I didn't really expect to change anyone's mind. This is simply entertainment. I truly thank you for participating.

about the firstborn of egypt... there were warnings and all the pharoah had to do was let the lords people go, he didnt, the firstborn died as a result of that.... just like the other plagues....

sorry, i didnt catch the part where it talked about child stoning... could u post the scripture so i could look at it and give u an educated answer?

Soooo how was this the fault of the firstborns? Why did God murder children? Just to prove the point? Why didn't he instead simply free the the Jews without any bloodshed? If he is all powerful, why did he chose the most violent means when he could simply change the mind of the pharaoh by talking to him directly or sending him an angel?



It's in the very first post.

And why, would god choose to "harden Pharoahs heart..." on a couple of occasions unless it was simply to demonstrate his power? Couldn't the same ends be met if it was the Head of every household? At least then, you could argue the point that they had led 'sinful' lives.
So, in the OT god has no compunction to killing innocents along with the guilty, but in the NT Jesus states "Suffer the children to come to me...". Does god have a guilty conscience?



Two testaments, two versions of godhood.

two versions of godhood??? maybe god did harden the pharoah's heart to display His power.. it is very possible... BUT he gave the pharoah a choice, he is ruler of all the people in the kingdom, and he chose to let all the firstborn die... it was HIS CHOICE that caused it to happen.... and the consequences affected all.

no, pharoah didn't HAVE a choice. According to the testament, god hardened pharoahs heart AGAINST the Isrealites and wouldn't hear theie pleas.

Kind of a fixed fight, wouldn't you say?

Dont forget translation errors...

Very simply put, the reason the God of the old Testamanet appears so much more militant and bloodthirsty than the loving God in the New is because the lives and the religion of the authors changed over time. The God of the Iraelites was a Sky God of war, taken in part from the Egyptian sun god Ra and the Babylonian god Baal, the god of the Zorastrians and Sumerians and my goodness a whole host of others.

See, that was the beauty of being a nomadic people. You gained influence from all the nationalities that you came into contact with and carried it with you to influence others along the way.

As times changed, so did the religion. It started out as a religion that only one group of people (Jewish) could be a part of, but evolved over time to be accepted by others (Gentiles). It was when it spread to these other peoples that it underwent its most drastic change. Suddenly a formerly blood-soaked and ethnocentric religion began to preach of love and compassion for all people. It's beyond coincidental that this started when trade routes to Asia opened up, allowing access to, and mingling with, Buddism.

You would be very surprised at the mirrored teachings between Jesus and Buddha.

well said JennRose. And, no I wouldn't be surprised at the similarities.

Maybe you are right, I do tend to make detrimental comments when I come across momentual lack of understanding of a religions history and ever changing dogma! So few of you tend to even understand how Christianity came to be and how it has changed over the years (usually to the worse). You all seem to think it was made up of "Apostles and other such Good Guys” tripping around the middle east and Europe, blithely converting the pagans to the good religion. When, if you will look at the evidence that the church didn’t manage to eradicate when they took power, it was actually uneducated gullible rabble being shown “the way to salvation”…for a price! In his “True Word”, written around the middle of the 2nd century CE, Celsus told of the early Christians claiming that the conventional religions had not stopped the wickedness in society and that Christianity would. Then, Christianity was new, now it is older than most of those religions were then. What has Christianity cured? It has got rid of the gladiatorial contests and introduced global warfare and global destruction of nature instead, along with nearly 2 millennia of murder, enslavement and thievery. Celsus, even then, saw Christianity as the same in character as the popular superstitions of the day. Now we know it was!

Deut 21:18 says nothing about "stoning a child." Stoning a son yes. But child, no.

so a son is not your child? We are delving into semantics.

Although, to be honest, the use of the word 'child' conjours up a more horrific image than that of the word 'son'. Either or, its still a bit of barbarism, no?

Ah...but when you are talking about a book that has influenced history for centuries, semantics become dangerous ground. That's one of the big problems with Biblical literalists. No translation is ever perfect when it crosses so many generations and languages. Not allowing your faith any "wiggle-room" creates things like the Inquisition.

I think what this passage is reffering to is "if you have a son who is evil, cast him out."

I mean, look at what happend at Columbine? Those kids were evil. Look at some of the crap that is happening to the younger generation. Its almost out of control. Kids bringing guns to school and killing others.

This passage is reffering to anyone who cannot be changed and will not mend their evil ways. There is much that this passage could be reffering to in terms of "a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him."

Do keep in mind another one of the ten commandments was "honour they father and thy mother."

Notice the word "profligate" in the passage....

Main Entry: 1prof·li·gate

Pronunciation: 'prä-fli-g&t, -"gAt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin profligatus, from past participle of profligare to strike down, from pro- forward, down + -fligare (akin to fligere to strike); akin to Greek phlibein to squeeze

1 : completely given up to dissipation and licentiousness
2 : wildly extravagant : PRODIGAL
- prof·li·gate·ly adverb

Sure, a son could be your child. And a child could be your son. However, the passage says nothing of a child.

If the passage is taken then wrong way, then yes, it is a bit of barbarism. This is a tough one to depict correctly.

I am getting tired of comments like this one...
mako,
stop insulting people simply because they believe something you don't...
Come on, someone has to agree with me on this one...


LBD

I agree.

And if you are gonna insult someone you gotta come up with something better than that man. "Their brains overheat and they get obnoxious" ?????

No problem I have a few more. I think you might be right. If you hold a sword with the point down the hilt forms a cross. Quote me if I am right or wrong.....It's in your Bible! Yes it is That is one of the main reasons I come here.

I agree that it was un-called for. No discussion should devolve to insults.

Of course, that cuts both ways, doesn't it?

Very much so...

LBD

Lets all Chill out a little OK?

I am chilled, but I felt I needed to express my distaste for such comments... I don't spout off at the mouth (or keyborad) about how I think NB's are foolish, or anything like that... Why? Because I have respect for every single person on UM, and I would never want to offend anyone... Some obviously don't care...

LBD

You have yet to offend me!



PS. I did post some skeptic links.

I'm definitely on the same side of the fence as LBD on this one.

Good I will sleep better at night...

I knew you would...


LBD

But I have this ability to turn into a nightmare.



Back on topic please.

Now Zandore, I think you know what cross I was talking about, which I think is the same one Jesus was talking about..... A sacrificial "cross." He sacked himself for the good of mankind, or what he thought was for the good of mankind. (whichever perspective you choose) He took up a cross. Now going along with his other sayings, especially the one about the best gift you can give to your brother is to lay down your life for his. Sacrifice yourself (or your ways, wants, objects, etc.) for the good of your brother (fellow human being).

But you're right to a degree, I bet the crusaders were going with the interpretation you gave... (its just a joke, nothing is truly lighthearted about people being slaughtered on the account of twisting someone's words, especially if they were twisting the words of what they claimed was their messiah)

Peace

If that is your belief.In the name of Christianity. If that was possible here.

Hmm, seems that I hurt some feelings here. As I said in my last post, I do often become grating and irritating when confronted by a lack of knowledge by individuals, especially when it concerns their own belief system. To have someone exhibit an abysmal knowledge of the history and contents of their scriptures grates on my sensibilities to the point that I lash out. If this is bad, so be it. It is the way I am constructed and I will probably do it again in the future, but to spare sensibilities I will try to control my “tic” better. The fact remains that the evidence for the Judeo-Christian scriptures being more than just another unproven religious text is totally lacking, while the evidence of who wrote it, why it was written, and when it was written is strong and available to all with a desire to research it and know the real truth.

i know this is used a lot, but if u want proof... look in the mirror... u see urself??? well, that is the proof... ur here... there ya go mako

It's been a while since I have read the Bible but I do remember reading a lot of malicious stuff in the old testament. I have read a lot of things that contradicted themselves and this is why I am not a religious person today. Although I was raised as one and went to church many times.

The thing of it all is, just as JennRose said some of the ideas and stories are taken from different religions. Ie, The epic of Gilgimesh, it was written by the sumerians before the bible was written. It's their version of the great flood. So how much credibility can you give the bible in the first place? But thats besides the point I am trying to make....How could such a caring God be almost evil in the OT? How could he make decisions such as slaughtering children and now it's so sinister and he's against it? These are things I cannot understand. Yes I know that times have changed and it's a much different world now than it was then, but how could his moralities change so greatly? It's almost as if he has a different personality.

I find myself having to do the same at times. Sometimes more that others.When I do this all it proves to me is the bathroom light is on and I had better turn it off when I am done.

LoG, that is not proof. You are assuming that "god" is real. Therefore, if God is real, then the bible is factual. If the bible is factual, then God created "you". If "you" exists, then God is real. lather. rinse. repeat.

it is referred to as circular logic. Your belief colors your perception of who create what.

For someone who doubts the existence of a supreme being in the first place, this argument lacks weight.

Nobody "confronted you, with a lack of knowledge." First of all, you don't believe in the Bible, so how can someone's interpretation of it be wrong? When you don't even think the entire thing is true to begin with??

If you read what he said about knowledge you will see that he was talking about others lack of it.

LoG, you are preaching to the choir! I know there is a Creator, I am a Deist. It doesn’t, however, prove that your God is the Creator, which was my point!.

nessesary to help preserve society as a whole. imagine that several years down the road this rebellious son is now head of his family. will he enforce dicipline? will he really care if his crops fail and his family starves? probably not. then it is on the shoulders of the rest of his village to feed the family. it puts the village in a very precarious situation. if all of the village's crops were then to fail or some other catastrophe occur, not only would the family of this rebellious son starve, but the entire village.
the ANE was a very group oriented society. the entire machine had to work.
this somewhat reminds me of the US army executing one soldier for going AWOL during WW2. i cannot remember his name.

violence in the bible is one thing.

what about the arrogance of god gave man dominion over all other life?
well, this god also gave man dominion over his children.
so i figure all good christians should eat their children if they desire meat so badly!

I do see where you are coming from and it would actually make sense IF this was a secular society. In ancient Roman times sickly children were put to death to preserve a strong society. But they didn't have the 10 Commandments one of which states: Do Not Murder. Now, Christians like to educate people on how there is a difference between KILL and MURDER, later of which being killing for no reason. That's fine. Now you tell me, who are we to decide whether a disobedient son is reason enough to be stoned to death. We are not talking about a quick painless death either. We are talking about higher order of cruelty. We are talking about torture. Can you even imagine what it feels like to be STONED to death by all the people in the town? A mob of frenzied people would gather around and release all the hatred they have been gathering up until this point by hurling rocks at a defenseless human being? Not even a single thought runs through you mind about what Jesus said in regard to stoning people? If this was done for purely practical purposes, like you claim, this would have be done differently.

But this whole thing was done to preserve something. Religion. You see, a deviant son is also a rebellious son. And a rebellious son would first of all defy the lifestyle of his parents. And since the lifestyle WAS religion, the son would defy religion. Thus, all deviant sons were perceived as a threat to the religion of Moses. And we can't have that, can we? Only those sons who continue to follow the teachings of Moses' religion must live, and those who are at risk not to, shall be dealt with accordingly. So much for free will.

It seems useless to argue Chrtistianity with historical facts, since most Chrtistians simply do not possess the kind of knowledge of ancient civilizations that you do, and they sure as hell not going to let some "facts" get in the way of their "faith."
The only way to argue religion, then, is with religion itself. But I sure do appreciate you historical perspective on things, I learned some new things.

This coming from someone who didn't know his history correctly and threw out some wild claims. I actually was an athiests like many other Christians.

Yes, I was also an athiest, then wiccan...

LBD

Can we please stick to the topic?

The many violent things that happen in the Bible, alas I do not believe in it wholly.

A subborn drunkard brat does not deserve to be stoned to death, sometimes I think why Jesus preached kindness and love. Thats why I love Jesus, I don't love the Bible.

Yes, Bible has a lot of mean stuff in it, doesnt it? But Jesus, on the ther hand, is too good not to believe in. The only problem is that the only way you can know about Jesus is through the Bible. So what do you do? You pick those parts of the Bible you like, and discard the rest. In other words, you are the one in control of what Christianity is or is not. You decide what should be followed, and what shouldn't be. Congratulations, you are the creator and the follower of your own religion!

BTW, read what Jesus said in my signature. Still love Jesus?

Here's a juicy one:

"The LORD said to Moses, 'Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites…. The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps…. (Moses ordered) "Now kill all the boys. And kill every women who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." Numbers 31: 1-18

*delete*

Good, finally getting somewhere, though still off the topic. Now just admit that this jealous God of yours is a bloodthirsty tyrant who kills or commands to kill children and we'll be done.

Mr.ScienceGuy, you will not get such an answer from me, because it is not true. And I'm not saying anymore if you won't take into consideration anything else I have said.

I have, it's all about facts and history, but it has nothing to do with this topic. I'm not saying that God doesn't exist or that the Bible is false, am I? I'm quoting the verses that are coming straight from your Bible and asking you to explain why does your God commit all these hateful acts of violence. You say that God is loving, merceful, just, etc. and yet the verses from your own Bible say:

"Now kill all the boys. And kill every women who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." Numbers 31: 1-18

"Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor." Exodus 32:27

"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them - bring them here and kill them in front of me." Luke 19:27

Explain how does all this not fit into a definition of a "bloodthirsty tyrant who kills or commands to kill children" without going off-topic again.