Dark Bible

[Poetic_Justice]

well, lets not call it kindergarten, the fac tis, that despite how some of us are well-versed in the Bible, many Christians are not... For those these verses ARE shocking... Lets not put them down for their lack of knowledge, though, instead we should understand the reason for it and try to help them...

God DOES call us to be patient and longsuffering eh?

Also, penguin, that was well said, although I must question you on your challenge of the bible not being wholly inspired. Are you speaking of the copies not being perfectly inspired, or the originals?

[Anniee]

Poetic, I stand by every word. The effort is preschool at best.

By the way, there's no excuse in this country where we are still free to read the bible for Christians not to know their own faith. I wasn't putting ignorant Christians down in my post (rather the effort of the website, in fact) because I'm not responding to Christians there, as should be obvious, but in any case there is no excuse for Christian ignorance here in the Western world. There are people who have undergone years of torture (think Richard Wurmbrand) for trying to get bibles in to places where they were banned, it's particularly loathsome for us here to squander what we have. In any case, wherever you might have gotten the idea I'd not try to help them learn, I assure you that is incorrect.

[Anniee]

By the way, you'll note this thread (much less the site) was not about asking, "Holy shit! I found this thing in the bible and that's messed up, why is this in there? What do Christians do with THIS?" because that would have deserved a serious reply. It was, "Hey these Christian idiots don't know THIS stuff is in that stupid book, let's shut their asses up once and for all, bwaahaha!" (Even though, duh, we know what's in there. Not that they even understand what they read, but still.)

Big difference.

[NoeticPenguin]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Poetic_Justice,)
Also, penguin, that was well said, although I must question you on your challenge of the bible not being wholly inspired. Are you speaking of the copies not being perfectly inspired, or the originals?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>


I'm sorry, I looked back on what I wrote, and I'm not sure to what you were refering; so I'll take a second here and define it out exactly.

I believe the Bible(all of it) to be inspired by God. That means:
All of it is useful for teaching, correcting, rebuking etc.
All of it helps us understand the narrative of God's ongoing creative work of redemption.
That one or more parts of the Triune God are at some level the impetus of it's writing.

It DOES NOT mean:
That the Bible was written *by* God.
That the Bible is without mistake.
That the Bible isn't made up of various books that have been, through history, edited, and lumped together with other books.
That the Bible is completely non-fiction.
That the Bible is all we have (I give authority to tradition as well)

-Pkj.

[Poetic_Justice]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
It DOES NOT mean:
1. That the Bible was written *by* God.
2. That the Bible is without mistake.
3. That the Bible isn't made up of various books that have been, through history, edited, and lumped together with other books.
4. That the Bible is completely non-fiction.
5. That the Bible is all we have (I give authority to tradition as well)<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
1. Not written by, inspired by, I'll heartily agree
2. As far as the copies go, I'll agree on the second part too... Although I will temper that by saying that God has kept the doctrines pure.
3. I don't quite know what you're referring to here? Is it stuff like how Moses could not have finished Exodus since it refers to his death and so another writer must have finished it for him? Or are you referring to editings like the Catholic Church's editing of the Bible, and men like Thomas Jefferson and Joseph Smith editing the Bible?
4. I am also quite agreeable to this(Song of Solomon is a good example), although I will temper it with an adherence to number 5 on most issues(Although, really, the debate about whether or not a book like Job is fiction or non-fiction is not exactly a salvation issue )
5. A hearty agreement, except that we should be careful to test all traditions by the Bible. I was at one Church where acting, dancing, and dying one's hair were all 'verboten'. That any of those acts required a visit from the clergy was taking tradition just a bit to far. (Especially seeing as both acting and dancing can be found in the Bible in positive lights)

Oh, and my question was more paraphrasing what you said here:
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Actually, thats a rather rude and off base comment, somewhat akin to me saying that all blond haired people are murders. Christians do not, by definition believe that the Bible contains no mistakes ore inaccuracies. I'll say it again, Christians do not by definition, believe that the Bible contains no mistakes or inaccuracies.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

[NoeticPenguin]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Poetic_Justice,)

1. Not written by, inspired by, I'll heartily agree
2. As far as the copies go, I'll agree on the second part too... Although I will temper that by saying that God has kept the doctrines pure.
3. I don't quite know what you're referring to here? Is it stuff like how Moses could not have finished Exodus since it refers to his death and so another writer must have finished it for him? Or are you referring to editings like the Catholic Church's editing of the Bible, and men like Thomas Jefferson and Joseph Smith editing the Bible?
4. I am also quite agreeable to this(Song of Solomon is a good example), although I will temper it with an adherence to number 5 on most issues(Although, really, the debate about whether or not a book like Job is fiction or non-fiction is not exactly a salvation issue )
5. A hearty agreement, except that we should be careful to test all traditions by the Bible. I was at one Church where acting, dancing, and dying one's hair were all 'verboten'. That any of those acts required a visit from the clergy was taking tradition just a bit to far. (Especially seeing as both acting and dancing can be found in the Bible in positive lights)
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

1: Yay! agreement!
2: I don't see God as much carring for what *most* people think of when you say "doctrine" but if you mean the "doctrines" of Love God, Love People, Make Disciples then yes, I aggree.
3: I was refering to several theorys:
1) That Isaiah is not one but three books, spanning several decades if not a century (ie, that Isaiah is 3 books by at least 2 authors)
2) That *some* Biblical characters are actually ancient Jewish fiction (Notably Joshua son of Nun who, according to at least one theory/author is never noted as having sinned --unlike all other Jewish leaders in the O.T.--)
3) That books like 2Corinthians may actually be two books as well.
4) That Several books of the Bible are, in the eyes of some Biblical scholars, obviously edited or "redacted" by future leaders, giving rise to a "ranking" system by which a narrative in any given historical O.T. book is judged by scholars to be in the J, P, and I think E categories, refering to time periods roughly defined by the "J - Judges period of Jewish history", the "P - Preistly period, where priests like Samuel held great power" and others (N.B. I know that J and P are given categories, and I'm fairly sure that there is at least one more, which I further believe to be "e" but I don't recall why it's given that inital)
5) Duetero-cannonical writings such as the "additions to Daniel" that at one time appeared (for what reasons we don't know) and are later removed (for reasons protestants are hard pressed to denote.)
4: Agreed. It's interesting to ponder why fiction narratives or fictional poetry made it into the Hebrew cannon, though not impossible to see how it could happen. After all for the most part we would all be able to give a synopsis of Batman and Robin, or Superman; any teen (I'm a jr. high youth minister) can give a detailed snyopsis of at least 4 tv shows and one or two video games. Fiction (or narratives in any form) for good or ill shape us more than we think.
5: I couldn't help but laugh when I read what you wrote. As I sit here and type this, I'm wearing a shirt that says "I can dance in my underpants" with a reference to David dancing for joy through the streets. I love tradition, and liturgy, but some traditions aren't Church traditions, they are cultural traditions. For instance, I'm not aware of any ekklesial body denouncing dancing with a long standing historical tradition to back it up. Instead they reference current trends in dancing and it's licentiousness as a reason not to dance. I also find it hard to honor traditions that willfully break the call of Christ to love one another without condition; when I run into "thou shalt not dance" I can't help but marvel at the sickness of the church itself that we can condem people for dancing, instead of asking them to dance with us in praise of God. Condemnation is not part of any ekklesial tradition that reaches back to the <3rd century.

-Pkj.

[syracusa]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (chicagoastronomer,)
The erraticity of the bible is proof enough that it was written with the dirty hand of man...nothing else. If it was inspired by God, then man wasn't listening and probably was picking his nose while staring into the sun with a full erection. I would expect nothing less.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I think of myself as a "Christian" and a person who loves and tries to live by the words (those written in red) attributed to Jesus. Though I am not always succesful. I am however NOT a fundamentalist Christian (lots of "left-of-center" views). As Chicagoastronomer said, when I read a lot of passages in the Bible I get that uncomfortable feeling that it was written with the "dirty hands of man...staring into the sun with a full erection".
Very well said. I have to take my hat off to this one. :)

I do have a friend however (well...more like a former friend in high-school, currently an acquaintance that, for whatever reason, I keep in touch with) who is a fundamentalist Christian.
The only thing I can say is that there is not much debating/reasoning/discussing with this type of people - not beyond their well-defined, unchallanged patterns of thought which they unequivocally attribute to God and not to themselves (as they should).
I very much believe that you must have a certain psychological issue/inclination in order to fall into these ferociously fixed and oppressive patterns of thought. I trully believe "the thing" has a psychological (or should I say "psycho") dimension to it.

She often sends me fundamentalist propaganda (having little to do with Jesus and a lot to do with right wing politics) - but she always dresses it up in the "soft", "rightheous" intentions of a pious believer. She never acknoledges that what she is sending is "politics" not "faith".
Of course, I never respond back because it would be vary taxing for me to do so - emotionally and time-wise.

But then again, I cannot say that this type of people are the only ones that can be very obtuse in their ways.
Only recently I had posted on a thread dealing with "men's/women's power - who's got the upper hand type thing) and it was shocking for me to see the kind of poison and obstinant ill-will that some men are willing to spew just to justify their religiously fixated beliefs accroding to which women are horrible witches who have more power than men do and are just trying to emasculate them and keep them down. One of them even said something like "it is time to deal with this danger called WOMAN".
Talk about "oppressive"!

Well...I had to quit posting. There's no debating when people have this frame of mind. You only manage to finish yourself emotionally - AND waste a lot of your precious time - which is downright stupid on your part if you proceed to do that.
Same with the fundamentalist Christians. They conveniently overlook the OBJECTIVE (please let's not get into what is 'OBJECTIVE'! )attrocities and injustices fueled by humans' interpretation of the Bible throughout history - and focuse instead on their subjective and egomaniacal view point. (or in the case of fundamentalist Christian women - subjective, brainwashed, self-loathing view point).

[Poetic_Justice]

ummm, just a point that I think gets missed in here a lot.

A fundamentalist is on who follows their religion to the letter and the spirit of every letter. What tends to be forgotten nowadaysis that most 'fundamentalists' are not fundamentalists at all, but are rather extremists and force-mongers... They tend to manipulate their religions for their own ideologies... For examples look at Bin Laden, Al-Jinnah, the "Religious Right" of North America...

The religious right in America tend to be very contradictory and go against their own religion over and over. For them, abortion is wrong, but the death penalty is good. For them government control of morals is good, until those morals become unchristian. For them democracy is good, until the majority are not 'their knid of Christian."

Men like Al-Jinnah and Bin Laden use Islam as a hot button to push their political ideas. When Al-Jinnah pushed for the partition of India, the religious leaders in India all opposed him and told him that Islam should not be used in that way, yet Jinnah persisted. Bin Laden is much the same, a political wolf in religious sheep's clothing.

True fundamentalists would realize that the initiation of force is contrary to their religion. (This assumes that we are dealing with the major 5 religions, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism) True fundamentalists should not try to inflict their religion upon others. And true fundamentalists woudl follow their Bible/Q'uran/Talmud/etc., not their political leaders.

I count myself a fundamentalist, but I do not agree with the "religious right" on almsot anything. So that is why I have written this.

[Anniee]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Poetic_Justice,)
The religious right in America tend to be very contradictory and go against their own religion over and over. For them, abortion is wrong, but the death penalty is good.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Basically yeah I agree with most of your post - this part, however, not. It isn't contradictory and it isn't contradictory with Christianity either. I was wondering why you thought it was?

[haoqide]

Ok, i don't wanna burst anybody's bubble, but you people who are quoting the Bible out of context and without research are retarded. Have you ever read a Bible condordance? Have you ever bothered looking back at the original language and the true meaning of the words used in the Bible? I've read in a concordance somewhere that the original word used in the scripture that tells you to "hate" your family actually, in the original language, means "love less." So, Jesus wasn't saying anything about how you should actually hate your family, just that you should love them less than you love him and his teachings. Quit being ignorant and try looking into things before you blindly go believing them. You people who say religion is the "opiate of the masses" are guilty of believing what anybody tells you. I got news for you...Just because something is pulled out of context and slapped on the internet, and just because you want it to be true, that doesn't make it so.

[Anniee]

"Have you ever read a Bible condordance? Have you ever bothered looking back at the original language and the true meaning of the words used in the Bible?"

Yep. It's called hermeneutics and it's essential to understanding the bible as a Christian and not turning into a rolling-in-the-aisles weirdo.

As to the rest, yep, that's why I called it Kindergarten. They really ought to do better than this old stuff by now, it's such a yawn.

[Poetic_Justice]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Anniee,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Poetic_Justice,)
The religious right in America tend to be very contradictory and go against their own religion over and over.  For them, abortion is wrong, but the death penalty is good.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Basically yeah I agree with most of your post - this part, however, not. It isn't contradictory and it isn't contradictory with Christianity either. I was wondering why you thought it was?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

That part was somewhat illogical, sorry... I was seeking for a comparison to abortion, and came up short...

But I still stand by my condemnation of the 'religiosu right' segment of politics...

[Anniee]

Yes, I understand you probably came up short making comparisons to abortion. I understand you loathe the "religious right." Believing in the death penalty doesn't contradict belief that abortion is wrong however. :) Not biblically.

[DayBaye]

Biblically, at least according to the two or three out of four branches of Judaism (the more liberal ones), abortion is not morally wrong. It has something to do with the large amout of miscarriages around the time the Bible was written... you don't really cry over something that didn't live. Also, biblically, the mother is more important until the child is born. Then the child is important, too.