

2Ki 2:25 And he went from thence to mount Carmel, and from thence he returned to Samaria.

Apparently Jehova sides with old bald men over children.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Blackthorn

[Fawzo]

That and there is that wonderful verse in Matt 5:-

¹⁸ For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. ¹⁹ Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

So I guess Fawzo we should get some stones and build a large fire and start killing just so we can find a higher place in heaven.

I know you will not and neither will I, so I will see you in the lower ranks of heaven.

I think these verses are one of the reasons why the Judaic branches of Christianity such as the Ebonites and others held to the Gsopel of Matthew. What is odd though is that Jesus and his Apostles didn't exactly follow the cleanliness laws or the ones on Sabbath.

Then there are also the verses which seem to state otherwise:

Ephesians 2:13-15

But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

Hebrews 7:18-19

The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

[Fawzo]

Since that is such a hotly contested debate I would prefer to AVOID a discussion about homosexuality because it only brings out the worst in everybody; and is unnecessary anyway.

I would argue that if the redemptive-hermeneutic is to be recognized and practiced towards moving past the New Testament like you had originally suggested, I would suggest that actually getting past racism and reverse racism would be a sufficient start, since that is still a problem being dealt with that has been with mankind since mankind has had races.

I would suggest that if mankind can ever get past racism that along that path he will discover some valuable tools to understanding the homosexual issue.

Racism is the bigger issue, the problem has existed longer, it affects a larger number of people, and is more important in my opinion.

Racism, homophobia, religious and political bigotry are all the results of intolerance. Being fearful of people who are different than you and treating them in a negative manner, Whether they think, look or act differently. The reason they do think, look or act differently is due to genetics and the area in which they were enculturenated.

Fear and judgement is the basis for the problem and love and compssion is the answer. Perfect love and experiential knowledge of the Spirit of God casteth out fear from my viewpoint. That which does not cast out fear, but which engenders the judgemental mindset which fans the flames is not of God IMHO.

However I will state that it may be quite possible that a person with utter and complete experiential knowledge of God who is trying to convey understanding to a group of ignorant goat herders may resort to such tactics, much in the same manner we use stories of the Bogeyman and other myths for our children.

Imagine trying to teach redemptive-hermeneutics to a Pre-K class.

[Fawzo]

Yeah, good point Dan, who was the advocate for those children? It appears that YHWH was on their side.

Yea he sure advocated for the children in those 30 cities where Joshua and the boys were running them through with the sword. You seem to think there is some distinction between throwing a child in a fire or running a child through with a sword or smashing his head in. I wonder if Joshua and the boys burned any of the houses when they were plundering and if any moms with their small children were in hiding and wound up getting burned to death.

What of all the children in Great Flood, or the ones in Sodom and Gomorrah and the first born of Egypt. Yes thank God he appears to be on their side!!!!

[Fawzo]

You are correct sir, we know the Lord was certainly with Joshua.

Lol yes Dan I figured you would respond thusly.

Yes I imagine Jesus sitting right above Joshua's right shoulder rooting him on and giving him strength while Joshua rams his sword right through the heart of a terrified two year old and Jesus is thinking while the blood and guts squirts everywhere that He loves these kids and poor people we are killing so much that in 1500 years I'm going to give my life for them.

You see anything obviously very not right about that picture!?!?!?!?!

I guess for the same reason God hasn't sent any preachers to preach to Osama bin Laden, it would have been a suicide mission.

How dare you insult God! You mean to tell me he could not protect his chosen ones if he so desired?

Forgiveness is there for the asking... If your idea of compassion is a God who stands idly by while people burn children alive in sacrifice to false gods, then I think your asking a bit much?

I'll repost my response for Coolhand for you here. Millions of these children would have loved if he would have only sat idly by!

Yea he sure advocated for the children in those 30 cities where Joshua and the boys were running them through with the sword. You seem to think there is some distinction between throwing a child in a fire or running a child through with a sword or smashing his head in. I wonder if Joshua and the boys burned any of the houses when they were plundering and if any moms with their small children were in hiding and wound up getting burned to death.

What of all the children in Great Flood, or the ones in Sodom and Gomorrah and the first born of Egypt. Yes thank God he appears to be on their side!!!!

Apparently Jehova sides with old bald men over children.

They even have video!!!

Edited November 5, 2010 by Fawzo

[Pete]

It also seems although the giving of children to fire was to the Ammonites God Molech, (a belief in giving ones children to their God via the use of fie), it also needs noting that they were not the only ones.

See:- http://www.jewishenc...id=718&letter=M

It also has to be noted that Solomon built a temple to Molech.

1 Kings 11:7 (King James Version)

⁷Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.

I also note that there was no point in Leviticus 18:21 mentioning this as forbidden if it was not something that the Jewish people were at risk of doing too.

Like I say, the Jewish people of the time were just as barbaric as those they killed (IMO).

Although I note we owe so much to the Jews there seems little point in my opinion of pretending that they were at the time all holy Joes against a mass of other foreign wicked people.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Pete

[Coolhand]

Racism, homophobia, religious and political bigotry are all the results of intolerance. Being fearful of people who are different than you and treating them in a negative manner, Whether they think, look or act differently. The reason they do think, look or act differently is due to genetics and the area in which they were enculturenated.

Fear and judgement is the basis for the problem and love and compssion is the answer. Perfect love and experiential knowledge of the Spirit of God casteth out fear from my viewpoint. That which does not cast out fear, but which engenders the judgemental mindset which fans the flames is not of God IMHO.

However I will state that it may be quite possible that a person with utter and complete experiential knowledge of God who is trying to convey understanding to a group of ignorant goat herders may resort to such tactics, much in the same manner we use stories of the Bogeyman and other myths for our children.

Imagine trying to teach redemptive-hermeneutics to a Pre-K class.

I would argue that your comments are utopian and have little or no grounding in reality. In your picture there we would not need police, the court system, governments, or borders.

I theory I agree with you, but I live in a world that I have to stand up for what is right, and assert what my boundaries are.

Also, every time I have heard someone argue against "intolerance" they actually are in fact being intolerant to someone in the process of perusing this alleged tolerance.

In my opinion have a self-defeating premise.

In your tolerance driven model, how would you deal with murder, lying, theft, and rape?

Yea he sure advocated for the children in those 30 cities where Joshua and the boys were running them through with the sword. You seem to think there is some distinction between throwing a child in a fire or running a child through with a sword or smashing his head in. I wonder if Joshua and the boys burned any of the houses when they were plundering and if any moms with their small children were in hiding and wound up getting burned to death.

What of all the children in Great Flood, or the ones in Sodom and Gomorrah and the first born of Egypt. Yes thank God he appears to be on their side!!!!

So what specifically is your objection?

[Coolhand]

Apparently Jehova sides with old bald men over children.

Yea he sure advocated for the children in those 30 cities where Joshua and the boys were running them through with the sword. You seem to think there is some distinction between throwing a child in a fire or running a child through with a sword or smashing his head in. I wonder if Joshua and the boys burned any of the houses when they were plundering and if any moms with their small children were in hiding and wound up getting burned to death.

What of all the children in Great Flood, or the ones in Sodom and Gomorrah and the first born of Egypt. Yes thank God he appears to be on their side!!!!

Suppose I was to take the position that these are examples of a hateful and vengeful god that is both dastardly and abominable; and hates children.

How would I go about arguing that from what little we know about these alleged accounts?

[Cornelius]

How would I go about arguing that from what little we know about these alleged accounts?

I would assume the same way all the other alleged accounts in the bible are argued.

[Coolhand]

I would assume the same way all the other alleged accounts in the bible are argued.

Based on assumption and presumption you mean?

[Cornelius]

Based on assumption and presumption you mean?

Well Brother. It seems that if something in the bible (which is itself an alleged account even if certain parts match up with history or locations) agrees with what someone wants to think. Well that's what it says and means exactly then they use it to argue their point. A lot of the times in some form of condemnation.

It also seems if something disagrees with someone or has an account that is less then flattering. Well then it says this but actually means that, the root word was translated wrong, its out of context, etc... Or as in your case it becomes an "alleged account". My only point is that using the bible as justification seems to be very selective when it comes to fundamentalism.

Not trying to ruffle your feathers so much as make a point brother. Looking forward to you sermon at 9eastern this sunday night. (shameless plug)

Edited November 5, 2010 by Blackthorn

[Fawzo]

I would argue that your comments are utopian and have little or no grounding in reality. In your picture there we would not need police, the court system, governments, or borders.

I theory I agree with you, but I live in a world that I have to stand up for what is right, and assert what my boundaries are.

Also, every time I have heard someone argue against "intolerance" they actually are in fact being intolerant to someone in the process of perusing this alleged tolerance.

In my opinion have a self-defeating premise.

In your tolerance driven model, how would you deal with murder, lying, theft, and rape?

Well if the trillions of dollars spent on the Defense of countries, entertainers, sports athletes and cosmetics were divided equally among the peoples of the world and used to educate them. It would help raise their self esteem and shed some light on the superstitious religious nonsense which bolsters low self esteem in many cases.

While not totally eliminating the above mentioned vices the decline would be tremendous I do believe.

Once people learn to be tolerant of others and have empathy for their life situations instead of sermonizing and condemning them the level of fear that fills most lives would subside exponentially.

This is my dream and something I think might be possible in the future. In the future those who are contrary to the system would be genetically modified as there will always be those humans who try to use and abuse the system for their own egoic needs of power and control.

What kind of system would Jesus approve of?

So what specifically is your objection?

That a God who is proclaimed to love humans so much that he would sacrifice his only begotten son for them, would be so cruel as to wipe the most innocent of them out as nothing more than the remnants of feces we wipe from our bottoms.

[Fawzo]

Suppose I was to take the position that these are examples of a hateful and vengeful god that is both dastardly and abominable; and hates children.

How would I go about arguing that from what little we know about these alleged accounts?

Would you think that is a plausible scenario, or is it more plausible that these accounts are purely the myths of Bronze Age man who lived in a Barbaric world and projected that back onto Deity.

I think with your high level of education, if you answered the question honestly from both your heart and head the more plausible explanation would be that these accounts are those of man and the facts, if any, are rather sketchy at best.

This Barbaric God is one reason why so many Early Christian groups such as the Marcionites, Manicheans and a host of others detested the Old Testament and it had no place in their Holy Scriptures.