Shocking Verses from the Bible

Normally I do not post my two cents in threads about religion, but I read something that I had to speak on.

Originally posted by AlreadyGone

Then we look at things in their proper context, do some research into the times...what was going on, etc. A lot of the old Judaic Laws simply don't apply to Christians as Christians are followers of Jesus christ and He said He was the new covenant and the new law....and thus did away with the old laws.

Jesus did not do away with the old laws, such as the 10 commandants, but he came to fulfill them.

17 “Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.

18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is achieved.

19 So if you ignore the least commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God’s laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Matthew 5:17-19

As far as the OP goes. That's just the way it was back then. Everything was for a reason and purpose that led up to Jesus doing what he had to do.

reply to post by Lionhearte


Can you then please explain why any of this crap made it's way into the bible? I thought thw whole thing was um...the word of god?

reply to post by majesticgent


And your post thus leading to questions around the quote you used:

["A lot of the old Judaic Laws simply don't apply to Christians as Christians are followers of Jesus christ and He said He was the new covenant and the new law....and thus did away with the old laws."]


Contemporary christians are very eager to point out, that the contract (covenant) is renewed (as it was several times in OT).

Where the first observation naturally is, that this took place two thousand years ago, and if it should be relevant today, it has to be renewed again and brought up to date.

The second observation being, that a contract only is binding for those agreeing to it initially. I have never signed anything, as have neither app. 83% of mankind (professing christians being 16-17%).

The third, that we only have one man's word for the specifics of this new contract (Paulus, as shady a character as you get them), claiming 'authority' from his subjective (or fabricated) experiences and through his personal re-introduction of the mythological character Melchizedek.

Fourth, relevant to thread-topic, pauline christianity is STILL based on the genesis situation (and its interpretation and that interpretation's supporting methods of christian pseudo-'logic', christian divine pseudo-'psychology' and christian pseudo-epistemology on ethics).



Changing 'laws' (or a contract), as a justification for christianity by christians, use the same method as 99% of all christian claims are based on: Circle-argumentation as the cornerstone.

That some christians cherry-pick between bible-verses, that they also cherry-pick between what's 'law' (in a context of old/new law), that they disagree on the fine print in the contract and that this has led to a schismed christianity, naturally makes the whole thing absurd to non-christians, who mainly see endless semantic ornamentation, disguised as 'explanations' of why this or that bible-verse is allegorical, symbolic, a 'secret code', literal or whatever.

Seldom one single rational word.

You see, to me Religion is the biggest Chinese whispers ever told, a combination of stories, some of which are true and some completely fabricated from some very smart individuals.

If you combine them all together, which by the way is a strictly chosen bunch of stories, to create the Bible, give us a kind of riddle me this and riddle me that blood thirsty story, and by the way, Love you to death message all rolled into one very complicated story...

Ahhhh religion one of life's ecstasies and agonies.

reply to post by AlreadyGone

The old laws were set up to obtain salvation through a religious following of the Laws...Ten Commandments and Judaic/ Levitical law. Jesus taught that by following Him and following His teachings as shown in Matthew 5-6-7...the Sermon on the Mount...that we attained salvation. No need for the 10 Commandments because as a Christian, you would not kill or cheat or steal or lie anyway.

No salvation, just a prospering nation and along with that idea, the ability to choose who can and can not be included in that nation. So there was no salvation other than being included on the roll of a tribe within this federation.
By the time of Jesus, through the influence of the "pagan" mystery religions, the people began to want a life outside this one, an afterlife. Jesus obliged them at the proper time and before the fall of that nation, by creating the mysterious Way religion, which has subsequently eradicated. Eternal Truths is the foundation for the religion Jesus was the ideal of, and you have to look for the clues, just like the OP is giving these clues into the nature of the "here and now" religion that existed in the time before Jesus, within that Hebraic nation.
I have an example of these eternal Truths I found last night.
Revelation 3:12 The one who conquers I will make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will never depart from it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God (the new Jerusalem that comes down out of heaven from my God), and my new name as well.

This is describing immortality and something that continues on into the future and will never become old or used up. What is the truth that gives immortality? It describes the recipients of that, in verse 8,
I know that you have little strength, but you have obeyed my word and have not denied my name.

Does this mean that you have to learn Aramaic to become immortal? Think "holy character" when you see the word, Name. Power or strength is what the future immortal people had not, and that would be in comparison to what the "here and now" religion does have, which is worldly power but no eternal future, only future punishment.

reply to post by bogomil

This is an open defense for the' god'-pretending demon called Jahveh.

How dare you!?!
(only kidding)
Oddly, I used to be one of them, believing the OT god was actually loving but misunderstood.
Then I realized it was me who misunderstood. Despite all that, today I just wonder what in the world the defenders of said daemon-god are thinking. They don't seem to be coming from the same mind I had, but more like "god is evil but I like that since He is for Me."
That really makes me cringe and feel ill inside.
Please repent, all defenders of the demon and ask Jesus to come into your heart, the one who never defended that demon but rebuked him.

Originally posted by Firefly_

Originally posted by Bokaforo
If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12

If there is one verse in the bible that conclusively proves that the bible was written by men, then this is it.

Who claims the Bible was not written by men?

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by CLPrime

 

"Fallible men make it a habit to judge the ways of God. We have to remember, men are fallible...God is not."

Disregarding fallibility for the moment, I would like to concentrate on the either endless ignorance or the endless arrogance in assuming everyone must relate to a set of self-proclaimed mythological 'absolutes' and the bizarre premises associated with them.

Why disregard fallibility? It's a fundamental of human nature. If we ignore our fallibility, then we become both ignorant and arrogant.
Which "everyone" are you talking about? Everyone, globally, throughout history? Or everyone in Israel 3500 years ago?

"What right is it of ours to judge His methods?"

That the whole thing, in totality or in details, is a fabulation perhaps.....

That's so easy for you to say. Whenever a Christian says anything regarding the sovereignty of God, all a non-Christian has to come back with is, "It's all a fairy tale." Congratulations on following the fold, yourself, and not having any real argument.

"God has all power and all authority. If He sees fit to destroy a city, who are we to judge Him?"

That it's all about power and authority is commonly known amongst non-christians. But it's always nice to hear some evangelist say it straight out. The sugar-coating missionary is just tons of empty words. This is an open defense for the' god'-pretending demon called Jahveh.

It's an open proclamation of the sovereignty of God. Everyone wants a cute, fuzzy, cuddly version of God, and that's not who He is. God is a vengeful God...but God is just in His vengeance, so He has every right to be vengeful. God is a jealous God...but He is the only God, and many insist on not following Him, so He has every right to be jealous (remember, this isn't jealousy as we would define it...it's an insistence on worship of Him alone, because He, alone, is the only true God).

"He has never done so without purpose."

And said purposes are, convenient for missionaries, 'mysterious'.

Only at the time. God's purposes are always clear (though, possibly, complicated) in retrospect. You know what they say... hindsight is 20/20. God has a perfect track record of keeping His Word and accomplishing His purposes. Conveniently, non-Christians side-step this issue by either declaring the Bible fairy tales, as you did earlier, or declaring God a closet demon, as you just did.

"God is loving and merciful, but He is also jealous, vengeful, and strong,..."

That's what rational non-christians would call a schizoid sociopath; but there you go...perspective is everything.

Well then, I'm glad that people who don't know or understand the character of God have classified His mental state. That will certainly be admissible as evidence at your trial before His throne.

"We're the ones who don't understand His methods...how can we judge God from our ignorance (not to mention our arrogance)"

Concerning ignorance and arrogance..speak on your own behalf.

My recognition of my own fallibility leads me to trust God and His Word. Consequently, my only arrogance is in proclaiming His Word as truth... but I am fully justified in doing so, given that I believe His nature to be entirely sovereign and just. In this, I have no ignorance.
Your ignorance of your own fallibility leads you to distrust God and His Word. Consequently, you arrogance is in your denial of His Word as truth.

Given the existence of God, I am fully justified. Even given His non-existence, my arrogance is of a lesser kind than yours. So, I guess you're right, that's the true difference between Christians and non-Christians... it all comes down to ignorance and arrogance. Atheists perfect both of these on a daily basis.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by bogomil

 

This is an open defense for the' god'-pretending demon called Jahveh.

How dare you!?!
(only kidding)
Oddly, I used to be one of them, believing the OT god was actually loving but misunderstood.
Then I realized it was me who misunderstood. Despite all that, today I just wonder what in the world the defenders of said daemon-god are thinking. They don't seem to be coming from the same mind I had, but more like "god is evil but I like that since He is for Me."
That really makes me cringe and feel ill inside.
Please repent, all defenders of the demon and ask Jesus to come into your heart, the one who never defended that demon but rebuked him.

edit on 21-7-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Without carrying it into a tear-filled "you and me are buddies in spirit", I have both respect and sympathy for the 'two-god' approach to the bible-conglomorate. It makes sense.

I don't have to be a christian or even a theist to appreciate the decency of what the initial Jesus-movement (by some groups) is said to be, even disregarding the debated existence of an actual Jesus or not. And generally leaving the finer theological points alone, as being outside my competence or interest.

What has survived the onslaught of perverting his maverick-message back into the fold of an existentially indebted and totalitarian religion, is enough to convince me of the original good intentions, acceptable in a broader social context.

And while this isn't THE numerically greatest reason for atrocities, I consider the overall pauline christianity as the greatest scam in known history.

reply to post by bogomil

. . .The third, that we only have one man's word for the specifics of this new contract (Paulus, as shady a character as you get them), claiming 'authority' from his subjective (or fabricated) experiences and through his personal re-introduction of the mythological character Melchizedek.

Are you assuming that Paul wrote the Book of Hebrews?
I doubt it but I agree with the fist part about the "shady character" thing.
I believe, Luckily we have the Book of Hebrews, so we have a non-Paul book to really understand what is happening.
"A temple not made by human hands", I take to denote that there is a God beyond the god of this world who did have a temple made by human hands. That earthly temple had the covenant that Jesus did not die for but Jesus did die to establish a better covenant for us with that God who is the One who has no earthly name and is not contained in dimensional space and time.

reply to post by CLPrime


You wrote:

["Why disregard fallibility? It's a fundamental of human nature."]

Because it's completely irrelevant as an argument FOR anything. That mankind is far from perfect, could justify practically all invasive fascist ideologies.

Quote: ["Which "everyone" are you talking about? Everyone, globally, throughout history? Or everyone in Israel 3500 years ago?"]

With 'everyone' I refer to all the direct victims (and potential converts), who have been and is exposed to a monopoly-seeking missionary christianity, which even at an abstract level pretends, that its own premises are exclusive absolutes.

Quote: ["That's so easy for you to say. Whenever a Christian says anything regarding the sovereignty of God, all a non-Christian has to come back with is, "It's all a fairy tale."]

I can see, that you are not familiar with my 1½ year on ATS on precisely that (no blame, I'm not that interesting). I can do much better than just making general statements as answers to self-proclaimed 'truths'.

Quote: ["Congratulations on following the fold, yourself, and not having any real argument"]

I believe, that your patronizing attitude is premature and more tactical in nature, than based on knowledge or relating to what has happened on the thread sofar.

Quote: ["It's an open proclamation of the sovereignty of God. Everyone wants a cute, fuzzy, cuddly version of God, and that's not who He is. God is a vengeful God...but God is just in His vengeance, so He has every right to be vengeful. God is a jealous God...but He is the only God, and many insist on not following Him, so He has every right to be jealous (remember, this isn't jealousy as we would define it...it's an insistence on worship of Him alone, because He, alone, is the only true God)."]

I actually complimented you for playing with true colours, whereas your circular doctrinal argumentation ofcourse is........circular argumentation.

Quote: [" God's purposes are always clear (though, possibly, complicated) in retrospect. You know what they say... hindsight is 20/20."] God has a perfect track record of keeping His Word and accomplishing His purposes."]

Meaning. that those varieties of christians, talking about 'ineffability' early and late aren't 'true' christians. Do you suggest yourself as an alternative 'true' christian?

Quote: ["God has a perfect track record of keeping His Word and accomplishing His purposes."]

I seem to recall some instances of regretting decissions, and if you with purpose mean the insistence on totalitarian control, I won't disagree. That's pretty constant, especially coming from a demon (whom are said to be rather inconsistent).

Quote: ["Conveniently, non-Christians side-step this issue by either declaring the Bible fairy tales, as you did earlier,...."]

What sidestep of what issue? The bible IS a mythology, and it's self-contradictions, irrationality and out-of-context with reality aren't negated because its main-character is steadily obsessed by dominance all through it. Monomania and stubborn-ness isn't synonymous with ultimate truth.

Quote continued: [".........or declaring God a closet demon, as you just did."]

Which he is, outside of the home-brewed christian 'excuses and upside-down' methods. There's nothing 'closet' about it from my perspective, it's all out in the open.

Quote: ["Well then, I'm glad that people who don't know or understand the character of God have classified His mental state. That will certainly be admissible as evidence at your trial before His throne."]

Back to trying to enforce me to accept premises and self-proclaimed absolutes not my own.

Quote: ["My recognition of my own fallibility leads me to trust God and His Word."]

Your choice. But we are not all like you, and we do not all of us recognize your premises.

Quote: ["Consequently, my only arrogance is in proclaiming His Word as truth... "]

Considering the consequences of such claims.....just look at theocracy e.g.

Quote: ["but I am fully justified in doing so, given that I believe His nature to be entirely sovereign and just."]

You don't seem to grok the difference between making claims on your own behalf and on behalf of all mankind.

Quote: ["In this, I have no ignorance."]

But blind faith, about which a lot can be said from different perspectives (also a bit of good).

Quote: ["Your ignorance of your own fallibility leads you to distrust God and His Word."]

You mean my 'ignorance' as decided and determined on your assumptions and premises.

Quote: ["Consequently, you arrogance is in your denial of His Word as truth"]

I fail to see, how assumptions and subjective premises can lead to any valid further conclusions.

Quote: ["Given the existence of God, I am fully justified."]

If you feel justified from using circle-argumentation, fine. I'm not here to convert you, but only to point out, that your perspective only is valid for you, until you can demonstrate its validity in a collective context.

Quote: [" Even given His non-existence, my arrogance is of a lesser kind than yours."]

If you say so.

Quote: ["So, I guess you're right, that's the true difference between Christians and non-Christians... it all comes down to ignorance and arrogance. Atheists perfect both of these on a daily basis."]

And when all else fails, there will be character-defamation, completely irrelevant to the present topic. Which I hope you can find your way back to, before our posts start to be deleted as off-topic.

In future posts, I will just ignore the insinuating personal facets, but I answered to it this time to give you the option of sorting the various types of 'arguments' from each other.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by bogomil

 

. . .The third, that we only have one man's word for the specifics of this new contract (Paulus, as shady a character as you get them), claiming 'authority' from his subjective (or fabricated) experiences and through his personal re-introduction of the mythological character Melchizedek.

Are you assuming that Paul wrote the Book of Hebrews?
I doubt it but I agree with the fist part about the "shady character" thing.
I believe, Luckily we have the Book of Hebrews, so we have a non-Paul book to really understand what is happening.
"A temple not made by human hands", I take to denote that there is a God beyond the god of this world who did have a temple made by human hands. That earthly temple had the covenant that Jesus did not die for but Jesus did die to establish a better covenant for us with that God who is the One who has no earthly name and is not contained in dimensional space and time.

edit on 21-7-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

I will immediate familiarize myself with the Book of Hebrews. I'm not much of a bible-expert concerning specific parts. I concentrate on the major doctrinal points, in a syncretistic and comparative perspective.

I like the idea of the 'unnamed, unknown and unknowable god' in all its various forms. It's practically never invasive, and can function parallel with a rational search for 'reality'.

reply to post by bogomil


Would you be insulted if I said you and I were a lot alike? At least, as far as I'm concerned. Points of view are irrelevant as far as arguments and reasoning are concerned, and, from what I can see, you have reasoned your point of view in the same way I have reasoned mine... but with completely opposite conclusions. Your "common sense" does not negate mine, just as you would claim that what I call "common sense" does nothing to negate yours. We each claim to understand. Just because you say you're right, that won't make it true. Just because I say I'm right, that won't make it true either. Just because you say the Bible represents God as an evil deity, that doesn't mean it does. Just because I say the Bible represents God as a just and loving deity who regularly wields His authority and demands our recognition, that doesn't mean it does.

The issue at hand is reality... and not a single one of us can claim to control it simply by believing something to be true.

reply to post by CLPrime

Just because you say, the Bible represents God as an evil deity, that doesn't mean it does.

Did the Lord say at the exit from the Garden, "you know of course, Adam, that the fruit you ate of does not really give you the power of discernment or the ability to judge gods. It was only a trick, naming it that. Ha Ha! Just to see if you would fall for it." ?
We do judge gods, just as the Bible says, we will judge the angels.

reply to post by CLPrime


Quote:

["Would you be insulted if I said you and I were a lot alike?"]

Are you saying, that you are old, grumpy and quarrelsome as I am? No, that wouldn't be insulting, but funny.

Quote: ["and, from what I can see, you have reasoned your point of view in the same way I have reasoned mine..."]

That's debatable. I have even passed beyond 'anti-authority', because it's a new form of authority.

Quote: ["Your "common sense" does not negate mine,"]

Not to be pernickety, but there's nothing to be used from 'common sense' in this context, not even when it's in apostrophes.

Quote: [" We each claim to understand."]

Meaning different things with 'understanding' and using different methods, positions and reference-points.

Quote: ["Just because you say you're right, that won't make it true. Just because I say I'm right, that won't make it true either."]

True. But then why dish out general 'absolutes'?

Quote: ["Just because you say the Bible represents God as an evil deity, that doesn't mean it does. Just because I say the Bible represents God as a just and loving deity who regularly wields His authority and demands our recognition, that doesn't mean it does."]

In the extended and broader context which is my position on this, I don't use the bible as THE reference-point. I have several others as well.

Quote: ["The issue at hand is reality... and not a single one of us can claim to control it simply by believing something to be true."]

That's carrying the topic far beyond OP (which I don't mind doing), and the direction will lead to a debate which on specific threads has been rehashed time and again (which I also don't mind, it's interesting).

reply to post by bogomil


Give me 40 years and I'll be old, grumpy and quarrelsome. For now, I'm young, happy, and enthusiastic... but the world will change that soon enough. So, tomAYto/tomAHto, really.

Originally posted by jmdewey60

Did the Lord say at the exit from the Garden, "you know of course, Adam, that the fruit you ate of does not really give you the power of discernment or the ability to judge gods. It was only a trick, naming it that. Ha Ha! Just to see if you would fall for it." ?

If He said that, I missed it, 'cause I don't seem to recall that part at the moment.

We do judge gods, just as the Bible says, we will judge the angels.

We will, indeed, judge angels...but angels are not gods.

Originally posted by Firefly_
If there is one verse in the bible that conclusively proves that the bible was written by men, then this is it.

don't forget this one, it is beyond the shadow of a doubt written, I'll be a happy camper when someone points out where intellectuals, scholars, graduates or ordained (by "men") professionals learnt someting not written or passed down from mankind

For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
2Peter1

reply to post by bogomil


Do you ever say any thing worth a crap ?
Must you live in constent critique?
Nothing but constent negativity is one of the things the Bible could help you with Bog.
Other wise your soul will rot. Try some chicken soup for the soul or somethiong. The Bible is a cure for lonliness.



Arnold Murray Bog
A great teacher I hope you'll give yourself a chance. Jesus Christ is your friend.





I love Arnold Murray.

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Did the Lord say at the exit from the Garden, "you know of course, Adam, that the fruit you ate of does not really give you the power of discernment or the ability to judge gods. It was only a trick, naming it that. Ha Ha! Just to see if you would fall for it." ?

If He said that, I missed it, 'cause I don't seem to recall that part at the moment.

We do judge gods, just as the Bible says, we will judge the angels.

We will, indeed, judge angels...but angels are not gods.

Do you not understand the concept of a rhetorical question, or do you just have difficulty recognizing them when you see them, or do you just not like them and choose to ignore them when you see them, or do just not like ones that would lead away from what you already decided on as what you want to believe in, or do you just not want to respond to ones where it looks like you might not end up looking too good?

Could you explain to me who or what the various gods are, if not angels (in the Christian vernacular)?