Why do people believe the bible?

[XenoFish]

8 minutes ago, simplybill said:

 

I'm not sure who it is you're talking about. I haven't heard of any Christians lately that have driven cars into crowds or detonated bombs at concerts. 

There are those of faith that kill because of their belief in god and divine reward. Do I really need to name them? Even some Christians will choose prayer over proper medical treatment, allowing their own Children to die. So what you have is a faith that can either help or harm. 

[simplybill]

37 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

There are those of faith that kill because of their belief in god and divine reward. Do I really need to name them? Even some Christians will choose prayer over proper medical treatment, allowing their own Children to die. So what you have is a faith that can either help or harm. 

We discussed this in a different topic thread a year or two ago, but it bears repeating:

There's a consistent theme that runs from Genesis through Revelations that warns people to stay on the path, seek wise counsel, and search the scriptures to be certain that their behavior and their decisions line up with the Bible.

Regarding the people who allow their children to die: as far as I'm concerned, they're following false teachers who don't understand the grace of God and His distribution of gifts and talents in the world. They ignore the parable of the Good Samaritan who went out of his way to tend to an assault victim's injuries, and then made arrangements for his care to continue after his departure. The Good Samaritan didn't look at the poor guy and say, "Your faith will make you well!" Instead, he went the extra mile to ensure the man was treated appropriately.

  

 

  

Edited January 11, 2018 by simplybill

[XenoFish]

Before I decided to further respond to this thread SimpleBill. I have to ask you just one question. To you take the bible literal or do you see it as a book of stories meant to teach lessons?

[simplybill]

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

Before I decided to further respond to this thread SimpleBill. I have to ask you just one question. To you take the bible literal or do you see it as a book of stories meant to teach lessons?

I believe most of it is to be taken literally, and some of it is presented as Jewish poetry and parables meant to teach lessons. If you're asking me if I believe the earth is 6,000 years old: my personal belief is that the evidence says otherwise, but the premise of the story remains intact. I'm content that one day Science and Theology will be reconciled.      

[XenoFish]

6 minutes ago, simplybill said:

I believe most of it is to be taken literally, and some of it is presented as Jewish poetry and parables meant to teach lessons. If you're asking me if I believe the earth is 6,000 years old: my personal belief is that the evidence says otherwise, but the premise of the story remains intact. I'm content that one day Science and Theology will be reconciled.      

There are psychological and social benefits to having a belief systems. As you probably well know my only real complaint is the abuse of belief systems. For some of you it helps, for others it just amplifies their worse qualities, then there are those you find such things trivial. 

[simplybill]

9 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

There are psychological and social benefits to having a belief systems. As you probably well know my only real complaint is the abuse of belief systems. For some of you it helps, for others it just amplifies their worse qualities, then there are those you find such things trivial. 

I should clarify something, because I don't want to be misunderstood. I don't believe that the differences between Science and Theology are trivial. I think both are worthy of consideration, but I find the discussions about the legitimacy of either one to be too partisan for me. The debate is often presented as 'either/or'. I'm more of a centrist.

This will be controversial, but my personal take on the subject comes from Romans 1:20: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." I see the bolded part as a 2-way street: if "what has been created"   indicates a 4-billion-year-old earth, than I have a responsibility to respect that.

[simplybill]

On ‎1‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 11:14 PM, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I'll have to get back to that. I also feel I have some stuff to add to it myself as well.

Ms. Dooright: I can't find your Forgiveness thread. Maybe you could post something there so it'll pop up in the rotation?

[Nostrodumbass]

On 1/5/2018 at 4:03 PM, bigjim36 said:

Why do some people believe the bible is literal? As in everything that is mentioned in the bible literally happened. We know that's not the case, science has proven that the earth is over 6000 years old, that adam and eve never existed, that dinosaurs existed and noahs ark did not, etc etc. Yet when challenged the best they can come up with is it's scripture. It's baffling and annoying, by all means have faith but do not believe the bible is anything other than bronze age fairy tales written by man. 

So if it is not literal it is fairy tales written by men?

Are there no other options?

Could it have some spiritual message that those that want to walk with the spirit can find great value in? 

Is that maybe the whole point of all this?

[bigjim36]

1 hour ago, Nostrodumbass said:

So if it is not literal it is fairy tales written by men?

Are there no other options?

Could it have some spiritual message that those that want to walk with the spirit can find great value in? 

Is that maybe the whole point of all this?

Well yes, it either is the literal word of god or it's not. If not it holds no value at all. We know for a fact it isn't the literal word of god as many of the events didn't/couldn't happen as depicted. Therefore it is nothing more than fairy tales. Can you tell me the spiritual message about dashing babies on rocks or drunkenly sleeping with your daughters or about children being mauled by a bear? All these are in the bible. Care to share the value? 

[Nostrodumbass]

6 hours ago, bigjim36 said:

Well yes, it either is the literal word of god or it's not. If not it holds no value at all. We know for a fact it isn't the literal word of god as many of the events didn't/couldn't happen as depicted. Therefore it is nothing more than fairy tales. Can you tell me the spiritual message about dashing babies on rocks or drunkenly sleeping with your daughters or about children being mauled by a bear? All these are in the bible. Care to share the value? 

Do you think that the bible is a lesson of who God is?

Its value is in showing us who WE are, what gods WE create to fit our agendas.

Why do you think that the son of god seems so different to his father? He showed how man had corrupted god for his own flesh. He showed that the kingdom he was hoping for is no part of this world and was willing to die in that faith. Now he is a life giving spirit causing people to argue on forums 2000 years later. That spirit makes some people walk in spirit, and others to trust man, exposing the desire of our hearts.

[bigjim36]

2 hours ago, Nostrodumbass said:

Do you think that the bible is a lesson of who God is?

Its value is in showing us who WE are, what gods WE create to fit our agendas.

Why do you think that the son of god seems so different to his father? He showed how man had corrupted god for his own flesh. He showed that the kingdom he was hoping for is no part of this world and was willing to die in that faith. Now he is a life giving spirit causing people to argue on forums 2000 years later. That spirit makes some people walk in spirit, and others to trust man, exposing the desire of our hearts.

I think the bible was written by superstitious middle eastern sects/tribes trying to control one another via use of an imaginary ally. I think the bible was then rewritten over and over to suit the needs of the church in order to control the population and for it's own greed. God/jesus doesn't enter into it apart from as a means of control, a focal point of worship. Historically it's doubtful he even existed. The so called spirit you mention is completely in your own head and doesn't exist. I owe my existence to my parents dna, I was the fastest sperm and as such won my life. The spirit had nothing to do with it and still has nothing to do with it.

[Nostrodumbass]

6 hours ago, bigjim36 said:

I think the bible was written by superstitious middle eastern sects/tribes trying to control one another via use of an imaginary ally. I think the bible was then rewritten over and over to suit the needs of the church in order to control the population and for it's own greed. God/jesus doesn't enter into it apart from as a means of control, a focal point of worship. Historically it's doubtful he even existed. The so called spirit you mention is completely in your own head and doesn't exist. I owe my existence to my parents dna, I was the fastest sperm and as such won my life. The spirit had nothing to do with it and still has nothing to do with it.

It seems we agree to some extent if replies are compared regarding the bible. You just choose to see it as God being bad, when I believe it was peoples physical wants, needs and desires that made them do bad stuff in the name of spirit and God. Just like people use science to kill people.

Regarding spirit: You are right, it does not exist. Good observation! Thank God for that because if it did exist it would be subject to our laws of physics and entropy would just get us in the end anyway. Hopeless!

You do realise the same dna carried in the fastest sperm helped my brain(and that of billions of others) to develop into something that could accept something like spirit, god and everlasting life? Yes, that may not make it true, but for me it is enough to make it a possibility. And evolution would not even select against that (not that that is a guide to whats real or not, just saying) and it seems benificial.

 

 

 

[GlitterRose]

On 1/6/2018 at 2:55 AM, XenoFish said:

People have forgotten the wisdom of pessimism. They'd rather have rose tinted spiritual goggles on.

I think I'm entitled to rose-tinted spiritual goggles. 

It's that special blend of Rose-tinted spirituality. 

Edited January 13, 2018 by ChaosRose

[Mr Walker]

19 hours ago, bigjim36 said:

Well yes, it either is the literal word of god or it's not. If not it holds no value at all. We know for a fact it isn't the literal word of god as many of the events didn't/couldn't happen as depicted. Therefore it is nothing more than fairy tales. Can you tell me the spiritual message about dashing babies on rocks or drunkenly sleeping with your daughters or about children being mauled by a bear? All these are in the bible. Care to share the value? 

This isn't true.

I grew up on all sorts of fairy tales, from traditional European ones, through others from around the world,  including those of brer rabbit which amused, entertained and educated 

 Very clearly they were not literal stories, yet the y gave moral examples, showed the consequences of different types of behaviour,s  put learned wisdom into forms accessible to the young,  and so on  Books like the bible hold incredible value for humans  because they have always done the same thing.  Taught wisdom in the forms of stories and thus made them accessible even to people who could not read or write through sermons oral stories/traditions etc 

if you cant see or don't know the positive  morals behind those biblical stories it shows how far you, (and perhaps our culture)  has disassociated itself from the values morals and ethics which underlay them.

This is not surprising.  Most people don't even recognise the moral lessons behind the much more modern Grimms stories and keep trying to sanitise them  to make them suitable for children.

They were written as tales, warning of the dangers of certain behaviours beliefs and attitudes in life,  to prepare children for right, proper and safe behaviours as adults. 

Ps it wasn't children mauled by the bear. They were young,  "rock throwing" teenage hoodlums  who were intent on physically harassing a travelling speaker.

Quite acceptable  behaviour by modern standards of course, but punishable by death under the law back then  Their punishment was, instead, meted out by god because the traveller was a messenger of god,  but was no more  than the law would have expected for their attack on a respected elder  .     a lot of other things are dependent both on context and historical reality 

What does Psalm 137:9 mean when it says, ‘Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks’?"
Answer:

 Psalm 137:9 is found in one of the Imprecatory Psalms (or Precatory Psalms) that speak of violence against the enemies of God. That verse reads, “Happy is the one who seizes your infants / and dashes them against the rocks.” To “imprecate” means to “pray evil against,” and the imprecatory prayers in the Bible strike people today as strange or wrong. It is important to understand the context of this verse and others like it. The background is the Jewish people calling upon God to exact revenge upon their military enemies.

Psalm 137 is in the context of the Jewish exile in Babylon (Psalm 137:1) where they had been taken as slaves after the Babylonians burned down the city of Jerusalem. The Jews in exile were then told to “sing us one of the songs of Zion!” (Psalm 137:1), adding further humiliation and frustration to a defeated people.

Then in verse 9, the psalmist adds further detail to this cry for revenge, claiming, “Happy is the one” who kills the infants of their enemy. The desire is graphically stated, but it is simply a call for the destruction of the entire nation—the nation that had enslaved the Jews, killed their babies, and destroyed their city. The destruction of Babylon was expressly foretold in Isaiah 13:16, and by referencing that prediction, the psalmist may mean to say that the men who were God’s instruments in carrying out that prophecy would be happy in doing His will.

If we keep in mind that the psalms are songs that express intense emotions, a statement such as “Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks” should not shock us. The writer did not intend to go out and kill babies; rather, he desired justice, which required the death of his enemies. Even today, those who have lost loved ones at the hands of others understandably desire the death of those who committed the crime

https://www.gotquestions.org/dashing-babies-against-rocks.html

And who is to judge the behaviour of Lot's daughters, given their circumstances.

⁰ Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave.³¹ One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth. ³² Let’s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.”

³³ That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

³⁴ The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I slept with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.” ³⁵ So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

³⁶ So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. ³⁷ The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab^[g]; he is the father of the Moabites of today. ³⁸ The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi^[h]; he is the father of the Ammonites^[i] of today.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+19&version=NIV

Lot was not aware of the seduction.  The girls got pregnant and founded two important nation tribes  Was their behaviour morally wrong in the circumstances, and given the result ? 

 

Edited January 13, 2018 by Mr Walker

[bigjim36]

25 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

This isn't true.

I grew up on all sorts of fairy tales, from traditional European ones, through others from around the world,  including those of brer rabbit which amused, entertained and educated 

 Very clearly they were not literal stories, yet the y gave moral examples, showed the consequences of different types of behaviour,s  put learned wisdom into forms accessible to the young,  and so on  Books like the bible hold incredible value for humans  because they have always done the same thing.  Taught wisdom in the forms of stories and thus made them accessible even to people who could not read or write through sermons oral stories/traditions etc 

So if the bible is a collection of fairy tales (as I stated in my OP) then they hold no value other than as a historic document. The claim that it taught wisdom is utter rubbish as it held back scientific development due to it contradicting with what the bible taught. 

25 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

if you cant see or don't know the positive  morals behind those biblical stories it shows how far you, (and perhaps our culture)  has disassociated itself from the values morals and ethics which underlay them.

The values and morals in the bible no longer apply to todays society. I don't need telling how to treat my slave as I don't have one. I don't need telling it's ok to rape as I know it's not. The bible on the other hand teaches the opposite. 

25 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

This is not surprising.  Most people don't even recognise the moral lessons behind the much more modern Grimms stories and keep trying to sanitise them  to make them suitable for children.

They were written as tales, warning of the dangers of certain behaviours beliefs and attitudes in life,  to prepare children for right, proper and safe behaviours as adults. 

Ps it wasn't children mauled by the bear. They were young,  "rock throwing" teenage hoodlums  who were intent on physically harassing a travelling speaker.

Quite acceptable  behaviour by modern standards of course, but punishable by death under the law back then  Their punishment was, instead, meted out by god because the traveller was a messenger of god,  but was no more  than the law would have expected for their attack on a respected elder  .     a lot of other things are dependent both on context and historical reality 

So as I said it is not relevant in todays society. What was relevant context in the bible is NOT relevant today. So therefore it is completely worthless as a moral compass.

25 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

What does Psalm 137:9 mean when it says, ‘Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks’?"
Answer:

 Psalm 137:9 is found in one of the Imprecatory Psalms (or Precatory Psalms) that speak of violence against the enemies of God. That verse reads, “Happy is the one who seizes your infants / and dashes them against the rocks.” To “imprecate” means to “pray evil against,” and the imprecatory prayers in the Bible strike people today as strange or wrong. It is important to understand the context of this verse and others like it. The background is the Jewish people calling upon God to exact revenge upon their military enemies.

 

So the bible advocates the complete extinction of a race of people, that's a great life lesson - genocide! If that's the case surely Hitler, Saddam, Stalin and all other despots are just following biblical teachings and should therefore be seen as rightous men? It says it's right in the bible and you're saying it has value today...

25 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Psalm 137 is in the context of the Jewish exile in Babylon (Psalm 137:1) where they had been taken as slaves after the Babylonians burned down the city of Jerusalem. The Jews in exile were then told to “sing us one of the songs of Zion!” (Psalm 137:1), adding further humiliation and frustration to a defeated people.

Then in verse 9, the psalmist adds further detail to this cry for revenge, claiming, “Happy is the one” who kills the infants of their enemy. The desire is graphically stated, but it is simply a call for the destruction of the entire nation—the nation that had enslaved the Jews, killed their babies, and destroyed their city. The destruction of Babylon was expressly foretold in Isaiah 13:16, and by referencing that prediction, the psalmist may mean to say that the men who were God’s instruments in carrying out that prophecy would be happy in doing His will.

If we keep in mind that the psalms are songs that express intense emotions, a statement such as “Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks” should not shock us. The writer did not intend to go out and kill babies; rather, he desired justice, which required the death of his enemies. Even today, those who have lost loved ones at the hands of others understandably desire the death of those who committed the crime

https://www.gotquestions.org/dashing-babies-against-rocks.html

And who is to judge the behaviour of Lot's daughters, given their circumstances.

⁰ Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave.³¹ One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth. ³² Let’s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.”

³³ That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

³⁴ The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I slept with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.” ³⁵ So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

³⁶ So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. ³⁷ The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab^[g]; he is the father of the Moabites of today. ³⁸ The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi^[h]; he is the father of the Ammonites^[i] of today.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+19&version=NIV

Lot was not aware of the seduction.  The girls got pregnant and founded two important nation tribes  Was their behaviour morally wrong in the circumstances, and given the result ? 

Yes, absolutely their behaviour was morally wrong! Rape and incest no matter what the context are wrong. The fact that you're trying to find some justification for it is ridiculous. These are not people to be admired and looked up to.

25 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

 

 

[XenoFish]

3 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

I think I'm entitled to rose-tinted spiritual goggles. 

It's that special blend of Rose-tinted spirituality. 

It's your choice. I think I've killed that part of myself. Spirituality just doesn't make sense to me and I see no point in it. 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

On 1/11/2018 at 11:52 AM, jmccr8 said:

On 1/10/2018 at 0:02 AM, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Hey 8bits!

Thanks for answering my questions. And that is what I thought. So, when I hear, read, and see, those claiming to be staunch believers in the bible, and live biblical, it could all depend on what bible, right? So, how can someone have such a position of being so wonderful in believing in the bible (and living it) when it depends on which one. 

Now, that is a discussion, I would think would get interesting. 

Yup, you're right. There are those varying sections and those varying books, that you have mentioned. There's so much, how can one keep up. 

It's one of the many reasons, my belief doesn't stick one hundred percent on material things, to be totally spiritual for me. 

 

I would tend to think that there being several different bibles is just one aspect of why/what people believe. Experience has shown me that what people find in the bible is relative to how they have experienced life and who they cling to to lead them through transition.

There are those that have a confidence and seem knowledgeable that people are drawn to that are quite delusional in subtle  ways. Ultimately I think for many that believe in the bible it is because of the fear that they have in life and having to be responsible for living their life.

jmccr8 

I think that, most of the time too. Though never read any bible all the way through, I know what it’s like to depend on books and such, and not just for my fears and having to be responsible for what part of my life I’m living. And I find that aspect of dependence, and my faith does too, very negative. There is using material things to live and to be entertained, but part of me, also is depended on, ( I’ll admit it ) the spiritual aspects of my belief. (I do believe I have always mentioned that real life actuality is a priority, right?     ) Granted, I feel I’m depended on my spirituality and faith to live my life, but in the end, it’s not to avoid living the responsibility, but to deal with it better and do it better. If that makes sense. 

For me, if I look at it this way, what happens when you lose your book, the spiritual aspect of it, is still there. 

[Truthseeker007]

On ‎1‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 3:51 AM, Guyver said:

 In any event, it is certainly debatable whether or not Moses actually wrote those works.  He may have, he certainly didn't write them all.  The Torah describes the death and burial of Moses, and so....since a dead man cannot describe his own death and funeral, Moses didn't actually write that part.  Modern scholarship holds that the Torah had multiple authors and was formed over centuries.  There are plenty of reasons for this.....if one chooses to research it.

It's fine if you believe these things, as that is your right....but in claiming that God revealed or dictated these books to Moses, then you open up a can of worms that I personally find untenable.  In the New Testament, Jesus is quoted as contradicting certain things written in the Torah as incorrect.  That would mean that Jesus was correcting the mistakes that God made.  

I think it is also debatable whether Moses even existed!

In 1975, Lloyd M. Graham argued that Moses was fashioned after the Syrian Mises and that his laws were fashioned after Hammurabi's code, a Babylonian law code, consisting of 282 laws, of ancient Mesopotamia, dating back to about 1772 BC.

http://www.eoht.info/page/Moses

[+Sherapy]

7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

This isn't true.

I grew up on all sorts of fairy tales, from traditional European ones, through others from around the world,  including those of brer rabbit which amused, entertained and educated 

 Very clearly they were not literal stories, yet the y gave moral examples, showed the consequences of different types of behaviour,s  put learned wisdom into forms accessible to the young,  and so on  Books like the bible hold incredible value for humans  because they have always done the same thing.  Taught wisdom in the forms of stories and thus made them accessible even to people who could not read or write through sermons oral stories/traditions etc 

if you cant see or don't know the positive  morals behind those biblical stories it shows how far you, (and perhaps our culture)  has disassociated itself from the values morals and ethics which underlay them.

This is not surprising.  Most people don't even recognise the moral lessons behind the much more modern Grimms stories and keep trying to sanitise them  to make them suitable for children.

They were written as tales, warning of the dangers of certain behaviours beliefs and attitudes in life,  to prepare children for right, proper and safe behaviours as adults. 

Ps it wasn't children mauled by the bear. They were young,  "rock throwing" teenage hoodlums  who were intent on physically harassing a travelling speaker.

Quite acceptable  behaviour by modern standards of course, but punishable by death under the law back then  Their punishment was, instead, meted out by god because the traveller was a messenger of god,  but was no more  than the law would have expected for their attack on a respected elder  .     a lot of other things are dependent both on context and historical reality 

What does Psalm 137:9 mean when it says, ‘Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks’?"
Answer:

 Psalm 137:9 is found in one of the Imprecatory Psalms (or Precatory Psalms) that speak of violence against the enemies of God. That verse reads, “Happy is the one who seizes your infants / and dashes them against the rocks.” To “imprecate” means to “pray evil against,” and the imprecatory prayers in the Bible strike people today as strange or wrong. It is important to understand the context of this verse and others like it. The background is the Jewish people calling upon God to exact revenge upon their military enemies.

Psalm 137 is in the context of the Jewish exile in Babylon (Psalm 137:1) where they had been taken as slaves after the Babylonians burned down the city of Jerusalem. The Jews in exile were then told to “sing us one of the songs of Zion!” (Psalm 137:1), adding further humiliation and frustration to a defeated people.

Then in verse 9, the psalmist adds further detail to this cry for revenge, claiming, “Happy is the one” who kills the infants of their enemy. The desire is graphically stated, but it is simply a call for the destruction of the entire nation—the nation that had enslaved the Jews, killed their babies, and destroyed their city. The destruction of Babylon was expressly foretold in Isaiah 13:16, and by referencing that prediction, the psalmist may mean to say that the men who were God’s instruments in carrying out that prophecy would be happy in doing His will.

If we keep in mind that the psalms are songs that express intense emotions, a statement such as “Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks” should not shock us. The writer did not intend to go out and kill babies; rather, he desired justice, which required the death of his enemies. Even today, those who have lost loved ones at the hands of others understandably desire the death of those who committed the crime

https://www.gotquestions.org/dashing-babies-against-rocks.html

And who is to judge the behaviour of Lot's daughters, given their circumstances.

⁰ Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave.³¹ One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth. ³² Let’s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.”

³³ That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

³⁴ The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I slept with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.” ³⁵ So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

³⁶ So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. ³⁷ The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab^[g]; he is the father of the Moabites of today. ³⁸ The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi^[h]; he is the father of the Ammonites^[i] of today.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+19&version=NIV

Lot was not aware of the seduction.  The girls got pregnant and founded two important nation tribes  Was their behaviour morally wrong in the circumstances, and given the result ? 

 

Interesting that you argue for the merit of incest, and bashing babies heads. IMO

Of course any one could understand these practices are repulsive. 

And now days, it would be unheard of to read such things to kids.

Fairy tales (amongst the many themes they addressed) also had a strong punitive voice and they were used to scare children into the "right" behavior, not unlike the Bible stories. 

Some fairy tales embraced biblical themes ( such as Marienkind) recognized by an ending that wasn't a "happily ever after," the point was to demand one follow the Biblical resolution only  (gods wishes) or else suffer some horrible fate. 

Some fairy tales dealt with adult issues such as death, loss, grief, etc.etc. 

Some dealt with critical thinking etc. etc. 

I can tell by your post that you have not studied Fairy Tales or the Bible beyond literal interpretation, which isn't a criticism as it has its place; you are telling us your opinion on fairy tales which is your take away, thanks for sharing,  yet, your opinion doesn't suffice as a counter telling bigjim36 that he is wrong for pointing out that biblical themes and some fairy tales had a lot in common.

He is absolutely correct!

In this case it is your error. 

Nota been: When you counter it helps to address the posters thesis. 

 

 

Edited January 13, 2018 by Sherapy

[GoldenWolf]

3 hours ago, Scudbuster said:

The "Good Book" is primarily a lot of this:

It's missing narcissist ranting.

[jmccr8]

1 hour ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I think that, most of the time too. Though never read any bible all the way through, I know what it’s like to depend on books and such, and not just for my fears and having to be responsible for what part of my life I’m living. And I find that aspect of dependence, and my faith does too, very negative. There is using material things to live and to be entertained, but part of me, also is depended on, ( I’ll admit it ) the spiritual aspects of my belief. (I do believe I have always mentioned that real life actuality is a priority, right?     ) Granted, I feel I’m depended on my spirituality and faith to live my life, but in the end, it’s not to avoid living the responsibility, but to deal with it better and do it better. If that makes sense. 

For me, if I look at it this way, what happens when you lose your book, the spiritual aspect of it, is still there. 

Hi Stubble,

For some reason I tend lean towards that for the most part man instinctively has a sense to live in a productive social evironment. The 10 comandments as well as similar ideologies in other religions are expressions of that instinct. I see men and women that walk vastly different and varied live separate and yet similar to my own existence and express the same love for their fellow man. The abstract of god's laws is just a means of expressing that natural aspect of ourselves as a species, although there is always the potential for manipulation by the more calculating sorts. The common good will is not religious in nature, people will give it an explainable significance, god, religion or self then fight about who's right 

If one looks at it from a perspective of interaction, then say you have a trained tactical teams that is going into some conflict, god isn't going to suit up and get armed and join in. Each member of the team's is god and expresses a unity as a whole it's that ability to be a part of each other that makes us unique on this planet.

Yes I agree that there is the spiritual qualities of man and to me they are a part of what we are just like we have a nose on our face it is a part of our being and I do not see it as a religious consequence.

jmccr8 

[Davros of Skaro]

On 1/11/2018 at 0:46 PM, simplybill said:

 

   

"The word filtered should be substituted with the word worldview. I'm not a superstitious person, and I'm not very emotional, so I've adapted my worldview to 'what works and what doesn't', or what works best."

Yes. You have adopted a superstitious worldview. I can say "God dammit" without psychological repercussions while you have to avoid it, or perform a ritual if it slips. 

One of the slow thinking attributes of addiction is not seeing any problems with a compartmentalized reality. 

"Take your example of drug addiction: Yes, there are secular ways of dealing with addictions, though their success rates are generally lower than Christian recovery programs which address the individual on three levels: physical, mental and spiritual."

I agree theological methods work for addiction the same way one gives a child a pacifier to avert thumb sucking. But in this case it's a placebo switcheroo of the mind.

For a very long time such methods were prevalent such as AA which evokes a "Higher Power". There's certain atheist organizations that are now providing contact info for secular counselors which in the past were hard to find.

Your belief is a transformative miracle in your mind via motivation,  and reward. It's billions of years of evolution confronted with what it never encountered before. That being modern civilization not much unlike a Sea Turtle eating a plastic bag thinking it's Kelp.

You will never realize that Paul was a schizophrenic, that thought Abraham was a real character (not a propaganda tool), and his Jesus was most likely a perceived character in OT scripture (if you knew where to look).

Philo (a contemporary of Paul) derived God's firstborn son an archangel from OT scripture which he called it by many names like "Word", "Reason", "Law", and "Lord". Philo also mistook motivation, and reward neurochemicals as a blessing of joy cascading down from outerspace by this winged deity. Philo, and Paul did not know that these perceived libations are just evolution's way of reinforcing behaviors for gathering energy for reproduction. Nor does non thinking evolution expect what worked in the past to be circumvented by modern invention, wether it be alcohol, gambling, or fables fabricated to enslave minds.

Here's an example of Philo pulling his character right out of the OT by the creative motivational power of the Holy Dopamine Ghost which is your inspiration for belief (the Bible/Quran pushes faith for these not so mystical powers for this very reason).

ON DREAMS, THAT THEY ARE GOD-SENT

Book 2

"XXXVII...And who can pour over the happy soul which proffers its own reason as the most sacred cup, the holy goblets of true joy, except the cup-bearer of God, the master of the feast, the word? not differing from the draught itself, but being itself in an unmixed state, the pure delight and sweetness, and pouring forth, and joy, and ambrosial medicine pleasure and happiness; if we too may, for a moment, employ the language of the poets."

Psalm 36:5-9

"5 Your steadfast love, O LORD, extends to the heavens, your faithfulness to the clouds. 6 Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your judgments are like the great deep; you save humans and animals alike, O LORD. 7 How precious is your steadfast love, O God! All people may take refuge in the shadow of your wings. 8 They feast on the abundance of your house, and you give them drink from the river of your delights. 9 For with you is the fountain of life; in your light we see light."

Psalm 40:6-9

"6 Sacrifice and offering you do not desire, but you have given me an open ear. Burnt offering and sin offering you have not required. 7 Then I said, "Here I am; in the scroll of the book it is written of me. 8 I delight to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart." 9 I have told the glad news of deliverance in the great congregation; see, I have not restrained my lips, as you know, O LORD." 

[Davros of Skaro]

On 1/12/2018 at 8:43 AM, bigjim36 said:

 

If you have the patience with your friend? You can try this guy's Socratic method that Trojan Horse's thoughts through the gate of believers minds.

Check out Street Epistemology:

https://m.youtube.com/user/magnabosco210

[Stubbly_Dooright]

5 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Stubble,

For some reason I tend lean towards that for the most part man instinctively has a sense to live in a productive social evironment. The 10 comandments as well as similar ideologies in other religions are expressions of that instinct. I see men and women that walk vastly different and varied live separate and yet similar to my own existence and express the same love for their fellow man. The abstract of god's laws is just a means of expressing that natural aspect of ourselves as a species, although there is always the potential for manipulation by the more calculating sorts. The common good will is not religious in nature, people will give it an explainable significance, god, religion or self then fight about who's right 

If one looks at it from a perspective of interaction, then say you have a trained tactical teams that is going into some conflict, god isn't going to suit up and get armed and join in. Each member of the team's is god and expresses a unity as a whole it's that ability to be a part of each other that makes us unique on this planet.

Yes I agree that there is the spiritual qualities of man and to me they are a part of what we are just like we have a nose on our face it is a part of our being and I do not see it as a religious consequence.

jmccr8 

I believe, I can relate to your points. And, if you believe me, seem to match in varying ways, in how I see it through my faith. I also like to think, the aspects, are just being played in life and seen as just as it is in life, (I just look at it in two different aspects, real life and through my faith.......... if that makes sense.) 

So, I can relate to you not seeing as a religious consequence.  

 

[simplybill]

5 hours ago, davros of skaro said:

Yes. You have adopted a superstitious worldview.

The thing about Christianity is that it actually works in real life; not just personally, but also in society as a whole. Throughout history Judeo/Christian ideology, when held accountable to its own principles, has achieved the greatest amount of freedom and justice for the greatest number of people.

Please note the "when held accountable to its own principles" caveat.