Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-07-2015, 03:59 PM (This post was last modified: 23-07-2015 04:04 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(23-07-2015 09:29 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(22-07-2015 11:43 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Your question betrays your ignorance of ancient Near Eastern literature, and it's literary types. Again, you REALLY need to get an education.

I'll pay my own expenses to debate you in public at any university, ...

Take him up on that Bucky. I say you do it at the University of Auckland with earmuffs as moderator. He said he'd pay his own expenses. Shouldn't be more than $10K or so.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
23-07-2015, 04:05 PM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(23-07-2015 09:23 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  First thing that comes to mind is the entire book of Hebrews! Understand that almost zero of Paul's ideas are anything but exposition of OT scriptures and prophecy. (Understand I believe Paul wrote Hebrews.)

That's unfortunate. scholars know he couldn't have written it.

(23-07-2015 09:23 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  For to which of the angels did God ever say,

“You are my Son;
today I have become your Father”?

Or again,

“I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son”?

6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,

“Let all God’s angels worship him.”

7 In speaking of the angels he says,

“He makes his angels spirits,
and his servants flames of fire.”

8 But about the Son he says,

Proof you have no clue. See the TENSE there. So Jebus was not ALREADY his everlasting "son". LOL Being a "son" of God does not make them "divine'. Being "divine' in Hebrew culture also in no way makes them equal to Yahweh. Many people were called "sons" of God. It was a general honorific accorded to MANY. Thanks for proving yet again you have no clue about the Bible.

(23-07-2015 09:23 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  13 To which of the angels did God ever say,

“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet”?

So again, even YOU are saying, the second person of the Trinity was "granted" that status, and was not eternally the son. LOL. You are no Christian, Q.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
23-07-2015, 08:22 PM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(23-07-2015 09:27 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(22-07-2015 09:05 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  No...I got it. You missed my point, which is the important one.

Nowadays we have secular law, which usually protects the rights of individuals and minorities. The law in your babble does not.

Modern societies respect women (that's half the human race.) We don't bad mouth, or kill them, for losing their virginity. We don't allow rape. We don't marry them off when they are 12 years old. We don't insist they obey their husbands. Daughters are not considered their father's property. The babble treats women like cattle and as the property of their father's and their hushand's.

We like and respect homosexuals. The Bible doesn't.

We value thinkers and scientists. The Bible doesn't.

We don't patronise people by promising then heaven and we don't threaten them with everlasting hell. The Bible does.

We treat mental illness with supplements and medications, and they work. The Bible treats mental illness with promises of miracles and prayers and that never works.

We understand and embrace human sexuality for what it is. The Bible turns it into an evil thing.

We don't say "turn the other cheek" and "love your enemies," we say respect your fellow man, but defend yourself if necessary.

Every year we make advances in chemistry, physics, biology, medicine, law, computing and communication. The babble never makes any advances, and denigrates any new thought. The battle is stuck, set in stone, unable to change or adapt.

We don't say "blessed are the poor in spirit", and "dream about heaven," and don't worry about tomorrow." We say make your life on earth meaningful... it is the only life you will ever have.

The Bible was written to control people and to give kings and priests an income. Secular law, by and large, has been written so that all members of society get a fair go.

Most modern societies do not pander to priests and other religious authorities. We encourage people to think for themselves, and to use resources to make their lives better.

So don't give me your "much wisdom in the scriptures" bullshit. You are reading your babble with rose coloured glasses.

And we're back here again? How it is that billions over millennia embrace both testaments without seeing what you see it, how you see it. Of course you'd say none of it is your modernist bias but rather, every Christian ever is in--what's that word atheists hate?--denial.

Proverbs is filled with wisdom. It has individual verses you can test and review inductively to see their truth, beauty and wisdom. I can't recall arguments at TTA during my brief tenure here re: Proverbs. Only assaults like those you are making that out of context, sound unlike modern "wisdom", but which in context, show the folly of rejecting God and the wisdom of trusting God!

Pick one or two of your assaults only if you want to discuss them. The rhetoric is hateful and the energy wasted.

"How it is that billions over millennia embrace both testaments without seeing what you see it, how you see it."

Your education continues...

Argumentum ad Populum (popular appeal or appeal to the majority): The fallacy of attempting to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the feeling and enthusiasms of the multitude. There are several variations of this fallacy, but we will emphasize two forms.

"Snob Appeal": the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion by appealing to what an elite or a select few (but not necessarily an authority) in a society thinks or believes.

(There are many non-fallacious appeals in style, fashion, and politics--since in these areas the appeal is not irrelevant.)

Person L says statement p or argument A.
Person L is in the elite.
Statement p is true or argument A is good.


"Bandwagon": the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion on the grounds that all or most people think or believe it is true.

Most, many, or all persons believe statement p is true.
Statement p is true.


"appeal to emotion": the fallacy of using expressive and emotively laden language to arouse emotion in support of a conclusion.

Emotions such as enthusiasm, pride, anger, or disgust are used to express evidence for statement p
Statement p is true.


Many advertising slogans are based on this fallacy: Strictly speaking, one statement considered by itself cannot be a fallacy because it's not an argument. Nevertheless, the import of these "catch-phrases" seems to be in some cases by conversational implicature an implicit argument. I.e., the statement can easily be reconstructed from its context into an implicit argument.

§ "Coffee is the think drink."
("London (AP) The coffee industry says it will try to convince youngsters that coffee is the ‘think drink’. … ‘We want to capture the youth market.’"
[The Fredericksburg Virginia Free Lance-Star "Industry Promoting Coffee as ‘Think Drink’" (December 10, 1966), 82 No. 390, 10.])

§ "Join the Pepsi People Feelin' Free" (slogan early 1970s,)

§ "Join the Pepsi generation" (slogan mid-1980s)

§ "Sony. Ask anyone." (Sony trademark, 1970s)

Occasionally, it is difficult to make a distinction between the ad verecundiam (appeal to authority) and the ad populum (appeal to the elite) fallacies.

The basis of the ad populum appeal is the assumption that large numbers of persons are more likely to be right than a given individual is likely to be right. Also, in light of peer pressure, many persons feel it's better to be normal than to go against the crowd. Moreover, our social desire to be approved by others often results in our joining the "bandwagon" of the probable winning side in a political contest.

The main problem with this fallacy is the mere fact that many people agree on something often does not imply that what they agree on is true; nevertheless, the fact that many people agree, can be relevant evidence for the truth in some instances, as shown below. The distinction is based on the nature of the relevance of the premisses to the conclusion.

Examples of the ad populum:

"But officer, I don't deserve a ticket; everyone goes this speed. If I went any slower, I wouldn't be going with the stream of traffic."

It is well recognized by most persons that the present technological revolution has affected the ethical basis of the nation's institution of education. Since this belief is so widely held, there can be little doubt of its accuracy.


"Man could alleviate his misery by marriage. This close companionship enhances the joys of one and mitigated the sorrow of the other, and anyone knew God always provided for married people."

[Lee Emily Pearson, Elizabethans at Home, (London: Oxford University Press, 1957), 289.]


"Shell was charged with misleading advertising in its Platformate advertisements. A Shell spokesman said: 'The same comment could be made about most good advertising of most products.'"

[Samm Sinclair Baker, The Permissible Lie (Cleveland: World Publishing Company, 1968), 39.]


"To his dying day, Governor Marvin Mandel will never understand what was wrong in accepting more that $350,000 worth of gifts from wealthy friends who happened to engage in business ventures that benefited from his gubernatorial influence. The governor has lots of company … And to a man they have cried in bewilderment that ‘everybody does it,’ that politics survives on back scratching."

[Martha Angle and Robert Walters, "In Washington: The Public Isn't Buying" Bowling Green Daily News (September 6, 1977), 123 No. 212, 16.]


St. Augustine wrote, "For such is the power of true Godhead that it cannot be altogether and utterly hidden from the rational creature, once it makes use of its reason. For with the exception of a few in whom nature is excessively depraved, the whole human race confesses God to be author of the world."

[Erich Przywara, An Augustine Synthesis (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958), 122.]

Note, as well, the ad hominem implications of this argument.

Non-fallacious examples of the ad populum: the appeal is not irrelevant when what most persons believe or what the select few believe does in fact determine what is true. Conventional truth such as the definitions of words, standard use of symbols, and clothing styles, or voting in juries, meetings, or political elections are typical examples where the appeal to the majority , the experts, or the people-in-the-know would be relevant and so would not be fallacious.

Many logic sources associate the ad populum fallacy with the presence of emotion alone in expressions of rhetorical passages, patriotic speeches, diatribes, or cheerful accolades. However, it's important to understand that no fallacy occurs unless the literal significance of the emotionally expressed evidence is irrelevant to the purported conclusion. The presence of emotively laden language alone does not constitute a fallacy unless an argument is being presented.

If an elite group of people are in a position to know of what they speak, their authority is relevant and should not automatically be discounted. E.g., Is is a legitimate appeal and no fallacy to argue that most physicians believe that a high fat diet is unhealthy, and therefore a high fat diet is unhealthy.

The number of persons who believe a claim can be probable evidence for the truth of the conclusion. But without further information about the case in point, the number of persons cannot be directly related to the truth of the claim.

Other examples of where an ad populum appeal would not be fallacious include the "the wisdom of crowds," "swarm intelligence," and "crowd sourcing" because these instruments are often more reliable than other inductive methods.

Non-fallacious examples of the ad populum argument:

"We believe in a generous America, in a compassionate America, in a tolerant America, open to the dreams of an immigrant's daughter who studies in our schools and pledges to our flag. To the young boy on the south side of Chicago who sees a life beyond the nearest street corner. To the funiture worker's child in North Carolona who wants to become a doctor or a scientist, an engineer or an entrepreneur, a diplomat ore even a president—that's the future we hope for. That's the vision we share. That's where we need to go—forward. That's where we need to go." ["Transcript of President Obama's Election Night Speech." New York Times (November 7, 2012) quoted in Donna Brazile, "Forward," Index-Journal 94 No. 194 (November 12, 2012), 6A.]

These statements do not constitute an argument and so no fallacy is present in this passage.

"Why are so many people attracted to the Pontiac Grand Prix? It could be that so many people are attracted to the Grand Prix because—so many people are attracted to the Grand Prix!"
[A ABC-TV 1992 advertisement quoted in Irving M. Copi and Carl Cohen, Introduction to Logic New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1994), 129.}

Undoubtedly, Copi and Cohen are assuming that there is an elliptical conclusion being implied, but the passage as it stands is the fallacy of petition principii
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2015, 08:35 PM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(23-07-2015 09:23 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(22-07-2015 11:07 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  By the way, I'm still waiting for just one actual example of Paul basing his belief in Christ's divinity on Old Testament prophecies. And all I'm hearing is...

Crickets

First thing that comes to mind is the entire book of Hebrews! Understand that almost zero of Paul's ideas are anything but exposition of OT scriptures and prophecy. (Understand I believe Paul wrote Hebrews.)

Just from the first chapter of Hebrews:

For to which of the angels did God ever say,

“You are my Son;
today I have become your Father”?

Or again,

“I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son”?

6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,

“Let all God’s angels worship him.”

7 In speaking of the angels he says,

“He makes his angels spirits,
and his servants flames of fire.”

8 But about the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy."

10 He also says,

“In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
11 They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
12 You will roll them up like a robe;
like a garment they will be changed.
But you remain the same,
and your years will never end.”

13 To which of the angels did God ever say,

“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet”?

14 Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?

Or we could look at other epistles--but since Mark and BB try to tell me that what I think are some of Paul's letters aren't, I guess I can use Hebrews just as well!

What has any of this drivel (not written by Paul) got to do with so called "old testament prophecies?"
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2015, 08:39 PM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(23-07-2015 03:59 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(23-07-2015 09:29 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I'll pay my own expenses to debate you in public at any university, ...

Take him up on that Bucky. I say you do it at the University of Auckland with earmuffs as moderator. He said he'd pay his own expenses. Shouldn't be more than $10K or so.

I still say Q is PleaseJesus. So many similarities.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
23-07-2015, 08:59 PM (This post was last modified: 24-07-2015 02:43 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(23-07-2015 09:27 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(22-07-2015 09:05 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  No...I got it. You missed my point, which is the important one.

Nowadays we have secular law, which usually protects the rights of individuals and minorities. The law in your babble does not.

Modern societies respect women (that's half the human race.) We don't bad mouth, or kill them, for losing their virginity. We don't allow rape. We don't marry them off when they are 12 years old. We don't insist they obey their husbands. Daughters are not considered their father's property. The babble treats women like cattle and as the property of their father's and their hushand's.

We like and respect homosexuals. The Bible doesn't.

We value thinkers and scientists. The Bible doesn't.

We don't patronise people by promising then heaven and we don't threaten them with everlasting hell. The Bible does.

We treat mental illness with supplements and medications, and they work. The Bible treats mental illness with promises of miracles and prayers and that never works.

We understand and embrace human sexuality for what it is. The Bible turns it into an evil thing.

We don't say "turn the other cheek" and "love your enemies," we say respect your fellow man, but defend yourself if necessary.

Every year we make advances in chemistry, physics, biology, medicine, law, computing and communication. The babble never makes any advances, and denigrates any new thought. The battle is stuck, set in stone, unable to change or adapt.

We don't say "blessed are the poor in spirit", and "dream about heaven," and don't worry about tomorrow." We say make your life on earth meaningful... it is the only life you will ever have.

The Bible was written to control people and to give kings and priests an income. Secular law, by and large, has been written so that all members of society get a fair go.

Most modern societies do not pander to priests and other religious authorities. We encourage people to think for themselves, and to use resources to make their lives better.

So don't give me your "much wisdom in the scriptures" bullshit. You are reading your babble with rose coloured glasses.

And we're back here again? How it is that billions over millennia embrace both testaments without seeing what you see it, how you see it. Of course you'd say none of it is your modernist bias but rather, every Christian ever is in--what's that word atheists hate?--denial.

Proverbs is filled with wisdom. It has individual verses you can test and review inductively to see their truth, beauty and wisdom. I can't recall arguments at TTA during my brief tenure here re: Proverbs. Only assaults like those you are making that out of context, sound unlike modern "wisdom", but which in context, show the folly of rejecting God and the wisdom of trusting God!

Pick one or two of your assaults only if you want to discuss them. The rhetoric is hateful and the energy wasted.

"Only assaults like those you are making that out of context, sound unlike modern "wisdom", but which in context, show the folly of rejecting God and the wisdom of trusting God!...Pick one or two of your assaults only if you want to discuss them...."

Ok. Let's start with the Old Testament...sorry I've got a few more than "one or two"

Murder and Genocide in the Old Testament

It is claimed God struck down people for the most trivial of reasons. He personally exercised his wrath on over three hundred thousand people, and commanded the execution of over one and a half million more. I will choose only a few examples from a list of hundreds to give the reader a taste of how cheap life was in the Old Testament.

Kill sons of sinners:

“Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their father! Never again must they rise to conquer the world and cover the face of the earth with their cities” (Isa. 14:21, NJB.)

Kill people who do not obey priests:

“If anyone presumes to disobey either the priest who is there in the service of Yahweh your God, or the judge, that person must die. You must banish this evil from Israel” (Deut. 17:12, NJB.)

Death for hitting mum or dad:

“Anyone who strikes father or mother will be put to death” (Exod. 21:15, NJB.)

Death for cursing mum or dad:

“Hence: Anyone who curses father or mother will be put to death. Having cursed father or mother, the blood will be on that person’s own head” (Lev. 20:9, NJB.)

Death for adultery:

“The man who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife will be put to death, he and the woman” (Lev. 20:10, NJB.)

Genocide:

“And all living things that stirred on earth perished; birds, cattle, wild animals, all the creatures swarming over the earth, and all human beings. Everything with the least breath of life in its nostrils, everything on dry land, died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out, people, animals, creeping things and birds; they were wiped off the earth and only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark” (Gen. 7:21–23, NJB.)

The make-believe God of the Jews supposedly initiated a genocide, killing nearly every person from newborns to the elderly in a flood. He wrecked his own creation like a little boy who got frustrated and smashed the model airplane he had been building.

“My angel will precede you and lead you to the home of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Canaanites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, whom I shall exterminate” (Exod. 23:23, NJB.)

Kill false prophets:

“Then, if anyone still goes on prophesying, his parents, his own father and mother will say to him, ‘You shall not live, since you utter lies in Yahweh’s name.’ And even while he is prophesying, his parents, his own father and mother will pierce him through” (Zech. 13:3, NJB.)

These stories confirm that priests promoted their own power over life and death, and regarded human life as cheap and expendable. Many Christians throughout history have thought this gave them license to kill, and millions have died as a consequence.

Even some of our governments, as well as military and religious leaders, justify violence today based on Biblical reasoning. In the Gulf War, for example, an F-16 fighter/bomber had “Isaiah 21:9” written on its bombs:

“Babylon has fallen, has fallen, and all the images of her gods he has shattered to the ground!” (Isa. 21:9, NJB.)

“Yahweh” thought some infants and children deserved death:

“All those who are found will be stabbed, all those captured will fall by the sword, their babies dashed to pieces before their eyes, their houses plundered, their wives raped. Look, against them I am stirring up the Medes who care nothing for silver, who set no value by gold. Bows will annihilate the young men, they will have no pity for the fruit of the womb, or mercy in their eyes for children” (Isa. 13:15–18, NJB.)

“Ephraim is blasted, their root has dried out, they will bear no more fruit. And even if they do bear children I shall slaughter the darlings of their womb” (Hosea 9:16, NJB.)

“A blessing on anyone who seizes your babies and shatters them against rock” (Ps. 137:9, NJB.)

Even the unborn were not safe:

“Samaria will pay the penalty for having rebelled against her God. They will fall by the sword, their little children will be dashed to pieces and their pregnant women disemboweled” (Hosea 14:1, NJB.)

“God” ordered the killing of boys, (and women who were not virgins)

“Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him” (Num. 31:17, NJB.)

Homosexuality in the Old Testament. Kill homosexuals:

“The man who has intercourse with a man in the same way as with a woman: they have done a hateful thing together; they will be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads” (Lev. 20:13, NJB.)

Jewish priests were very focused on increasing Jewish progeny. They thought homosexual men were wasting their seed, and it degraded the status of a man to take a passive role in sex - because it made him more like a woman.

There is no record that any other cultures at the time had a problem with homosexuality. These writings are the original source of the discrimination against millions of innocent homosexual people in the Christian and Islamic world.256

“They had not gone to bed when the house was surrounded by the townspeople, the men of Sodom both young and old, all the people without exception...Look, I have two daughters who are virgins. I am ready to send them out to you, for you to treat as you please, but do nothing to these men since they are now under the protection of my roof” (Gen. 19:4–8, NJB.)

Lot offered his virgin daughters to be gang raped rather than his male guests being violated. The girls would have been horrified, but that did not matter. It was the male visitors that must not be shamed.

Later in Genesis, Lot gets blind drunk two nights in a row and has sex with both his daughters.

“God” arranges a marriage:

“If a man meets a young virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her, sleeps with her and is caught in the act, her ravisher must give the girl’s father fifty silver shekels; since he has exploited her, she must be his wife and, as long as he lives, he may not divorce her” (Deut. 22:28–29, NJB.)

The raping of an un-betrothed virgin was a violation of the rights of her father. He could not sell her to anyone else, (damaged goods) so she must be sold for fifty shekels to the man who raped her! The poor father needed to be recompensed for the financial inconvenience he suffered!

It is clear that God did not care about the rape victim. She could, after all, now be carrying another man’s seed, so deserved death. The rapist was punished... because he had violated another Jewish man’s property.

Keep the virgin girls for sex:

“...but spare the lives of the young girls who have never slept with a man, and keep them for yourselves” (Num. 31:18, NJB.)

God gave license to the rape of young virgin girls. It was the social norm in some cultures for little girls to be married off or just used for sex, and God encouraged it.

“God’s” words must have an effect on Christian attitudes to pedophilia. Some Catholic priests, for example, read the Bible every day. It is possible that some of the men in the Vatican have failed to appreciate the tragedy of pedophilia because it was so commonplace in the Old Testament.

Ancient Israel, in common with many cultures of the time, was a patriarchal world. From the beginning of the Bible, woman’s inferior position was made clear. Adam was fashioned first in the likeness of God. Eve was only a sequel, because Adam was lonely. Eve, the woman, then ruined man’s relationship with God by leading Adam into sin!

“If a virgin is engaged to a man, and another man encounters her in the town and has sexual intercourse with her, you will take them both to the gate of the town in question and stone them to death: "

When women gave birth they became unclean:

“Yahweh spoke to Moses and said, ‘Speak to the Israelites and say: If a woman becomes pregnant and gives birth to a boy, she will be unclean for seven days as when in a state of pollution due to menstruation. On the eighth day the child’s foreskin must be circumcised, and she will wait another thirty-three days for her blood to be purified. She will not touch anything consecrated nor go to the sanctuary until the time of her purification is over. If she gives birth to a girl, she will be unclean for two weeks, as during her monthly periods; and will wait another sixty-six days for her blood to be purified. When the period of her purification is over, for either boy or girl, she will bring the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting a lamb one year old for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or turtledove as a sacrifice for sin. The priest must offer this before Yahweh, perform the rite of expiation for her, and she will be purified from her discharge of blood. Such is the law concerning a woman who gives birth to either a boy or a girl’” (Lev. 12:1–7, NJB.)

This was “God’s” way to allow a woman who had given birth to recover sufficiently before “wifely duties” were resumed, so it served some purpose. There was no need, however, to use the word “unclean” or “impure,” both of which in English are derogatory terms. Nor was there any basis for claiming that a woman remained “impure” for twice as long after giving birth to a girl than a boy.

If a woman menstruated she was also “unclean:”

“Whenever a woman has a discharge and the discharge from her body is of blood, she will remain in a state of menstrual pollution for seven days. Anyone who touches her will be unclean until evening. Anything she lies on in this polluted state will be unclean; anything she sits on will be unclean. Anyone who touches her bed must wash
clothing and body and will be unclean until evening. Anyone who touches anything she has sat on must wash clothing and body and will be unclean until evening. If there is anything on the bed or where she is sitting, anyone who touches it will be unclean until evening. If a man goes so far as to sleep with her, he will contract her menstrual pollution and will be unclean for seven days. Any bed he lies on will be unclean. If a woman has a prolonged discharge of blood outside the period, or if the period is prolonged, during the time this discharge lasts she will be in the same state of uncleanness as during her monthly periods. Any bed she lays on during the time this discharge lasts will be polluted in the same way as the bed she lies on during her monthly periods. Anything she sits on will be unclean as during her monthly periods. Anyone who touches it will be unclean and must wash clothing and body and will be unclean until evening. Once she is cured of her discharge, she will allow seven days to go by; after that she will be clean”
(Lev. 15:19–30, NJB.)

Note the disgust the author felt for a fertile female who was not in the family way. A menstruating woman was unclean; she could contaminate clothing, beds, or other people. Her role was to have her husband’s or her master’s children, so she was to be shunned if she was not gestating. Jewish priests wanted women producing lots of children - the more the better - like a farmer making cash out of his most fertile sheep or cows.

The Jewish priests devised a test to detect an unfaithful wife:

“If some other man sleeps with the woman without the husband’s knowledge, and she secretly makes herself unclean, without any witness against her, and without anyone catching her in the act; if, then, a spirit of suspicion comes over the husband and makes him suspicious of the wife who has disgraced herself, or again if this spirit of suspicion comes over him and makes him suspicious of his wife even when she is innocent, the man will bring his wife before the priest, and on her behalf make an offering of one-tenth of an ephah of barley meal. He will not pour oil over it or put incense on it, because this is a cereal offering for a case of suspicion, a memorial offering to recall guilt to mind. The priest will then bring the woman forward and place her before Yahweh. The priest will then take fresh water in an earthen jar, and on the water throw dust that he has taken from the floor of the Dwelling. After he has placed the woman before Yahweh, he will unbind her hair and put the commemorative cereal offering (that is, the cereal offering for a case of suspicion) into her hands. In his own hands the priest will hold the water of bitterness and cursing. The priest will then put the woman on oath. He will say to her: If it is not true that a man has slept with you, that you have gone astray and made yourself unclean while under your husband’s authority, may this water of bitterness and cursing do you no harm. But if it is true that you have gone astray while under your husband’s authority, that you have made yourself unclean and that a man other than your husband has slept with you. Here the priest will impose an imprecatory oath on the woman. He will say to her: May Yahweh make you the object of your people’s execration and curses, by making your sexual organs shrivel and your belly swell” (Num. 5:13–21, NJB.)

How degrading that a woman’s private affairs, real or imagined, were discussed in public at her husband’s request. She was made to drink dirty water! Chauvinistic paranoia was allowed unchecked expression in ancient Israel. There was no such test for men.

Do not wash the wedding night sheets:

“If a man marries a woman, has sexual intercourse with her and then, turning against her, taxes her with misconduct and publicly defames her by saying, I married this woman and when I had sexual intercourse with her I did not find evidence of her virginity, the girl’s father and mother must take the evidence of her virginity and produce it before the elders of the town, at the gate. To the elders, the girl’s father will say, I gave this man my daughter for a wife and he has turned against her, and now he taxes her with misconduct, saying, I have found no evidence of virginity in your daughter. Here is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity! They must then display the cloth to the elders of the town. The elders of the town in question will have the man arrested and flogged, and fine him a hundred silver shekels for publicly defaming a virgin of Israel, and give this money to the girl’s father. She will remain his wife; as long as he lives, he may not divorce her. But if the accusation that the girl cannot show evidence of virginity is substantiated, she must be taken out, and at the door of her father’s house her fellow-citizens must stone her to death for having committed an infamy in Israel by bringing disgrace on her father’s family. You must banish this evil from among you” (Deut. 22:13–21, NJB.)

A girl could have her wedding night blood waved in front of the town elders. If it could not be produced, she was to be killed. This passage must appall most of today’s Christians. Men were not required to be virgins - in fact they were encouraged to spread their seed as widely as possible, although not with another Jewish man’s property (a Jewish wife.)

Women were humiliated and suppressed in Scripture. Can anyone deny that the ghost of Yahweh’s teachings still affects today’s Christian (and Islamic) attitude toward women?

“God” told Abraham to sacrifice his son:

“God said, ‘Take your son, your only son, your beloved Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, where you are to offer him as a burnt offering on one of the mountains which I shall point out to you.’ Early next morning Abraham saddled his donkey and took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. He chopped wood for the burnt offering and started on his journey to the place which God had indicated to him” (Gen. 22:1–3, NJB.)

Abraham put a knife to his son’s throat, but God stopped the murder, claiming he was just testing Abraham’s faith. Can anyone imagine an omniscient god doing this? Some Christians claim this story was a sign of God’s love. There was no love here, just a story about a life-threatening auditory hallucination.

Jephthah burnt his daughter:

“And Jephthah made a vow to Yahweh: ‘If you deliver the Ammonites into my grasp, the first thing to come out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from fighting the Ammonites shall belong to Yahweh, and I shall sacrifice it as a burnt offering.’ Jephthah crossed into Ammonite territory to attack them, and Yahweh delivered them into his grasp. He beat them from Aroer to the border of Minnith (twenty towns) and to Abel-Keramim. It was a very severe defeat, and the Ammonites were humbled by the Israelites. As Jephthah returned to his house at Mizpah, his daughter came out to meet him, dancing to the sound of tambourines. She was his only child; apart from her, he had neither son nor daughter. When he saw her, he tore his clothes and exclaimed, ‘Oh my daughter, what misery you have brought upon me! You have joined those who bring misery into my life! I have made a promise before Yahweh which I cannot retract.’ She replied, ‘Father, you have made a promise to Yahweh; treat me as the promise that you have made requires, since Yahweh has granted you vengeance on your enemies the Ammonites.’ She then said to her father, ‘Grant me this! Let me be free for two months. I shall go and wander in the mountains, and with my companions bewail my virginity.’ He replied, ‘Go,’ and let her go away for two months. So she went away with her companions and bewailed her virginity in the mountains. When the two months were over she went back to her father, and he treated her as the vow that he had uttered bound him. She had remained a virgin. And hence, the custom in Israel for the daughters of Israel to leave home year by year and lament over the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite for four days every year” (Judg. 11:30–40, NJB.)

This was a story about a hopelessly superstitious community. The intention of sacrificing the girl was publicly known for two months, yet no one questioned the sanity of a man who was talking to God and threatening to kill his daughter. This time God did not stop the sacrifice. The community was crestfallen, but had one consolation: it was only a girl that was killed. The lesson was that God’s commandments should be carried out no matter what the consequences. Any Christian who could worship such a vile deity is deluded.

Slavery in the Old Testament
“God” gave permission for foreigners and their children to be used as slaves:

“The male and female slaves you have will come from the nations round you; from these you may purchase male and female slaves. As slaves, you may also purchase the children of aliens resident among you, and also members of their families living with you who have been born on your soil; and they will become your property, and you may leave them as a legacy to your sons after you as their perpetual possession. These you may have for slaves; but you will not oppress your brother-Israelites” (Lev. 25:44–46, NJB.)

If a Jewish father was running short of shekels, God suggested selling his daughter as a sex slave!

“If a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not leave as male slaves do. If she does not please her master who intended her for himself, he must let her be bought back: he has not the right to sell her to foreigners, for this would be a breach of faith with her. If he intends her for his son, he must treat her as custom requires daughters to be treated. If he takes another wife, he must not reduce the food, clothing or conjugal rights of the first one. Should he deprive her of these three things she will leave a free woman, without paying compensation” (Exod. 21:7–11, NJB.)

The girl could be sold back after being used, or become one of many wives, or be given to the purchaser’s son.

Kill your slave!

“If someone beats his slave, male or female, and the slave dies at his hands, he must pay the penalty. But should the slave survive for one or two days, he will pay no penalty because the slave is his by right of purchase” (Exod. 21:20–21, NJB.)

Many untrue translations of the Bible use the word “servant,” “bond- servant,” or “manservant” instead of “slave” here.

Slavery was a common custom in most cultures. Yahweh did not find anything abhorrent about bashing, trafficking or slaying slaves. Yahweh should have known better. There was little respect for the right to liberty in ancient Israel. People were bought and sold and killed like animals.

There are almost no modern Christians who approve of Yahweh’s validation of slavery. The same cannot be said about many Christians two hundred years ago.

Kill witches:

“You will not allow a sorceress to live” (Exod. 22:17, NJB.)

“Any man or woman of yours who is a necromancer or magician will be put to death; they will be stoned to death; their blood will be on their own heads” (Lev. 20:27, NJB.)

Thousands of unfortunate European people were murdered in witch- hunts during the middle Ages. Midwives and herbalists were considered to be in competition with the Church, and these passages were sometimes used as an excuse to eliminate them. In some cities in France and Germany, the executions carried out by Christian churches culled nearly one percent of the population.

The Reformation, which swept away so many superstitions, left this one alone. The Churchmen of England, the Lutherans of Germany, and the Calvinists of Geneva, Scotland, and New England rivaled the rampages of the Roman Catholics.

Please demonstrate exactly how each of the above verses can be read "in context" to justify reverence for your god.

The reality is that Yahweh had nearly all the most unattractive features of a primitive tyrant. He was violent, sexist, racist, egotistical, power- hungry, capricious, cantankerous, jealous, homophobic, and not overly smart. Yahweh allowed and encouraged rape, even of children. He sanctioned slavery, war, murder and the unnecessary killing of animals. Yahweh took sides and interfered in the world’s proceedings like a meddlesome, mischievous bully. He passed judgment on people based on the most trivial of issues, and insisted the Jews worship him. Yahweh was a right old bastard.

Yahweh was similar to Islam’s god, Allah, (allegedly the same entity) who was also jealous, violent, sexist, and obsessed with snuffing out any competition. Judaism had its priests and prophets who wrote the Old Testament, Islamists had Mohamed who was allegedly inspired to dictate the Koran, the Christians had the Roman government who probably had the Gospels written, and all groups were referring to the same nasty, fictitious god.

Yet, Yahweh was not all bad. Different Old Testament authors depicted him differently. There are some places in Scripture where he was merciful or gracious or forgiving or loving or kind. If he had consistently behaved this well, belief would be a more benign delusion - but he did not. God showed his true colors too often.

Most Christians rarely read the Old Testament, or if they do, only pick parts of it, and so gloss over the fact their iron age God, when judged by modern standards, is pathetic, immature and evil. Yet Yahweh has always been there, quietly lurking in the pages of the Old Testament, insidiously poisoning Christians’ attitude to their fellow men, women, and children. Fundamentalist Christians still justify their own prejudices by quoting the Old Testament.

It is time Christians woke up to the fact that their God is odious.

We can do the New Testament next. Paul or Jeebus?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Mark Fulton's post
24-07-2015, 09:49 AM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(23-07-2015 10:03 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(23-07-2015 09:27 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  And we're back here again? How it is that billions over millennia embrace both testaments without seeing what you see it, how you see it. Of course you'd say none of it is your modernist bias but rather, every Christian ever is in--what's that word atheists hate?--denial.

99.99 % of them "over millenia" actually never really read the entire thing, and had it interpreted FOR them by Fundie idiot apologists, not unlike yourself. I can't believe you're actually using that bullshit argument. The one here in real "denial" is you.

(23-07-2015 09:27 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Proverbs is filled with wisdom. It has individual verses you can test and review inductively to see their truth, beauty and wisdom. I can't recall arguments at TTA during my brief tenure here re: Proverbs. Only assaults like those you are making that out of context, sound unlike modern "wisdom", but which in context, show the folly of rejecting God and the wisdom of trusting God!

None it came from a god. ALL of it came from a specific (limited) culture. All cultures have *wisdom literature* you ignoramus. No one is saying there is *no* wisdom there. It's human literature and contains some culturally relative wisdom, just like ALL wisdom literature produced by ALL cultures. Your Babble is not *special*.

I see, "I'm the 0.01%?"

Think for a minute about what you wrote and about the literacy of the Jewish people along with their profound immersion in the scriptures... Orthodox Jews alone spend profound amounts of time in the scriptures...

"You so silly, BB."

PS. Again, you should feel free to inductively test specific Proverbs as opposed to making general statements like "the Bible isn't special".

PPS. I think you're special.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-07-2015, 09:52 AM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(23-07-2015 10:16 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(23-07-2015 09:23 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  First thing that comes to mind is the entire book of Hebrews! Understand that almost zero of Paul's ideas are anything but exposition of OT scriptures and prophecy. (Understand I believe Paul wrote Hebrews.)

Just from the first chapter of Hebrews:

For to which of the angels did God ever say,

“You are my Son;
today I have become your Father”?

Or again,

“I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son”?

6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,

“Let all God’s angels worship him.”

7 In speaking of the angels he says,

“He makes his angels spirits,
and his servants flames of fire.”

8 But about the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy."

10 He also says,

“In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
11 They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
12 You will roll them up like a robe;
like a garment they will be changed.
But you remain the same,
and your years will never end.”

13 To which of the angels did God ever say,

“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet”?

14 Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?

Or we could look at other epistles--but since Mark and BB try to tell me that what I think are some of Paul's letters aren't, I guess I can use Hebrews just as well!

This might be covered in one of the videos Bucky Ball posted (I haven't had time to watch them), but I would expect you to know anyway that the consensus of Biblical scholars is that Hebrews was almost certainly not written by Paul. So you're still striking out. How about you provide me with an example from an Epistle that was actually written by Paul? I believe there are 7 of those. Hebrews is not one of them. It's not even one of the disputed ones.

I know the consensus. Did you read my post at all where I said I think Paul wrote it? Did you read my post where I made a stand for the legitimacy of quoting Hebrews as Pauline.

But here's several hundred OT verses Paul quotes, many/most of them legitimizing Jesus as the Christ:

http://www.freewebs.com/thywordis/PAUL%2...E%20OT.htm

Thanks.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-07-2015, 09:58 AM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(23-07-2015 04:05 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(23-07-2015 09:23 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  First thing that comes to mind is the entire book of Hebrews! Understand that almost zero of Paul's ideas are anything but exposition of OT scriptures and prophecy. (Understand I believe Paul wrote Hebrews.)

That's unfortunate. scholars know he couldn't have written it.

(23-07-2015 09:23 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  For to which of the angels did God ever say,

“You are my Son;
today I have become your Father”?

Or again,

“I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son”?

6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,

“Let all God’s angels worship him.”

7 In speaking of the angels he says,

“He makes his angels spirits,
and his servants flames of fire.”

8 But about the Son he says,

Proof you have no clue. See the TENSE there. So Jebus was not ALREADY his everlasting "son". LOL Being a "son" of God does not make them "divine'. Being "divine' in Hebrew culture also in no way makes them equal to Yahweh. Many people were called "sons" of God. It was a general honorific accorded to MANY. Thanks for proving yet again you have no clue about the Bible.

(23-07-2015 09:23 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  13 To which of the angels did God ever say,

“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet”?

So again, even YOU are saying, the second person of the Trinity was "granted" that status, and was not eternally the son. LOL. You are no Christian, Q.

You are very skilled, BB, at poking holes in the English Bible without ever comparing scriptures to other scriptures or any other logical context.

1. Scholars KNOW he couldn't have written Hebrews implies any number of things including they KNOW who wrote it. An overstatement there.

2. The TODAY you are my Son refers to prophecies including Psalms referring to RESURRECTION today; TODAY I have begotten you FROM THE DEAD. Oy vey, BB!

3. Jesus is ALREADY at the right hand of the Father. The throne at the right hand of the King in the ANE is for the 2IC of the Kingdom, the most honored one. Jesus is there (as consistent with every other statement in the Bible of Jesus's location now) until Jesus's enemies are beneath His feet in judgment. Saying "the second person of the trinity isn't because He's already sitting in the second person's chair" is an almost insufferable mistake. However, you're not a born again Christian so you are spiritually blind and I can forgive your error.

All your arguments sound good but disobey Bible 101 principles (as always).

Repent, brother BB!

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-07-2015, 10:42 AM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(24-07-2015 09:58 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  1. Scholars KNOW he couldn't have written Hebrews implies any number of things including they KNOW who wrote it. An overstatement there.

Don't be ridiculous. Of course it doesn't imply they know who wrote it. If the style and vocabulary and interests promoted are different in one book than another, one can confidently say someone didn't write both. They don't have to know or say who who did, to say someone didn't. Nice try though.

(24-07-2015 09:58 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  2. The TODAY you are my Son refers to prophecies including Psalms referring to RESURRECTION today; TODAY I have begotten you FROM THE DEAD. Oy vey, BB!

Irrelevant. It STILL implies a start date. You missed the point .... on purpose.

(24-07-2015 09:58 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  3. Jesus is ALREADY at the right hand of the Father. The throne at the right hand of the King in the ANE is for the 2IC of the Kingdom, the most honored one. Jesus is there (as consistent with every other statement in the Bible of Jesus's location now) until Jesus's enemies are beneath His feet in judgment. Saying "the second person of the trinity isn't because He's already sitting in the second person's chair" is an almost insufferable mistake. However, you're not a born again Christian so you are spiritually blind and I can forgive your error.

I knew you were going to pull this "hermeutics" shit. It says what it says. There are no "Bible 101" principles, except for childish Fundies.

Jebus is Lard, SexuallyPleasingJebusTrollJoke. Tongue
You thought you'd fool me.
Ha.
Thumbsup

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: