Slashdot Mirror

In retrospect, I should not have posted the "brick testament" link. It was needlessly snarky.

Here are a few passages about Moses' military exploits, without the snarky lego commentary.

The slaughter of women and children at Midean: http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=28...

The slaughter of women and children at Bashan: http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=28...

The slaughter of women and children at Heshbon: http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=28...

In retrospect, I should not have posted the "brick testament" link. It was needlessly snarky.

Here are a few passages about Moses' military exploits, without the snarky lego commentary.

The slaughter of women and children at Midean: http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=28...

The slaughter of women and children at Bashan: http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=28...

The slaughter of women and children at Heshbon: http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=28...

In retrospect, I should not have posted the "brick testament" link. It was needlessly snarky.

Here are a few passages about Moses' military exploits, without the snarky lego commentary.

The slaughter of women and children at Midean: http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=28...

The slaughter of women and children at Bashan: http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=28...

The slaughter of women and children at Heshbon: http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=28...

...and maybe even distorting the truth, but I'm guessing you picked those "facts" from Christians running to the argument of "...but that's the OLD testament".
Which is bullshit.

New testament is ATTACHED to the old and based on it - it does not supersede it. They're in the same fucking book.
And just go ask any priest (or Christian you're not currently debating) if Adam, Moses, king David and the rest of the lot are a part of the teaching of Christianity.
They don't avoid a single thing. They embrace it.

Even this Slashdot topic is about a guy who's betting that everything in Genesis is true.

For fuck's sake, the entirety of Christianity is BASED on Jesus being of Davidic bloodline - through Joseph who (HA!) is not really his father.
Immaculate conception bitches! It means what WE WANT IT TO MEAN!
Maternal what now? Ancestral line who?
Which part of "bitches! It means what WE WANT IT TO MEAN!" did you not understand?
Maternal line is carried on through the father who is not his real father cause that makes Abraham his ancestor.
Are you retarded or something? Who the hell do you think he is? HE'S THE GOD DAMN MESSIAH!

And please don't give me that crap about Bible/Christianity being less violent, misogynist or pedophilic.
You don't need to go further than numbers 31:7-31:19 to fix that:

7They did battle against Midian, as the Lord had commanded Moses, and killed every male. 8They killed the kings of Midian: Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian, in addition to others who were slain by them; and they also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9The Israelites took the women of Midian and their little ones captive; and they took all their cattle, their flocks, and all their goods as booty. 10All their towns where they had settled, and all their encampments, they burned, 11but they took all the spoil and all the booty, both people and animals. 12Then they brought the captives and the booty and the spoil to Moses, to Eleazar the priest, and to the congregation of the Israelites, at the camp on the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho.

13 Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the congregation went to meet them outside the camp. 14Moses became angry with the officers of the army, the commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds, who had come from service in the war. 15Moses said to them, âHave you allowed all the women to live? 16These women here, on Balaamâ(TM)s advice, made the Israelites act treacherously against the Lord in the affair of Peor, so that the plague came among the congregation of the Lord. 17Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. 18But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Kill ALL the men, take all their possessions and take their wives and children as slaves? Fuck THAT shit!
Moses says fuck slaves!
Kill ALL those women, and all the boys... but keep the virgin girls as sex slaves.
Voices told him that's what should be done... I mean God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.
And there's plenty more where that came from.

And while one COULD even argue that Islam is a more peaceful religion - that too would be bullshit as it accepts and builds on both the old and the new testament.
Same prophets, same stories, same god - they only wrap it in a new cover and add a chapter or two more.
Abraham 3.11 for Workgroups.

Though, you gotta give it to them for at least making all of those messiahs just mortal men instead of "sons of God", leaving the "Most Arrogant Religion Ever" medal for the Christians.
Though there ARE contenders out there for

To paraphrase the central figure of a major western religion:

You have heard that it was said, "Go forth and rape and murder all the rapists and murderers." But I say to you, Do not resist a rapist or murderer. If anyone murders your wife, turn to him your cheeks.

He even goes on to explicitly state that if someone sues you, you should give them more than they ask for! If Tenenbaum was a good Christian, he would willingly give the RIAA at least double the $675k they won. And Rasset shouldn't feel right giving less than $3 million!

When the porn makers come for your money and your dignity, give them your Constitutional rights too! It's what Obama or Bush would do, right? Because they're Christians, right?

"Christians burnt down the Saint Michel theater in Paris [wikipedia.org], putting 13 people in hospital, just to protest against the film "The Last Temptation of Christ"

They burnt down a theater to protest a shitty movie, I have no problem with that ;)

"(The Bible actually insists that blasphemers" should be killed by Christian congregations...."

How ironic that you quote Leviticus 24:13-16, because Leviticus 24:20 says "fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; the injury inflicted is the injury to be suffered."

Which is where we get the "eye for an eye" idea. I don't see too many one-eyed christians, do you?

Oh and if you're going to bash scriptures try not to get your quotes from The Skeptics Annotated Bible because it makes it just too easy (and harder to believe).

I just checked and it wasn't the Pledge that I know of, it was the national anthem. The pledge could be also an issue, I'm not aware of the specifics and didn't bother checking the differences until you mentioned the law. The law is important because there actually is one, and it specifically states that "all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart;"

OK, I'm an ignorant foreigner. I know that the US has strong laws separating church and state. But in a country which is still nominally at least partly Christian, and has substantial Jewish and Muslim minorities, how can you have laws which directly contradict the fourth and fifth commandments? Are Christian, Jewish and Muslim Americans excused from idolatrous worship of the flag, or do they have to choose between their religion and their country?

The translation you reference still says they "examined the scriptures every day to see whether these things were so", which is to say that they judged the Apostles teaching according to their own understanding of scripture. Since this is stated as part of a commendation to them, without caveat, it is absurd to claim that this is not a part of the commended behaviour. There is nothing in the verse that grammatically requires that people are not to understand the scripture themselves, although common sense would dictate that if scripture is from God, then only God's intended meaning is valid.

Besides, I haven't suggested a sort (or method) of interpretation, but an entirely different concept of how truth is to be understood. Rather than discuss it here I will send you an email so that if you wish to explore this further we can do so privately.

However, I will say that allowing another, by position of authority, to dictate correct interpretation of scripture is to allow another to dictate the contents of one's mind. As such, it is fundamentally a rejection of the call of Christ. http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=73543724 "For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters;" and the promise of Christ http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=73543724 "My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me." Not, "the priest hears my voice, and he'll let the sheep know what I've said".

The translation you reference still says they "examined the scriptures every day to see whether these things were so", which is to say that they judged the Apostles teaching according to their own understanding of scripture. Since this is stated as part of a commendation to them, without caveat, it is absurd to claim that this is not a part of the commended behaviour. There is nothing in the verse that grammatically requires that people are not to understand the scripture themselves, although common sense would dictate that if scripture is from God, then only God's intended meaning is valid.

Besides, I haven't suggested a sort (or method) of interpretation, but an entirely different concept of how truth is to be understood. Rather than discuss it here I will send you an email so that if you wish to explore this further we can do so privately.

However, I will say that allowing another, by position of authority, to dictate correct interpretation of scripture is to allow another to dictate the contents of one's mind. As such, it is fundamentally a rejection of the call of Christ. http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=73543724 "For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters;" and the promise of Christ http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=73543724 "My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me." Not, "the priest hears my voice, and he'll let the sheep know what I've said".

The verse actually speaks quite clearly to both matters: neither the origin nor the correct interpretation is of human origin. Not to mention that the sort of interpretation you suggest ("putting on the mind of Christ," as some people claim) has lead only to multiplying schismatic groups all claiming the true interpretation, none of which accords with the early Church documents which we actually have, dating from the late 1st century. And what is "knowing" or "putting on the mind of" Christ? That changes from group to group--as long as your interpretation agrees with theirs, you "know" Christ?

This may not sway you from your way of interpretation, but be aware that you will search in vain for its appearance before the Protestant schism. The early Church knew nothing of that kind of individualistic religion, and the example of the Bereans does not mean what you think it does.

Regarding the Bereans, it was not for their searching the scriptures, but for their openness that they were commended. Read it again. They were "more receptive" (or noble, depending on the translation) "for they welcomed the message very eagerly," not because of their searching the scriptures. This is compared to the Thessalonicans, who rejected and jealously mistreated the Apostle. The Thessalonicans also searched the scriptures at length (which were not the Gospels, as you seem to be assuming, but rather the Septuagint--the Gospels did not yet exist in written form), but had not been open to the new (oral) teaching from Paul as the Bereans were. Remember, neither the Bereans nor the Thessalonicans being discussed in these passages were Christians. They were both Jewish communities to whom Paul came preaching out of the Jewish scriptures.

There's a much fuller explanation of all of this at this page, if you're interested. The whole idea of "sola scriptura" does not enter the equation, and was never read into that passage until Protestants decided they needed to reinterpret scripture to meet their needs.

Interpretation of prophecy is tricky business, which is why St. Peter specifically says it should not be left up to individual opinion to do so.

Interpretation of prophecy is tricky business, which is why St. Peter specifically says it should not be left up to individual opinion to do so.

Fair enough. And beyond writers' (or interpreters') assumptions, in the context of a prophetic passage in the Hebrew scriptures the language is very often symbolic (the same is true of prophetic passages in the Christian New Testament). Interpretation of prophecy is tricky business, which is why St. Peter specifically says it should not be left up to individual opinion to do so. Where the authority to do so is located is a much larger question, but not one I would undertake where it is likely to be unappreciated (such as where one would rather expect to find "News for Nerds"). Here is an interesting article on the subject if anyone's interested, though (particularly parts II and III).

Of course, all of this could open a whole other can of worms, especially among the crazier elements of contemporary American Evangelicals who are convinced that the Book of Revelations is a literal account of what will happen (soon, according to some), or that the world is 6,000 years old. Despite their relative vocality, these are decidedly the minority of those who identify themselves as "Christian."

Hmmm... I don't know how religious you are, but you may find Revelation 11:18 interesting.

Hehe. Reminds me of that story of that school pastor who had the bright idea of decking out his classroom entirely in rainbow flags. Of course, he only understood this as a reference to Genesis 9:12-17.

All went fine until he called a gay friend of his to fix the computer which he had in that room. Tapping his feet as if in a cottage while the rainbow-colored knoppix boot text filed by didn't help either... Misunderstandings and hilarity ensued...

People, think a little bit before picking out a decoration for your room!

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven[s] and the earth."

Also translatable to "When God began to create the heavens and the Earth." My reference is the footnote in the New Revised Standard Edition.

The second verse more clearly explains that the Bible is talking about the creation of the Earth as we know it:

Genesis 1:2 "The earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep"

I've spent a lot of time considering that beginning passage. I just don't think that the Bible is talking about the creation of the Universe. I think that Moses received a vision of the beginning of life on Earth, which would be consistent with the Bible's purpose. (The purpose of the Bible is to catalog the lineage of Christ.)

In the context of Genesis, the "heavens" refers to the sky above us. Moses probably saw the Earth go from a lifeless rock in space (without form and void) to a habitable planet (God's spirit moved upon the waters).

Without an atomosphere to diffuse light, the Earth would appear quite dark, even when lit. (Like the moon's surface.) Alternatively, the thick atmosphere during formation may have blocked out the light until God said "let there be light". This would have made the Earth's rotation apparent, thus "separat[ing] the light from the darkness".