Talmud, OT and morality of god
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-10-2015, 06:22 AM
RE: Talmud, OT and morality of god
(24-10-2015 06:19 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  If it was not for God's Because of teachings on the bible it is quite possible that slavery would still be in the United States. The sole reason why Abraham Lincoln pushed for the abolition of slavery was because he was a devout christian aware of the need to unite all the states. He explains that several times in public speeches.

Fixt.

Thumbsup

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
24-10-2015, 06:41 AM
RE: Talmud, OT and morality of god
(24-10-2015 06:19 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  If it was not for God's teachings on the bible it is quite possible that slavery would still be in the United States. The sole reason why Abraham Lincoln pushed for the abolition of slavery was because he was a devout christian. He explains that several times in public speeches.

The bible was quoted by the pro-slavery side, with justification. It was also quoted by the anti-slavery side, with justification. That's the problem with assigning any authority to it; the book is so contradictory and confused that you can find support for whatever you already believe and you can ignore or "interpret" the rest to conform with those beliefs. People don't get their morality from the bible, the bible gets its morality from the people reading it.

Lincoln was a nominal xian at best, possibly more of a deist, and his reasons for pushing for abolition were too complex to be reduced to any single reason. He may have used religious rhetoric in speeches to bolster his case but (I'd have to see quotes) but, even granting that, it is only part of the picture. He was a politician and would naturally pander to his audience; private writings are much more indicative of his actual beliefs. I think his letter to Greeley comes much nearer to the real truth of the matter:

Quote:If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.

bolding mine

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like unfogged's post
24-10-2015, 07:09 AM
RE: Talmud, OT and morality of god
(24-10-2015 06:19 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  If it was not for God's teachings on the bible it is quite possible that slavery would still be in the United States. The sole reason why Abraham Lincoln pushed for the abolition of slavery was because he was a devout christian. He explains that several times in public speeches.

Lincoln was a Christian? Since when?

Don't let those gnomes and their illusions get you down. They're just gnomes and illusions.

--Jake the Dog, Adventure Time

Alouette, je te plumerai.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2015, 07:35 AM
RE: Talmud, OT and morality of god
(24-10-2015 06:04 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(23-10-2015 09:44 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  The last part of your statement is asinine. The new covenant was the change in the times. It says not to be peaceful and merciful. That would include not owning other human life to do what you will with. The old testament wasn't quite right. Why do you think God had to send down a new testament in Jesus of Christ. Man's interpretation was manipulated because of greed, hence the kagilion man made laws.

Nowhere does the NT say not to own other people. It assumes throughout that slavery exists and explicitly tells slaves to obey their masters. There is much in the NT that is an improvement over the OT but it does not outlaw slavery or even condemn it. Slavery is just an accepted practice.

The passages about being "peaceful and merciful" are primarily aimed at interactions between Jews. That people have since extended the idea to all people is fine, but it isn't what the book says, it is people themselves taking good ideas and extending them. No god was needed for any of it and no evidence of any involvement of a god is apparent.

By the way, if your god couldn't get his message across in OT what makes you think he managed to do it with the NT? He seems like a pretty incompetent god overall.
The references in the NT are metaphorical and pertain to creation/ creator as we are to be unwavering servants of God and God alone. Has nothing to do with slavery of men to other men.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2015, 07:39 AM
RE: Talmud, OT and morality of god
(24-10-2015 06:07 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(23-10-2015 09:44 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  The last part of your statement is asinine. The new covenant was the change in the times. It says not to be peaceful and merciful. That would include not owning other human life to do what you will with. The old testament wasn't quite right. Why do you think God had to send down a new testament in Jesus of Christ. Man's interpretation was manipulated because of greed, hence the kagilion man made laws.

pops,

It is obvious you haven’t read the OT, or if you have, you certainly haven’t understood it.

Pro-tip: Before submitting a book review read it first. Thumbsup
I've read it, continue to read it, and comprehend most of it quite well. The OT or Torah are truly inspired works brought about by the revelations of God upon men. Why would you think I haven't read it? Because I think some parts aren't correct due to the greedy hand of man? No really, what part do you think I don't understand? What books am I confused about?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2015, 07:42 AM
RE: Talmud, OT and morality of god
(24-10-2015 06:09 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(23-10-2015 10:07 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Fatbaldhobbit,

God did not make a mistake. Man did, for his own benefit as opposed to the will of God.

Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ taught and showed how to live under the direction of God. He, taught sacrifice of sin of the flesh. He literally sacrificed himself that we could attain mercy under God. Upon salvation we are to walk holy under God without sin. We are to sacrifice sin within us, and in doing so, be reborn without blimish under God for his purpose, which just so happens to be the best thing for all creation. Most Christians act like they don't quite get that part, so they can continue to sin and think they are going to heaven.

The idea of substitutionary atonement is completely irrational. The whole Jesus story is what is asinine here. If somebody does something wrong then they have to make up for it. Killing some other animal or person does not do anything to undo the harm and is completely pointless. If you think your god can't forgive anybody without their being meaningless bloodshed says a lot about you beliefs. It is a primitive system and it is sad to see people stuck in that mindset.

You need help Pops. Get some.
Sacrifice of self is the way of salvation and direction under God. You can't sacrifice anything that isn't yours. That is murder, not sacrifice. Jesus taught how to live righteously under God. Just because most Christians think the death of the son of God is a get out of hell free card doesn't make it so.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2015, 07:47 AM
RE: Talmud, OT and morality of god
(24-10-2015 07:35 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  The references in the NT are metaphorical and pertain to creation/ creator as we are to be unwavering servants of God and God alone. Has nothing to do with slavery of men to other men.

How very convenient. He makes strict laws about killing and stealing and making images of living things but slavery isn't something he has to be bothered with. Jesus tells you that all of the old laws still apply which includes who you can enslave and how badly you can beat them. That you ignore that is to your credit, not the actual claims of the bible.

It's all a sham Pops. You can make up all the excuses you want to explain why the book never condemns something you agree is wrong but the fact of the matter is that the bible is just a collection of myths. It contains no more truth than many other works of literature and I'd place many others above it for clarity, consistency, and value. If you weren't so delusional you might have a chance to see that.

You need help Pops. Get some.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
24-10-2015, 07:55 AM
RE: Talmud, OT and morality of god
(24-10-2015 07:42 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Sacrifice of self is the way of salvation and direction under God. You can't sacrifice anything that isn't yours. That is murder, not sacrifice. Jesus taught how to live righteously under God. Just because most Christians think the death of the son of God is a get out of hell free card doesn't make it so.

I keep forgetting that you have created your own theology and that your views are even more delusional than the common xian ones. "Sacrifice of self" can be noble or abhorrent but it would depend on what you mean by it. I'm betting on the abhorrent end of the scale but the main problem with your claim is that you still haven't provided a shred of evidence that your god exists.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2015, 07:56 AM
RE: Talmud, OT and morality of god
(24-10-2015 07:47 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(24-10-2015 07:35 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  The references in the NT are metaphorical and pertain to creation/ creator as we are to be unwavering servants of God and God alone. Has nothing to do with slavery of men to other men.

How very convenient. He makes strict laws about killing and stealing and making images of living things but slavery isn't something he has to be bothered with. Jesus tells you that all of the old laws still apply which includes who you can enslave and how badly you can beat them. That you ignore that is to your credit, not the actual claims of the bible.

It's all a sham Pops. You can make up all the excuses you want to explain why the book never condemns something you agree is wrong but the fact of the matter is that the bible is just a collection of myths. It contains no more truth than many other works of literature and I'd place many others above it for clarity, consistency, and value. If you weren't so delusional you might have a chance to see that.

You need help Pops. Get some.
Perhaps if you could comprehend you would know that there is but one commandment of God. All other laws fall in place under this one commandment.
Slavery was never law. Sorry. If you love God unconditionally then you would never own a slave or break any subsequent law of God in the Torah.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2015, 07:57 AM
RE: Talmud, OT and morality of god
(21-10-2015 11:42 AM)unfogged Wrote:  The idea that the Torah is not to be taken literally is certainly a step in the right direction. The question is why any book with that much hyperbolic language requiring so much commentary and interpretation is considered valuable at all. Surely it makes more sense to chuck the whole mess and start again with something that is clear and direct.

It seems there are two possible ways to consider it: (a) it is a divinely inspired book by a god that apparently enjoys deceiving and misleading people by creating a set of guidelines that are so convoluted that it is impossible to determine what it really means or (b) it is the product of primitive, barbaric societies and we've moved past much of the immoral behaviors and so have to make excuse after excuse for what the book plainly says.

Yeah, that .

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: