Rescuing The Bible From Fundmentalism

[Pete]

That's what we were missing.....

Hey Pete, What is your objection to the verses you quoted here?

Cool if you cannot see it then whats the point. Open it up an see what others think. Ask if you think these rulings gives one the moral upper ground. Lets put it to the vote?

[Coolhand]

Cool if you cannot see it then whats the point. Open it up an see what others think. Ask if you think these rulings gives one the moral upper ground. Lets put it to the vote?

I opened up the link and discovered that the "Retard of the Month" section development appears to be....uh.....well....a bit retarded. The last entry is October 2006.

Anyway Pete, you must have an objection to those verses that you can clearly articulate, or I would assume that you would not have posted them.

And who are Christians supposed to kill? I must have missed that one in my Bible studies.

[Pete]

I opened up the link and discovered that the "Retard of the Month" section development appears to be....uh.....well....a bit retarded. The last entry is October 2006.

Anyway Pete, you must have an objection to those verses that you can clearly articulate, or I would assume that you would not have posted them.

And who are Christians supposed to kill? I must have missed that one in my Bible studies.

I would say he has a point. Sure he was wrong to say that Christians are asked to kill people but some Christians do think that these laws are God given and perfect. Which is a viewpoint I do not share.

This conversation related to Dan's comment about the barbarity of the Canaanites. My comment was to show that they are not the only ones who show barbarity (IMO).

It would be an interesting poll for the forum as to how people felt about such laws that show intolerance to other faiths and freedom of thought and whether people thought that they held the higher moral ground over the Canaanites or that they were possibly as bad as each other.

[Fawzo]

That was my point, it would have been difficult for bronze age men to understand a scientific explanation of what causes wind, rain, or snow. God created all things, including nature. I have a feeling that even if God described it in modern scientific terms, you would still claim that his explanation doesn't prove anything?

I think the explanation is rather simple. The earth rotates and the cold air at the pole mixes with the warm air from the equator. If God can't relate that information to us no wonder there is so much debate about the concept of the Trinity.

The people of Canaan were wicked; "You shall not behave thus toward the LORD your God, for every abominable act which the LORD hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods" (Deuteronomy 12:31). What ought to make you cringe is witnessing a child being burned alive as a sacrifice to false gods. Jihadist kill innocent people in the name of their god, just like the Canaanites did, so comparing that kind of wickedness to God's judgment is ridiculous. Sometimes a slap on the wrist just doesn't suffice, I trust that God made the correct decision by destroying those cities.

I don't buy it Dan. Can you show me any areas of the world this day where everyone is completely wicked and that there isn't any what we would consider good people. There were also unborn infants and toddlers running around that could not possibly have been deemed wicked.

Even Jews like Jephthah burned his children to God.

Before everyone of those acts Pete listed put the words "For God so loved the world that he......." Did God not love these people. Did not Jesus die for them as well. These gentile dogs who God loved so much"

No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the assembly of YAHWEH; even to the tenth generation none belonging to them shall enter the assembly of YAHWEH for ever ... You shall not seek their peace or their prosperity all your days for ever." (Deuteronomy Chapter 23 verse 3)

"You must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them. You shall not make marriages with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons." (Deuteronomy Chapter 7 verse 2)

"And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and cried, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon." But he (Christ) did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, "Send her away, for she is crying after us." He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." But she came and knelt before him, saying, "Lord, help me." And he answered, "It is not fair to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." She said, "Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."" (Matthew Chapter 15 verse 22)

When one takes into account that God knew beforehand that Jesus was the propitiation for all the sins of these people he ordered murdered, it makes completely no sense to me whatsoever. I know I'm going to forgive you in the future but I am going to have to kill you now because I love you so much. I'm sorry but your unborn children and toddlers have to die as well. I just have to do it because I'm so Righteous.

Pete you grab one side of this straightjacket and I'll hold the other and while Michael and Hex hold the Old Testament God well fasten it tight .

[Coolhand]

I would say he has a point. Sure he was wrong to say that Christians are asked to kill people but some Christians do think that these laws are God given and perfect. Which is a viewpoint I do not share.

This conversation related to Dan's comment about the barbarity of the Canaanites. My comment was to show that they are not the only ones who show barbarity (IMO).

It would be an interesting poll for the forum as to how people felt about such laws that show intolerance to other faiths and freedom of thought and whether people thought that they held the higher moral ground over the Canaanites or that they were possibly as bad as each other.

Point the website is trying to make is that the verses quoted are intolerant and barbaric, and therefore by that to show that the Bible is also intolerant and barbaric.

The fallacy of that argument is that the website dude (and you apparantly also) are looking from where we are backward, from a paradigm that comes from modern western civilization.

When you look from here (in time) backward you see something that is regressive. If you were to live in the time of the writing you would see that there is a redemptive value in the Torah, a progress forward. Modern students of the Bible, in order to understand the Bible in its context, need to realize that the point of the Bible has never been to establish a utopian society with perferct equality and justice for all. The point was to move the society in which it was given towards that goal. A study of the surrounding nations and cultures at that time would show that.

[Fawzo]

When you look from here (in time) backward you see something that is regressive. If you were to live in the time of the writing you would see that there is a redemptive value in the Torah, a progress forward. Modern students of the Bible, in order to understand the Bible in its context, need to realize that the point of the Bible has never been to establish a utopian society with perferct equality and justice for all. The point was to move the society in which it was given toward that goal. A study of the surrounding nations and cultures at that time would show that.

Can't the same now be said about the New Testament. It seems as if it has taken society as far as it can and now it is time for something fresh with a more sophisticated perspective which will assist man further along in his spiritual development.

Two thousand years of the Old Testament followed by two thousand years of the New Testament followed by.......

Edited November 4, 2010 by Fawzo

[Coolhand]

Can't the same now be said about the New Testament. It seems as if it has taken society as far as it can and now it is time for something fresh with a more sophisticated perspective which will assist man further along in his spiritual development.

Two thousand years of the Old Testament followed by two thousand years of the New Testament followed by.......

Absolutely.

Having said that, my argument would be that the continuance of this equality and justice would proceed from the broad guidelines given by the moral and ethical principles of both the Old Testament and the New Testament. For example: if something was condemned in both the Old and the New Testaments it would still be condemned today. But take the Sermon on the Mount for another example and more radically implement the teachings it contains. Radical in the sense of loving our neighbor and loving God, and doing unto others as we would want done to us.

You, Pete, Hexalpa, Brother Michael, Rainbow, and others on this forum are excellent examples (at least from what you guys say here) and excellent ambassadors of what this should look like, in my opinion; as well as Spong.

[Brother Michael Sky]

It appears he is a self-ordained minister and a self-proclaimed prophet; Is that the case?

he claims to be the reincarnation of John ( Jacob ), the brother of Jesus. I don't know if he is self-proclaimed or otherwise, but yes his very own website refers to him as a prophet...

Is his work mentioned in any peer reviewed scholarly works, journals, or articles?

I cannot be absolutely sure, Cool, but it DOES APPEAR that scholars and the more famous of ministers avoid him like the plague....

Does he write for any peer reviewed scholarly publications or journals?

I believe he does make the attempt, but gets very little in the way of responses...

I noticed that he quotes the Encyclopedia Britannica three time in the article posted here. Does he use any primary sources or does he rely on translations and secondary sources?

He quotes from absolutely EVERYTHING !!! and honestly Cool, I have yet to catch the man in any deception... and you know how hard-headed I am about tracking things down... I am even having a hard time catching him giving opinion that he cannot back up - ( given the difficulties we are aware of, when it comes to pinning the earliest things down that is... when you research the oldest of Biblical facts, you are actually reading the words of others about previous works... )

edit - his prophecy, and his personal opinion based solely on his personal experience must, of course, stand all on it's own...

Edited November 4, 2010 by Brother Michael Sky

[Brother Michael Sky]

Coelacanth.

Sir William Osler.

You figure it out.

I'll give it a go.... but I want two guesses....

1. were believed to have been extinct since the end of the Cretaceous period - "Osler recommends chloroform at sixty"

2. the coelacanth is almost worthless as its tissues exude oils that give the flesh a foul flavor - penis captivus

do I win the prize, Rabbi?

[Brother Michael Sky]

I guess it was quick of me to pass judgment. I have read about a number of prophets and others who proclaim this or that. I remember Brother Stair on the radio insisting the world was to end in the year 2000. We are still here.

However, I wonder what would happen if the likes of John the Baptist was around to day.

Do you have any qualifications? No!

Do you have any formal training? No!

What papers have you written? None!

Do you belong to a credible church or religious body? No!

Do you have a regular congregation? No!

Who ordained you? God! and what written proof do you have for this? None!

On what scripture can you base your message on that your teachings apply to the immediate future ? None?

I see you have a wild sort of life style. Do you think that makes you credible to the religious establishment? No!

I see you baptize people in water for the forgiveness of sin. Can sin be washed away by just water? No!

I hear you want people to repent but how can you prove that your way is right? I cannot!

So you just have a belief? Yes!

Mmmm! A strange sort of bloke.

I admit to a little underhanded exploration as well... no public records of him being any sort of malefactor....

[Brother Michael Sky]

Point the website is trying to make is that the verses quoted are intolerant and barbaric, and therefore by that to show that the Bible is also intolerant and barbaric.

The fallacy of that argument is that the website dude (and you apparantly also) are looking from where we are backward, from a paradigm that comes from modern western civilization.

When you look from here (in time) backward you see something that is regressive. If you were to live in the time of the writing you would see that there is a redemptive value in the Torah, a progress forward. Modern students of the Bible, in order to understand the Bible in its context, need to realize that the point of the Bible has never been to establish a utopian society with perferct equality and justice for all. The point was to move the society in which it was given towards that goal. A study of the surrounding nations and cultures at that time would show that.

Your comment made something " pop " into my mind - have you read Celsus ?... and Origin against Celsus? I had so many deja-vu moments reading those words... moments from forums ( yes, even this one ).. for fun sometime Cool, go back and refresh in your memory the tone taken by Celsus, and yes, even Origin's tone......

here, I snatched it from my links : Celsus the contents section are links to read the text...

Origin contra Celsus and here is Origin's reply

very interesting the tone and attitude which Celsus displays.... he is so arrogant and superior, and yes - downright nasty...I wondered as I was reading if this was an attitude early Jews and Christians found all around them... it is interesting to listen to his ideas of where so many Biblical tales originate from - this may not be your pick for entertainment.. ... but I felt it a very interesting read... and I refresh my memory once in a while.... and as i said - it will remind you of arguments you've seen on forums...

Edited November 4, 2010 by Brother Michael Sky

[Dan56]

I am sorry Dan but I struggle with your views on justice.

These are God's judgments and God's laws, not mine. However, regarding the Canaanites sacrificing kids, I do agree with God's decision to kill them. In fact, if I was around back then, I would have helped eradicate that kind of wickedness, and I'm pretty certain you would too.

I don't buy it Dan. Can you show me any areas of the world this day where everyone is completely wicked and that there isn't any what we would consider good people.

Remember that God did spare Rahab and her family from Jericho, and Lot's family from Sodom & Gomorrah. Not because they were good, but because Rahab & Lot had faith in God.

Even Jews like Jephthah burned his children to God.

The lament for the daughter is about 'not marrying' (religious celibacy). The context makes it clear that Jephthah kept her from ever marrying. Human sacrifice did not conform to the law. Jephthah “did with her according to his vow which he had vowed, and she knew no man” (Judges 11:39). It had nothing to do with a sacrificial death, but with a dedicated life to a perpetual virginity.

Before everyone of those acts Pete listed put the words "For God so loved the world that he......." Did God not love these people. Did not Jesus die for them as well. These gentile dogs who God loved so much"

God’s love for the world does not mean he will ignore sin. God is also a God of justice. The second half of John 3:16 list a condition "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish". The Canaanites believed in other gods and they perished.

[Pete]

Point the website is trying to make is that the verses quoted are intolerant and barbaric, and therefore by that to show that the Bible is also intolerant and barbaric.

The fallacy of that argument is that the website dude (and you apparantly also) are looking from where we are backward, from a paradigm that comes from modern western civilization.

When you look from here (in time) backward you see something that is regressive. If you were to live in the time of the writing you would see that there is a redemptive value in the Torah, a progress forward. Modern students of the Bible, in order to understand the Bible in its context, need to realize that the point of the Bible has never been to establish a utopian society with perferct equality and justice for all. The point was to move the society in which it was given towards that goal. A study of the surrounding nations and cultures at that time would show that.

Cool the point of the quoted website is not the issue but the references that he made are relevant to Dan's comment about the declared wickedness of the Canaanites. It shows to me that they were no worse than ancient Jews. I mean when I read that every living thing has to be killed in a city or the stoning and burning of people then I think of the barbarity of it all. As for these cruel laws preparing way towards Jesus the expression of love (IMO) coming then I just do not believe it. I also note that Jesus had according to the NT had difficulties with it or he would of recommended the stoning of the women in adultery.

[Fawzo]

These are God's judgments and God's laws, not mine. However, regarding the Canaanites sacrificing kids, I do agree with God's decision to kill them. In fact, if I was around back then, I would have helped eradicate that kind of wickedness, and I'm pretty certain you would too.

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

And our enemies claim that the U.S. Marines eat kids, see how that works!!!!

Remember that God did spare Rahab and her family from Jericho, and Lot's family from Sodom & Gomorrah. Not because they were good, but because Rahab & Lot had faith in God.

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.

The lament for the daughter is about 'not marrying' (religious celibacy). The context makes it clear that Jephthah kept her from ever marrying. Human sacrifice did not conform to the law. Jephthah "did with her according to his vow which he had vowed, and she knew no man" (Judges 11:39). It had nothing to do with a sacrificial death, but with a dedicated life to a perpetual virginity.

Dan I think it is beyond ludicrous to the nth degree to think that the women of Israel went out and lamented this man's daughter every year because she could not marry. Come on really!!!! How many other such days did they do so for other maidens who did not marry? In the Midrashi it is stated I do believe that he was even punished for his actions.

God's love for the world does not mean he will ignore sin. God is also a God of justice. The second half of John 3:16 list a condition "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish". The Canaanites believed in other gods and they perished.

Yes your God it seems from the way you portray him is one full of Justice and lacking any forgiveness or compassion for mankind. I'm surprised we don't hear stories of people who were killed on the spot for farting in the temple in his presence.

[Pete]

These are God's judgments and God's laws, not mine. However, regarding the Canaanites sacrificing kids, I do agree with God's decision to kill them. In fact, if I was around back then, I would have helped eradicate that kind of wickedness, and I'm pretty certain you would too.

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.

Remember that God did spare Rahab and her family from Jericho, and Lot's family from Sodom & Gomorrah. Not because they were good, but because Rahab & Lot had faith in God.

The lament for the daughter is about 'not marrying' (religious celibacy). The context makes it clear that Jephthah kept her from ever marrying. Human sacrifice did not conform to the law. Jephthah "did with her according to his vow which he had vowed, and she knew no man" (Judges 11:39). It had nothing to do with a sacrificial death, but with a dedicated life to a perpetual virginity.

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

Deuteronomy 23:21-23

²¹"^(A)When you make a vow to the LORD your God, you shall not delay to pay it, for it would be sin in you, and the LORD your God will surely require it of you.

²²"However, if you refrain from vowing, it would not be sin in you.

²³"You shall be careful to perform what goes out from your lips, just as you have voluntarily vowed to the LORD your God, what you have promised.

Judges 11

²⁹Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he passed over Gilead, and Manasseh, and passed over Mizpeh of Gilead, and from Mizpeh of Gilead he passed over unto the children of Ammon.

³⁰And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,

³¹Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.

³²So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the LORD delivered them into his hands.

³³And he smote them from Aroer, even till thou come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and unto the plain of the vineyards, with a very great slaughter. Thus the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.

³⁴And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.

³⁵And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back.

³⁶And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the LORD, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; for as much as the LORD hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, even of the children of Ammon.

³⁷And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows.

³⁸And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains.

³⁹And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel,

NB// There was no vow that she would know no man. There was only a vow to burn her. Even if there was then it still shows a barbaric people (IMO) who would destroy their daughters happiness for the sake of her fathers blood lust.

God's love for the world does not mean he will ignore sin. God is also a God of justice. The second half of John 3:16 list a condition "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish". The Canaanites believed in other gods and they perished.

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.

[Fawzo]

Absolutely.

Having said that, my argument would be that the continuance of this equality and justice would proceed from the broad guidelines given by the moral and ethical principles of both the Old Testament and the New Testament. For example: if something was condemned in both the Old and the New Testaments it would still be condemned today. But take the Sermon on the Mount for another example and more radically implement the teachings it contains. Radical in the sense of loving our neighbor and loving God, and doing unto others as we would want done to us.

You, Pete, Hexalpa, Brother Michael, Rainbow, and others on this forum are excellent examples (at least from what you guys say here) and excellent ambassadors of what this should look like, in my opinion; as well as Spong.

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.

[Pete]

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.

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. ¹⁹Therefore 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.

[Coolhand]

He quotes from absolutely EVERYTHING !!! and honestly Cool, I have yet to catch the man in any deception... and you know how hard-headed I am about tracking things down... I am even having a hard time catching him giving opinion that he cannot back up - ( given the difficulties we are aware of, when it comes to pinning the earliest things down that is... when you research the oldest of Biblical facts, you are actually reading the words of others about previous works... )

edit - his prophecy, and his personal opinion based solely on his personal experience must, of course, stand all on it's own...

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.

[Coolhand]

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.

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.

he claims to be the reincarnation of John ( Jacob ), the brother of Jesus.

Interesting claim.............

[Cornelius]

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

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.

Edited November 4, 2010 by Blackthorn