Limit your beliefs.

A lot of religions started in the Bronze Age or similar primitive circumstances. A lot of stuff that is disgusting today, is justified or even encouraged. Think of slavery or killing homosexuals for example.

Until I started criticizing religion, I've never ever heard of a big difference between the books. It was The Bible, and it was good. Of course I knew there were different books and the difference between the Old and the New Testament, but nobody acted like the Old Testament was all ridiculous bullshit while the New Testament was 'good'.

So I tried to read the Bible... But I didn't read that much. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense and it isn't really easy to read.

But I did 'discover' that there was a lot of violent, retarded stuff in the Bible. And when you ask Christians about those verses, the answer often is that that particular part of the Bible is flawed.

One of my friends even claims that the 'beauty of Christianity' is the fact that you pick and choose whatever you like. Well, I can only think of the No true Scotsman-fallacy;

When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman

So, I was always told that 'The Bible' is a Holy Book and that it's good and lovable and great. But when you take a closer look at it, a lot of parts seem to be flawed. What are the parts you ignore?

You could give us a list of the chapters you ignore, or if it's easier, the list of the chapters you agree with. And preferably, the reason why you do this.

If you're not a Christian, you can still 'participate'! :D Muslims can do the same for the Quran, et cetera, et cetera.

And maybe someone can find a nice infographic that explains which denominations 'believe' in which parts of the Bible.

image

"One of my friends even claims that the 'beauty of Christianity' is the fact that you pick and choose whatever you like."

*Facepalm*

That reminds me of a line a character in The Big Bang Theory said that was equally wrong (amazing show by the way), "That's what I love about science, there is no one right answer."

Danyal:
A lot of religions started in the Bronze Age or similar primitive circumstances. A lot of stuff that is disgusting today, is justified or even encouraged. Think of slavery or killing homosexuals for example.

Until I started criticizing religion, I've never ever heard of a big difference between the books. It was The Bible, and it was good. Of course I knew there were different books and the difference between the Old and the New Testament, but nobody acted like the Old Testament was all ridiculous bullshit while the New Testament was 'good'.

That's 'cause Marcionists are filthy heretics who were BURNED for their insolence.

So I tried to read the Bible... But I didn't read that much. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense and it isn't really easy to read.

It can be a bit of an effort, but it's not that hard to get through.

One of my friends even claims that the 'beauty of Christianity' is the fact that you pick and choose whatever you like.

Partly right. It's not an official doctrine - I doubt anyone would be that forward about it. In practice though, that is how a lot of Christians behave.

That's generally referred to, disparagingly, as "Cafeteria Christianity".

Personally, I think it's lacking ambition. As long as you're going to custom-fit your religion, you might as well make it from scratch!

im not an apologist, who you should ask instead, but what it comes down to is that the old testaments laws do not and should not apply to Christians because when Jesus became our ultimate sacrifice he changed alot of things. So no, don't kill homosexuals and dont enslave people.

And really, you dont need the whole bible to be christian, its not a required reading assignment.

Context is always important. Christ Himself called out the 'religious' on a lot of BS in His day.

So I guess my easiest answer is, do what the stuff in red says. (E.g. Do unto others...Love thy neighbor...He who is without sin...render unto Caesar...etc)

Of course the Bible is flawed, For starters we can consider the "translations" and then the "translations of translations" so there is a good chance we have "contextual" errors right there.

However, going further back, there wasn't a cohesive and singular version and teaching of the Bible until Constantine adopted Christianity as the Roman religion, and even then he did not change Roman society to fit the teaching but adopted the bible to fit into roman society. So we got a "bureaucratic" bible and church. Before then women church leaders was perfectly acceptable. There is also the matter of the Council of Nicaea were we got a standardized church doctrine, and they removed many of the books deemed "unauthentic" or "heretical"

Still, until we had the printing press even the "standardized" version of the Bible, and the sermons the clergy chose to preach weren't necessarily true to form. That is, they could pretty much say whatever the hell they wanted to.

So is the Bible an infallible work as it claims to be? Probably not. Is there a lot in there that people really should take to heart? Absolutely.

I have to disagree my religion sees every book and every verse as being extremely important and valid. Granted we do not follow the laws of the old convenent but the new covenent is based off those old one. Without knowledge and understanding of the old ways the new ways become diluted. Which is why most christians pick and choose what they wish to believe because they like to take the easy way out and not spend the hours and time it takes to truely understand the material.
Think of it this way the bible is a textbook for school the first 400pgs are the explanations of all the material. While the last 250pgs is the application of materials in what your actually studying. Now you can argue that the last 250 pgs are the more important parts of the textbook but if you disreagard the first 400pgs you have no idea why you do those particular procedures. Same goes with bible.
Let me use another personal example of how I believe the tells to deal with a very conterversial situation and on this site i know alot people might not like it but I'm honest.
I believe that homosexuality is wrong. Simple enough, I dont believe that is the way that person should live who is a christian the bible is clear on that subject. However I'm not saying that people are not born with these feelings heck I'll even say that your lying to yourself if not every single person has ever thought of it at least once in thier life. I even believe that history says that anyone can be gay look at the greeks and samurais who both dabbled in it.
Now acccording to the old testement homosexuals were to be killed. But in the new testement homosexuals could become christians if they decided to change. The reason I see for this is that the Jews made a deal with Jehovah on the mountain to follow his laws in his land if they did not then they could leave or face the consequences. The Jews were to be preists to the rest of the world so they were held to a much higher standard then anyone else. Side note Soddom and Gamorrah was not an evil place because of homosexuality but because of pure depravity of all sorts including mass raping.
In the new testament as long you agreed to change you were ok. That is not saying it would be easy to do but we are all different we all have something to overcome. But it is no place for a true christian to pass judgement on anyone no matter what. Just because your gay does not mean that Jehovah wont see you fit to be resurected. So by no means do we become homophobic but rather understanding and honest. I'm not afraid to tell my homosexual friends what I believe but I also dont put any sort expectation for them to change it is there choice.
Those kinds of situations is why the whole bible becomes important in understanding gods actual view point.

Another thing for people to understand homosexuals are not breaking the "law of homosexuality". According to the bible since god says that only grounds for a christian marraige is a man and women two men/women cannot get married. This is only under christian law I have no opion of state law religious people should never get involved in government issues. So since they cannot be married the are commiting fornication which is the real crime. Which most hardcore christians commit all the time. That is called a double standard so your right to be mad at christians who pull that crap. Also adultry is considered an even worse sin the fornication so take that how you will the next time you here Newt talk about it.

Endersgate1321:

Another thing for people to understand homosexuals are not breaking the "law of homosexuality". According to the bible since god says that only grounds for a christian marraige is a man and women two men/women cannot get married.

Does Jesus actually SAY anything about marriage at any point? I remember a lot of metaphors about the Church as a bride, but that's not really the same thing...

Bymidew:

Endersgate1321:

Another thing for people to understand homosexuals are not breaking the "law of homosexuality". According to the bible since god says that only grounds for a christian marraige is a man and women two men/women cannot get married.

Actually, the Bible says...

image[/spoiler]

Actually, no it doesn't say most of those things.

M+F - This is somewhat correct, but not completely. Arranged marriage in general was common back then, but that is not a religious requirement and there are multiple examples of love based marriages. "proving her virginity" also is misstated. That is required if she has put herself forward as an innocent maiden, and even then the proof if challenged is either blood from the first encounter or the female village elders concurring with her that she was even without physical proof. A woman was not made subordinate to a man in Genesis. (Actually none of that is substantiated by Genesis 2:24)

On the property issue, that was a necessary law since in that region at that time a woman HAD no legal property. The man took it from her father/brother/whatever. It actually was still hers though, something you would recognize if you moved on to the divorce laws where it says she gets her stuff back, with improvements in it, should he die or should they divorce. It's a totally pro-women clause.

Concubines. Yes, they were allowed. And? Everyone had them then. In case you missed it, that doesn't however mean your little slave fantasies, concubines had almost the same rights as a wife.

Polygany - Hey you got one right!

Levirate marriage - Wrong. The MAN is required to marry if the woman wants her. This is once again protecting women's rights. It means that she continues to have access to property from her husband, and her old property, and it all gets passed not to her new spouse but to her son. To further show a woman is not bound by it, notice the story of Ruth where she spurns the man she could have forced to marry her and instead takes up with another hottie she liked.

Also a woman NEVER under Torah is required to submit sexually to her wife. NEVER. The women are in control of the sex lives. We may decline sex any time we want, and we can demand sex any time we want. The men work for us when it comes to sex. In fact Jewish marriage pledges are one sided, the man promises to please us in every way (including sexually), to support us, and we.... oh wait, we promise nothing.

Rapist-Victim - Wrong. This is pretty much the same error as above. The MAN is required to pay the fine and marry the girl. This is to protect HER. She can decline. A woman can only enter a marriage voluntarily or it is not valid. That's why to this day we still don't walk our brides to the alter. What this really was is a "shotgun wedding" clause. "You fuck with my daughter, you better be prepared to marry her!". This prevents the girl of being accused of sleeping around outside of marriage (protecting her image), and prevents "love em and leave em" types from abusing women.

Male soldier + POW - Wrong. While this section does waive the woman's consent requirement for the marriage, its actually protective of women. The norm would have been raping whoever you liked. This law creates a barrier of a month that makes battle field rape illegal. Frankly, after a month, the blood lust will be gone and the random shaved headed woman may no longer be to your liking. What's more, you are required to MARRY her, and then she becomes your wife, with full rights. That includes the right to deny sex (part of the reason for the "no delight" clause). If in the end it doesn't work she's free, not the normal end in that era for a woman captured in war.

male slave + female slave - Wrong. Did they even read the line? Yes, a male slave could be set up with a female slave, but nothing in that law says that she has to do anything with him. Heck, it doesn't even say they have to agree to marry. Also keep in mind these actually weren't slaves. Lines 1-6 refer to those who voluntarily entered what we would now call indentured servitude of a term that could not exceed 6 years.

So, if I understand it correctly, Old Testament Laws do not apply to Christians any more. So God doesn't care whether or not you live his laws? And the 'spirit' of the laws is not gone? (You do acknowledge that 'kill homosexuals' is God's commandment, so you can't like homosexuals too much then, I suppose)
And there aren't any specifically flawed books?

Danyal:
So, if I understand it correctly, Old Testament Laws do not apply to Christians any more. So God doesn't care whether or not you live his laws? And the 'spirit' of the laws is not gone? (You do acknowledge that 'kill homosexuals' is God's commandment, so you can't like homosexuals too much then, I suppose)
And there aren't any specifically flawed books?

If I understand it correctly evolution promotes the survival of the fittest. So you must think that the weak should just die. -_-

I don't see any problem with picking and choosing from the Bible.

After all, the New Testament is a collection of documents that have been picked and chosen by someone way back when to be worth keeping and disseminating.

IMHO, anything that begins "In view of current circumstances, relating to the specific issues in your area, in my personal opinion I would say that..." or somesuch, can be probably safely disregarded.

Danyal:
So, if I understand it correctly, Old Testament Laws do not apply to Christians any more. So God doesn't care whether or not you live his laws? And the 'spirit' of the laws is not gone? (You do acknowledge that 'kill homosexuals' is God's commandment, so you can't like homosexuals too much then, I suppose)
And there aren't any specifically flawed books?

Considering that Jesus basically said "The old testament no longer applies, listen to what I have to say instead", yes the old testament laws do not necessarily apply to christians. The old testament is part of the bible because it has vital background and history for understanding the new testament, it can also offer good moral guidance (supposedly).

The relation is roughly that anything said in the new testament takes predecence over anything said in the old testament if they conflict. Obviously, it is a lot harder than this though, which is why theologists have been discussing these matters for the last millenia. It can't simply be boiled down into a simple rethorical point, like you want it to.

aPod:

Danyal:
So, if I understand it correctly, Old Testament Laws do not apply to Christians any more. So God doesn't care whether or not you live his laws? And the 'spirit' of the laws is not gone? (You do acknowledge that 'kill homosexuals' is God's commandment, so you can't like homosexuals too much then, I suppose)
And there aren't any specifically flawed books?

If I understand it correctly evolution promotes the survival of the fittest. So you must think that the weak should just die. -_-

That would be a severe misunderstanding. I'll explain why you're wrong, and then you can explain why I'm wrong.

1. Fittest= those best adapted to certain circumstances. Not 'strong' or 'weak'.
2. 'You should kill homosexuals' is completely different from 'Those worst adapted to a certain environment will have higher mortality rates in that environment than those best adapted'.
3. 'Should' implies some sort of goal. If we kill the weak, we'l get rewarded in heaven, something like that. Well, it doesn't work that way. The process of evolution doesn't result in heaven, it results in 'automatic adaptation'; a species that enters a new environment will slowly adapt to it. This doesn't have anything to do with murder, just with higher and lower mortality rates. Although 'getting murdered' does imply that you aren't 'adapted' well to the society you're living in.

Gethsemani:

Considering that Jesus basically said "The old testament no longer applies, listen to what I have to say instead", yes the old testament laws do not necessarily apply to christians. The old testament is part of the bible because it has vital background and history for understanding the new testament, it can also offer good moral guidance (supposedly).

Matthew 5:17

New International Version (©1984)
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Doesn't that indicate something else?

The relation is roughly that anything said in the new testament takes predecence over anything said in the old testament if they conflict. Obviously, it is a lot harder than this though, which is why theologists have been discussing these matters for the last millenia. It can't simply be boiled down into a simple rethorical point, like you want it to.

Takes precedence over. But the Old Testament isn't wrong? It's just "God changed his mind on some points", not "The Old Testament was created by power hungry warlords who wanted to justify their bigotry and homophobia with God's law"?

Danyal:
So, if I understand it correctly, Old Testament Laws do not apply to Christians any more. So God doesn't care whether or not you live his laws? And the 'spirit' of the laws is not gone? (You do acknowledge that 'kill homosexuals' is God's commandment, so you can't like homosexuals too much then, I suppose)
And there aren't any specifically flawed books?

No I dont see it that way Jehovah has always kept the same rules and regulations. He never changed his mind on the subject but he did change the setting of it. Before those were laws of a nation not just religouse laws. Jehovah allowed somethings to go on like polygamoy b ut never actually allowed it. He just said fine if your going to do it things are not gonna be good for anyone involved. If you look at the bible anyone who did have multiple wives had a hard life in fact when Aberham had two wives it got so bad Jehovah had to tell him to send one away and he would take care of her.
Once Jesus showed up he took away that practice stating that the rule always was "a man will leave his mother and father and him and his wife would become one flesh"
Because they were becoming an independt religion from any government the chrisitans had to understand not everyone has our beliefs or knowledge and to kind to those who dont. It wasnt until they joined the politics of the world that things all went to hell. Goes back to what I always say religious people should never get involved in politcs.

The Bible is a human product, a product of it's time. Though it does have many universal good points (love your neighboor, ect.), it still came from a diffrent time, so it is VERY outdated in many aspects. The bible (in my opinion) wasn't inspired by God, it was merely written by people who were trying merely to comprehend God. The bible should NOT be taken completely literally, and in fact some of the stories in it (Genesis, probbably Exodus, ect.) aren't even real, their just stories. If your a Christian, then really all you should do is take whatever good lesson you can get from the bible, and remember what most of it is: stories.

Jesus said He did not come to abolish the law (referring to the Jewish laws from scripture) but rather to fulfill it. It is debated as to what exactly He means by that but suffice it to say that a Christian can't simply discard the entire Old Testament. I would point out though that some Old Testament laws if read as part of the books they are in instead of just the verses on their own can clearly be seen as applying to certain people like Priests for example.

Seekster:
Jesus said He did not come to abolish the law (referring to the Jewish laws from scripture) but rather to fulfill it. It is debated as to what exactly He means by that but suffice it to say that a Christian can't simply discard the entire Old Testament. I would point out though that some Old Testament laws if read as part of the books they are in instead of just the verses on their own can clearly be seen as applying to certain people like Priests for example.

I believe what he meant is that from the beging of the old testement the bible pointed to a seed that would change the world and answer Satans claim in the garden of Eden. Since Jesus never sinned he died perfect paying the price of Adams sin in full. That would have ended all of the custums and sinn repentent laws of the old testement since they were given a new ste of standards to live by. In other words the Jews no longer had to follow rules such as the sabbath or animal sacrafice for sins. The new testement does say which laws mustbe followed and alot of princepals that could be follwed depending on you as a person. A good example is apostle Paul said that it would be good for a man not to marry and devote himself to Jehovah and his ministry. That is not a law that was a suggestion for those who wish it. For JW's when a young person makes that choice we encourage that and they do seem happy with it but that doesent mean that they cant get married and still be a full JW thats just a choice of lifestlye.

the old testament has always been a joke for me, I remember sitting in 'religion' class where our teacher was reading some passages he believed were examples of reasons you shouldn't take the bible literally, If you touch a woman or have any bodily discharge you become unclean and anything you touch becomes unclean.

I just can't take the bible seriously when the biggest message is "love and care about everyone" but then preaches hate against women, gays and any non-believer.

Endersgate1321:

Seekster:
Jesus said He did not come to abolish the law (referring to the Jewish laws from scripture) but rather to fulfill it. It is debated as to what exactly He means by that but suffice it to say that a Christian can't simply discard the entire Old Testament. I would point out though that some Old Testament laws if read as part of the books they are in instead of just the verses on their own can clearly be seen as applying to certain people like Priests for example.

I believe what he meant is that from the beging of the old testement the bible pointed to a seed that would change the world and answer Satans claim in the garden of Eden. Since Jesus never sinned he died perfect paying the price of Adams sin in full. That would have ended all of the custums and sinn repentent laws of the old testement since they were given a new ste of standards to live by. In other words the Jews no longer had to follow rules such as the sabbath or animal sacrafice for sins. The new testement does say which laws mustbe followed and alot of princepals that could be follwed depending on you as a person. A good example is apostle Paul said that it would be good for a man not to marry and devote himself to Jehovah and his ministry. That is not a law that was a suggestion for those who wish it. For JW's when a young person makes that choice we encourage that and they do seem happy with it but that doesent mean that they cant get married and still be a full JW thats just a choice of lifestlye.

Yes I tend to agree with that viewpoint.

Danyal:

That would be a severe misunderstanding. I'll explain why you're wrong, and then you can explain why I'm wrong.

1. Fittest= those best adapted to certain circumstances. Not 'strong' or 'weak'.
2. 'You should kill homosexuals' is completely different from 'Those worst adapted to a certain environment will have higher mortality rates in that environment than those best adapted'.
3. 'Should' implies some sort of goal. If we kill the weak, we'l get rewarded in heaven, something like that. Well, it doesn't work that way. The process of evolution doesn't result in heaven, it results in 'automatic adaptation'; a species that enters a new environment will slowly adapt to it. This doesn't have anything to do with murder, just with higher and lower mortality rates. Although 'getting murdered' does imply that you aren't 'adapted' well to the society you're living in.

You missed the point, what I said was meant to be 'wrong' to illustrate how 'wrong' your own statement was. Hate the sin not the sinner.

Danyal:
So, if I understand it correctly, Old Testament Laws do not apply to Christians any more. So God doesn't care whether or not you live his laws? And the 'spirit' of the laws is not gone? (You do acknowledge that 'kill homosexuals' is God's commandment, so you can't like homosexuals too much then, I suppose)
And there aren't any specifically flawed books?

This is what I know:

Jesus did not preach hate. Jesus had a bigger problem with hypocrites than He did with whores and thieves. Jesus' message and sacrifice was for everyone, not just the Hebrews.

When an adultress was about to be stoned (as the laws on the Old Testament dictated) He stepped in and said 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'. And when He was nailed to a piece of wood to die in one of the most agonizing way possible, He begged God to forgive His executioners.

Jesus avoided issuing rules for the most part, save for a few broad conditions all of which can be commuted to one basic idea: Love God, be good, humble, and forgiving people.

Time and again He told His followers not to worry about material trappings or petty dogma. But to be men (and women) of peace.

His most important message is that we are all flawed, that all 'fall short of the glory of God', but through Grace, Forgiveness, and Humility; even Paul the self-proclaimed 'chief amongst sinners' can enter into paradise.

Laws treats others as 'subjects', Jesus treated others as family. So I treat the OT as a good reference point on stuff I probably shouldn't do, and Christ's teachings as the things I should.

senordesol:
This is what I know:

Jesus did not preach hate. Jesus had a bigger problem with hypocrites than He did with whores and thieves. Jesus' message and sacrifice was for everyone, not just the Hebrews.

When an adultress was about to be stoned (as the laws on the Old Testament dictated) He stepped in and said 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'. And when He was nailed to a piece of wood to die in one of the most agonizing way possible, He begged God to forgive His executioners.

Jesus avoided issuing rules for the most part, save for a few broad conditions all of which can be commuted to one basic idea: Love God, be good, humble, and forgiving people.

Time and again He told His followers not to worry about material trappings or petty dogma. But to be men (and women) of peace.

His most important message is that we are all flawed, that all 'fall short of the glory of God', but through Grace, Forgiveness, and Humility; even Paul the self-proclaimed 'chief amongst sinners' can enter into paradise.

Laws treats others as 'subjects', Jesus treated others as family. So I treat the OT as a good reference point on stuff I probably shouldn't do, and Christ's teachings as the things I should.

Jesus opposed dogma? Where does he state that?

But if we're looking at this picture again...
image

I guess you're primarily focused on the gospels?

What do you think of this idea?

The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was Thomas Jefferson's effort to extract the doctrine of Jesus by removing sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects as well as perceived misinterpretations he believed had been added by the Four Evangelists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_bible

It's sad this quote is so true so often;

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
Mahatma Gandhi

But if I may be so judgemental, it seems you're on the 'right' path :)

Danyal:

Jesus opposed dogma? Where does he state that?

No where I recall. On the other hand he did say that he did not come to replace the old law but to add to it and that his Jewish followers still needed to follow the old law.

Danyal:

senordesol:
This is what I know:

Jesus did not preach hate. Jesus had a bigger problem with hypocrites than He did with whores and thieves. Jesus' message and sacrifice was for everyone, not just the Hebrews.

When an adultress was about to be stoned (as the laws on the Old Testament dictated) He stepped in and said 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'. And when He was nailed to a piece of wood to die in one of the most agonizing way possible, He begged God to forgive His executioners.

Jesus avoided issuing rules for the most part, save for a few broad conditions all of which can be commuted to one basic idea: Love God, be good, humble, and forgiving people.

Time and again He told His followers not to worry about material trappings or petty dogma. But to be men (and women) of peace.

His most important message is that we are all flawed, that all 'fall short of the glory of God', but through Grace, Forgiveness, and Humility; even Paul the self-proclaimed 'chief amongst sinners' can enter into paradise.

Laws treats others as 'subjects', Jesus treated others as family. So I treat the OT as a good reference point on stuff I probably shouldn't do, and Christ's teachings as the things I should.

Jesus opposed dogma? Where does he state that?

But if we're looking at this picture again...
image

I guess you're primarily focused on the gospels?

What do you think of this idea?

The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was Thomas Jefferson's effort to extract the doctrine of Jesus by removing sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects as well as perceived misinterpretations he believed had been added by the Four Evangelists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_bible

It's sad this quote is so true so often;

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
Mahatma Gandhi

But if I may be so judgemental, it seems you're on the 'right' path :)

Jesus associated with the 'unclean' and the gentiles, that alone puts him in direct opposition to certain teachings of the church at the time.

I believe that the gospels are the *most* important part of the Bible, with everything else being context whose content should be measured against what Christ taught. Not to be removed, but understood. (expediently: if it's against gospel, it's against canon) However, if you take nothing away from the Bible but the gospels; you could do a lot worse.

As for Ghandi's musings; that's about right. And any 'Christian' who'd say otherwise is a hypocrite. Now will you eat a cookie, Ghandi?

Limecake:
the old testament has always been a joke for me, I remember sitting in 'religion' class where our teacher was reading some passages he believed were examples of reasons you shouldn't take the bible literally, If you touch a woman or have any bodily discharge you become unclean and anything you touch becomes unclean.

You are remembering things less than clearly. Also the word translated as "unclean" in english doesn't mean "dirty", it means you are in a state in which you can not enter the Temple. The solution is either a tiny bit of time, or, in the case of bodily discharge, washing.

I just can't take the bible seriously when the biggest message is "love and care about everyone" but then preaches hate against women, gays and any non-believer.

If you are still talking "old testament", it doesn't say those things. It preaches increased rights for women and tolerance for non believers (who god also loves and accepts and even sends messengers to, there is no "right club"). It doesn't preach hating gays (and it couldn't since such a term/concept didn't exist) but it does say that male:male sex is prohibited.

Ok, I was resisting this thread but since I clearly was drawn in...

When I was a Christian, I couldn't take the "new books" seriously for the most part. Much of it made no sense to me, no matter how many questions I asked various christian religious leaders. It struck me that Jesus seemed to be mostly preaching "old testament" stuff (charity, act without intention is invalid, treatment of others, laws for slaves, etc) and was just adding focus on stuff he thought people were doing wrong. He looked very much like one of the Jewish prophets, until you add the son-of-god/virgin birth/messiah thing.

From the Jewish perspective I developed into and chose...

I ignore NONE of it. All of the written Torah, and all of the Oral Law, has a place and a purpose. Clearly sexual poetry from a randy King is read in a different light than a section from Genesis, but its all there for a reason. The more you study and learn, the more obvious the reasons become and the more you understand what was meant.

Once you start randomly ignoring stuff, well it leads to the silly misunderstandings that are spouted by extremists atheists and religious folks alike.

aPod:

Danyal:
So, if I understand it correctly, Old Testament Laws do not apply to Christians any more. So God doesn't care whether or not you live his laws? And the 'spirit' of the laws is not gone? (You do acknowledge that 'kill homosexuals' is God's commandment, so you can't like homosexuals too much then, I suppose)
And there aren't any specifically flawed books?

If I understand it correctly evolution promotes the survival of the fittest. So you must think that the weak should just die. -_-

Wrong, absolutely wrong. If that is the lie that's being spread around your community, no wonder evolution is being resisted so much.

A.) In nature, death is generally unnecessary. Changes in species were caused nearly as often by certain types of individuals being unable to find a mate as them dying out. For example, the females of the species may in each generation pick more impressive color patterns when deciding on a mate. Lizards and birds are particularly well known for doing such.

B.) No matter what one believes about the origin and nature of life, humanity is almost by definition separate from the rules that govern the other species that inhabit this globe. Not only are we advancing in a manner that sidesteps normal patterns of natural selection, we have also changed the rules and requirements for our own survival.

C.) Even if you wish to promote directed human evolution, (and only a small portion of people do) the death of "weak" individuals is not necessary, just prevent them from reproducing.

D.) Even if one defined homosexuality as being "weak". (I certainly would not do so) No further action is warranted, they cut themselves off from the gene pool.

E.) The concept of survival of the fittest has little directly to do with weakness or strength. Adaptations are selected for on the basis of whether or not they work for the present situation. For example, big strong squirrels are more likely to get eaten by hawks than their smaller brethren.

Heronblade:

Wrong, absolutely wrong. If that is the lie that's being spread around your community, no wonder evolution is being resisted so much.

A.) In nature, death is generally unnecessary. Changes in species were caused nearly as often by certain types of individuals being unable to find a mate as them dying out. For example, the females of the species may in each generation pick more impressive color patterns when deciding on a mate. Lizards and birds are particularly well known for doing such.

B.) No matter what one believes about the origin and nature of life, humanity is almost by definition separate from the rules that govern the other species that inhabit this globe. Not only are we advancing in a manner that sidesteps normal patterns of natural selection, we have also changed the rules and requirements for our own survival.

C.) Even if you wish to promote directed human evolution, (and only a small portion of people do) the death of "weak" individuals is not necessary, just prevent them from reproducing.

D.) Even if one defined homosexuality as being "weak". (I certainly would not do so) No further action is warranted, they cut themselves off from the gene pool.

E.) The concept of survival of the fittest has little directly to do with weakness or strength. Adaptations are selected for on the basis of whether or not they work for the present situation. For example, big strong squirrels are more likely to get eaten by hawks than their smaller brethren.

I already answered to this. *Points up*

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked