|
On April 10 2015 23:29 mordek wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2015 23:22 ComaDose wrote:
There are parts of the old testament that we do understand like: Its okay to have slaves, rape victims must marry their rapists, do not allow a sorceress to live, gay sex is punishable by death, women must submit to their husbands, polygamy, human sacrifice, loot plunder and rape gods enemies. How can we know which parts to pretend don't exist and which parts were prophecy? Is there a time when we will understand those parts well enough to see how they apply? This is a difficult post to respond to. I'm not going to pretend anything doesn't exist. My short answer to your last question is yes. I'll give it more thought to respond further, are you actually wanting me to address each point you've raised?
No don't address each point I could go all day pointing out things like those, sorry if that came off too rude. My question pertains more toward: are there things in the bible we know to be false and/or morally wrong? If so are different authors contributions more valuable than others (do you believe every author was influenced by the holy spirit? if so if something is wrong is it all wrong?) I recall an answer being times were different back then which doesn't really lend itself to convincing people the rest of the book is still relevant today. Doesn't that insinuate God used to be immoral but he got better? This was just in response to you saying you want to understand it all but how much research can you put into things like taking the virgins from their enemies as spoils of war. How will that ever be okay?
|
I'm with gahlo, I'm Jewish by birth, but am pretty much agnostic/diest. I have no strong attachments towards religion, just that intelligent design makes more sense then a happy accident.
|
On April 10 2015 23:43 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2015 23:29 mordek wrote:On April 10 2015 23:22 ComaDose wrote:
There are parts of the old testament that we do understand like: Its okay to have slaves, rape victims must marry their rapists, do not allow a sorceress to live, gay sex is punishable by death, women must submit to their husbands, polygamy, human sacrifice, loot plunder and rape gods enemies. How can we know which parts to pretend don't exist and which parts were prophecy? Is there a time when we will understand those parts well enough to see how they apply? This is a difficult post to respond to. I'm not going to pretend anything doesn't exist. My short answer to your last question is yes. I'll give it more thought to respond further, are you actually wanting me to address each point you've raised? No don't address each point I could go all day pointing out things like those, sorry if that came off too rude. My question pertains more toward: are there things in the bible we know to be false and/or morally wrong? If so are different authors contributions more valuable than others (do you believe every author was influenced by the holy spirit? if so if something is wrong is it all wrong?) I recall an answer being times were different back then which doesn't really lend itself to convincing people the rest of the book is still relevant today. Doesn't that insinuate God used to be immoral but he got better? This was just in response to you saying you want to understand it all but how much research can you put into things like taking the virgins from their enemies as spoils of war. How will that ever be okay?
My point about researching is more that people spend their entire lives explaining these things and I'm trying to articulate them here in thread. I'm not going to pretend I know all the answers. I also think those are perfectly valid questions I wrestle with all the time.
Let me throw this out there about this thread (especially since Gahlo wants to peace out now and now Crusnik nooo these things are more important than doto  ) This thread has been an incredible gift I believe. No other time in history could I have chatted, goofed around, discussed politics/religion/gaming/parenting with such a diverse group. I regularly interact with people from far different backgrounds from all over the world. Personally, I think being able to engage in conversations such as this, as well as all the other more "deep" topics that pop up, is incredibly healthy and I'm fortunate to be a part of it.
|
On April 10 2015 23:22 ComaDose wrote:
There are parts of the old testament that we do understand like: Its okay to have slaves, rape victims must marry their rapists, do not allow a sorceress to live, gay sex is punishable by death, women must submit to their husbands, polygamy, human sacrifice, loot plunder and rape gods enemies. How can we know which parts to pretend don't exist and which parts were prophecy? Is there a time when we will understand those parts well enough to see how they apply?
While I'm pretty with some people in that the old testament is rather garbage I do want to say the whole must marry your rape victim makes a lot of sense in that society. Women were property measured by their ability to give birth and the virginity of the women. That means if you get raped you basically aren't a worthwhile human being in the eyes of society so finding a husband would be almost impossible.
I mean it's an absolutely terrible solution to a terrible problem. I'd say just fucking change society then but seems like religion hates women so much that they'd rather go with that compromise. The other day at the dinner table I actually said something along those lines and my dad who is rather christian just laughed and said ye religion hates women. I wonder if it's just because society tends to be against women(well Pagan and some Eastern Culture are rather different in this regard) so the religion just mirrors that.
|
Basically Mordek, you are making an argument based on the presumption that the Bible was written by somebody who had divine knowledge of something (or access to somebody who did) and was writing based on that knowledge.
But everybody else is just looking at it as a myth the same way we'd look at Gilgamesh or Homer or the Mahabharata. And we want to know what it's symbolic of.
Let me put it in a different way.
Lets say you're God or getting inspiration from God, and you're writing the Bible. If you assume that your reader is a believer and will not waver in that belief, you don't need to write a story that is symbolic of whatever, you just write the literal truth and they believe it.
So if you start with the assumption that this story is not literally true, you also have to start with the assumpion that it is not written for people who are unwavering in their belief. So, from the standpoint of somebody who does not believe that you have the divine knowledge to write something foreshadowing a thing that hasn't happened yet, what would the symbolism be?
|
well these days being a virgin later on in your life most likely means nobody wanted to change that part about you (the virgins by actual choice are a minority) so at that point taking the virgins off somebody's hands and doing what nobody else wanted to might be considered a friendly community service.
Bless the martyrs that sacrifice themselves to a night of closing their eyes and thinking about somebody completely different.
|
I've spoilered my post for the benefit of those who don't want to read religious discussion.
+ Show Spoiler +On April 10 2015 22:40 mordek wrote:
However, I don't just toss it all away because I can't understand it fully right now. There's a crazy amount of prophecies from the Old Testament fulfilled by one person Jesus Christ and I'm going to keep trying to understand it all. Yeah, the Bible is not an easy book for modern readers to understand at times, and people (Christians included) get stuck in reading it from within our culture rather than the culture of the people it was written for. Which is difficult, because I don't believe in God because simply because of a leap of faith despite evidence. So when people do raise questions it tends to bother me and I get the itch to find the answer. I say "the" answer but what I've found is that there's a lot more to the story than what any one person says and for every argument made there's an endless chain counterargument following it. Although I've tried to pick out the good arguments from the bad ones going through it all takes more than a lifetime to do. At some point you just have to accept that for some of these questions you'll just have to rely on some expert somewhere that you may never know the name of. @phyvo I will let you know. It looks like there is a pdf online if you look. I'm more than happy to give you a review though. Cool, maybe I'll look into it if I have the time. As for Coma, while I can't address each your questions personally I would say, in my opinion, that yes that's not actually the proper understanding of those passages. I think the rapist interpretation in particular is completely untrue while also, like the other questions, misunderstands what OT stories and laws meant within OT culture. I've heard all those questions before and satisfied them personally by viewing a lot of aoplogetics websites and prodigious use of google, though obviously Mordek has been very generous in offering his help too.
|
Hmm, are you asking what the benefit was for the Israelites at the time since the symbolism would be lost (it's for a future event)? I mean, it's you're the chosen people and I'm delivering you out of Egypt like I said I would. The writer of the story in Exodus at the time did not know why God instructed Moses to have the people slaughter a lamb and use it's blood to prevent the last plague. But God did, which is why he gave those specific instructions. Otherwise I'd have no idea why that act is what God chose. The Levitical sacrifice system is similar in this sense. The Israelites just did as they were told and it was recorded as such. The fulfillment and realization would not come until later.
|
Baa?21247 Posts
On April 10 2015 23:50 Numy wrote:
I mean it's an absolutely terrible solution to a terrible problem. I'd say just fucking change society then but seems like religion hates women so much that they'd rather go with that compromise. The other day at the dinner table I actually said something along those lines and my dad who is rather christian just laughed and said ye religion hates women. I wonder if it's just because society tends to be against women(well Pagan and some Eastern Culture are rather different in this regard) so the religion just mirrors that.
On a tangential note, I once came across some amazing theory that claimed that patriarchal societies are a reaction against prehistoric societies, which were matriarchal (a once popular theory that is now largely discredited/shelved for lack of evidence). Men oppress women as revenge for when women oppressed men, it was hilarious.
I can't find the source of this right now since googling these terms just yields a lot of 21st century internet discussions on muh patriarchy (lomo). Need to figure out how to search for this lol. It's like an extension of what Engels outlined regarding matriarchal societies, which aligned matriarchal societies with communism and patriarchal societies with capitalism.
|
Can you see how that is consistent with my statement that I thought the symbolism is "Don't fuck with the Jews or god will kill your kids"?
|
On April 11 2015 00:02 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2015 23:50 Numy wrote:
I mean it's an absolutely terrible solution to a terrible problem. I'd say just fucking change society then but seems like religion hates women so much that they'd rather go with that compromise. The other day at the dinner table I actually said something along those lines and my dad who is rather christian just laughed and said ye religion hates women. I wonder if it's just because society tends to be against women(well Pagan and some Eastern Culture are rather different in this regard) so the religion just mirrors that. On a tangential note, I once came across some amazing theory that claimed that patriarchal societies are a reaction against prehistoric societies, which were matriarchal (a once popular theory that is now largely discredited/shelved for lack of evidence). Men oppress women as revenge for when women oppressed men, it was hilarious. I can't find the source of this right now since googling these terms just yields a lot of 21st century internet discussions on muh patriarchy (lomo). Need to figure out how to search for this lol.
That sounds funny as fuck, find it please I want to readerino.
|
On April 10 2015 23:34 Ketara wrote:
I wouldn't mind having a religious debate in OT if people can be adults.
But I'd have to echo what Cheep said. The bible (both testaments) were not written by god. If you believe that they were written by god, then it's not really symbolism is it, it's the literal truth.
If you want to look at it as a story that is symbolic of something, then you have to go by the assumption that it's not the word of god, which means that it can't be intentionally foreshadowing something that happened hundreds of years later.
It is possible that the Jesus story and the Passover story both have the same symbolism (IE God won't punish someone who sacrifices for god.) but to call the earlier one a prelude to the later one is so far fetched as to weaken the credibility of the rest of your argument.
I wonder what happens to the firstborn of people who don't have houses?
First, whether or not the story is literally true is irrelevant as to whether or not there can be symbolism in the story. The act in question, using a sacrificed lamb's blood to mark the doorways, is a symbolic gesture representative of the cleansing of the household. Fact or fiction doesn't change that.
Second, the link between Passover and Easter is very strong in the Christian tradition. Passover sets the precedent for the practice of animal sacrifice (typically lambs) as an absolution for sins. Jesus is commonly referred to as the "Lamb of God", and his death and resurrection during Passover are considered the ultimate sacrifice that made such sacrifices unnecessary. That's why Passover is considered a prelude to Easter.
|
On April 11 2015 00:02 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2015 23:50 Numy wrote:
I mean it's an absolutely terrible solution to a terrible problem. I'd say just fucking change society then but seems like religion hates women so much that they'd rather go with that compromise. The other day at the dinner table I actually said something along those lines and my dad who is rather christian just laughed and said ye religion hates women. I wonder if it's just because society tends to be against women(well Pagan and some Eastern Culture are rather different in this regard) so the religion just mirrors that. On a tangential note, I once came across some amazing theory that claimed that patriarchal societies are a reaction against prehistoric societies, which were matriarchal (a once popular theory that is now largely discredited/shelved for lack of evidence). Men oppress women as revenge for when women oppressed men, it was hilarious. I can't find the source of this right now since googling these terms just yields a lot of 21st century internet discussions on muh patriarchy (lomo). Need to figure out how to search for this lol. It's like an extension of what Engels outlined regarding matriarchal societies, which aligned matriarchal societies with communism and patriarchal societies with capitalism.
Man how do people come up with this stuff. It's amazing. You have to find this for us Cheep!
|
Wasn't that kind of a thing in the Pathfinder series or am I misremembering? I know there was some sort of matriarchal system in that world.
|
I really wish I had studied more Apologetics in the past =(
|
On April 11 2015 00:11 Requizen wrote:
I really wish I had studied more Apologetics in the past =(
No time like the present  But I feel ya.
|
On April 11 2015 00:10 mordek wrote:
Wasn't that kind of a thing in the Pathfinder series or am I misremembering? I know there was some sort of matriarchal system in that world.
If pathfinder's Drow are anything like D&Ds, there ya go.
|
+ Show Spoiler [on the old testament and myth] +Not to mention that, aside from the firstborn plague, the rest of the plagues themselves can all be explained by things that we know today about the Nile and that period of time. From Egypt onward in Israel's history there is actually strong evidence to support the OT as history, even if you're a skeptic. Yes, there are miracles, but they are not that different from accounts from other peoples of the time that are regularly used for historical purposes. For anyone wanting to read about this in depth I would recommend "On the Reliability of the Old Testament" by K.A. Kitchen which extensively quotes primary sources to make its point. It is extremely thorough though and is not light reading.
|
On April 11 2015 00:12 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2015 00:10 mordek wrote:
Wasn't that kind of a thing in the Pathfinder series or am I misremembering? I know there was some sort of matriarchal system in that world. If pathfinder's Drow are anything like D&Ds, there ya go.
I was about to edit in a clarification:The Pathfinder series
|
On April 10 2015 23:54 phyvo wrote:
As for Coma, while I can't address each your questions personally I would say, in my opinion, that yes that's not actually the proper understanding of those passages. I think the rapist interpretation in particular is completely untrue while also, like the other questions, misunderstands what OT stories and laws meant within OT culture. I've heard all those questions before and satisfied them personally by viewing a lot of aoplogetics websites and prodigious use of google, though obviously Mordek has been very generous in offering his help too.
hmm? Mordek didn't answer any of my questions just said he didn't know the answer which is fine. Or did you mean he helps you be apologetic towards the worst parts of the bible. I've read it a couple times and went to church every week till i was like 14 and enjoy reading hater and apologetic websites alike. Like this apologetic article about the rape victim thing. Their explanation is just that the father can veto it due to another verse which is equally horribly sexist. I am not looking to argue every verse that comes off wrong. only asking if one verse that is morally wrong exists. I think there are many. And I think that cheapens the book significantly especially if you try to argue it was written with divine influence.
Sure it was meant for the times but apparently when shit got fucked up last time he erased the planet so we had to incest our way back to populace and with this chance to lay down ground rules instead of saying treat women with respect he said things like "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord" I just cant wrap my head around why this all powerful being that already knows the entire timeline of the universe he created would, like, compromise morally with his creation because of the times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
