9 ms·

The bible makes as much sense as most ancient literature. Key difference is that rational people in 2014 aren't claiming that Zeus may strike you down with a l

by 300bps 13y ago

The bible makes as much sense as most ancient literature. Key difference is that rational people in 2014 aren't claiming that Zeus may strike you down with a lightning bolt or thinking that Gilgamesh was divinely inspired. The old testament is very into offspring and private property Really? It just seems like a mish-mash of things nobody today would find acceptable. It advocates slavery in many places. Example: http://biblehub.com/genesis/16-8.htm http://biblehub.com/genesis/16-8.htm http://biblehub.com/genesis/16-9.htm http://biblehub.com/genesis/16-9.htm Giving up your virgin daughters for men to do as they want: http://biblehub.com/genesis/19-8.htm http://biblehub.com/genesis/19-8.htm And then there's this: http://biblehub.com/ezekiel/23-19.htm http://biblehub.com/ezekiel/23-19.htm http://biblehub.com/ezekiel/23-20.htm http://biblehub.com/ezekiel/23-20.htm There is some wacky stuff in The Holy Bible. The New Testament isn't much better. It's a little better. But not much.

kirse 13y ago
What else do you expect? You're not supposed to find most of it acceptable. Why are you surprised when a book that records the fall of man into sin and depravity is both shocking and FULL of stories of man pushing the bounds of depravity? It is brutally authentic and you should be reeling at the accounts of the depths of what mankind has done to himself. The Bible doesn't "advocate" anything by those verses. Surely you wouldn't read a historical account of World War II and be so naive as to say that the book is "advocating" genocide, would you? That would be totally irrational. To say that God "advocated" mankind's actions because they are recorded in the Old Testament is completely, utterly false and naive. It's like saying two parents "advocate" drug use when they recount the story of their child's drug addiction and how they attempted to bring their child back to being clean. The parents might even have a part in their story where they demanded their child keep the drug habit to the basement, or maybe even offered clean needles in lieu of the potentially infected ones off the street. But to say they "advocated" for that behavior? Hogwash! No, the motive you are looking for is "merciful allowance, with a loving hope for restoration."
- 300bps 13y ago
  It's so obvious you haven't read the full bible, or even any of the links I gave. The very first link is where "The angel of the LORD" said to go back into slavery. So you blame that on men. This is why it is pointless to discuss anything with zealots. Your brains turn off for this topic.
  - kirse 13y ago
    The very first link is where "The angel of the LORD" said to go back into slavery. So you blame that on men. Hmm, what does Genesis 16:10 say, the verse that immediately follows that command? Do you read all your books in such a way that each sentence cannot be linked to the previous or following sentences? Attempting to restrain or set boundaries (i.e. laws and rules) around man's sinful habits does not mean God was advocating for sin -- in the same way that a parent attempting to set some ground rules around their child's drug habit does not mean they are advocating the drug habit.

by 300bps 13y ago

kirse 13y ago

What else do you expect? You're not supposed to find most of it acceptable. Why are you surprised when a book that records the fall of man into sin and depravity is both shocking and FULL of stories of man pushing the bounds of depravity? It is brutally authentic and you should be reeling at the accounts of the depths of what mankind has done to himself. The Bible doesn't "advocate" anything by those verses. Surely you wouldn't read a historical account of World War II and be so naive as to say that the book is "advocating" genocide, would you? That would be totally irrational. To say that God "advocated" mankind's actions because they are recorded in the Old Testament is completely, utterly false and naive. It's like saying two parents "advocate" drug use when they recount the story of their child's drug addiction and how they attempted to bring their child back to being clean. The parents might even have a part in their story where they demanded their child keep the drug habit to the basement, or maybe even offered clean needles in lieu of the potentially infected ones off the street. But to say they "advocated" for that behavior? Hogwash! No, the motive you are looking for is "merciful allowance, with a loving hope for restoration."

300bps 13y ago
It's so obvious you haven't read the full bible, or even any of the links I gave. The very first link is where "The angel of the LORD" said to go back into slavery. So you blame that on men. This is why it is pointless to discuss anything with zealots. Your brains turn off for this topic.
- kirse 13y ago
  The very first link is where "The angel of the LORD" said to go back into slavery. So you blame that on men. Hmm, what does Genesis 16:10 say, the verse that immediately follows that command? Do you read all your books in such a way that each sentence cannot be linked to the previous or following sentences? Attempting to restrain or set boundaries (i.e. laws and rules) around man's sinful habits does not mean God was advocating for sin -- in the same way that a parent attempting to set some ground rules around their child's drug habit does not mean they are advocating the drug habit.