Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to Murder, rape and kidnapping should be okay then?
Re: Good morning Gomedome – I was very active in sports.
ammon - as per usual you have gone off on one of your tangents, refusing to admit that you are wrong while arguing points that were never contended. I have never said that the bible "stands for" murdering babies and have even taken the time to clarify this point. Your interpretation: ". . . and as you can see, this is clearly speaking to a barren womb except at the end and that part is speaking to the repercussions from sin". The word sin is not even mentioned in the passage in question, to suggest that this is what it is addressing is a bogus interpretation.
I have no idea what you did as a child, nor am I particularly interested. I just thought it humorous to make a few things up and assume the rest as you have done in saying that I was abused by religious zealots as a youth. I suffered no abuse whatsoever other than constantly being subjected to Christianity with all of its absurd mythological constructs.
The truth of the matter is that I have more than proven my points in this post. The bible "condones" slavery, rape, murder of women, children and babies as well as the wanton slaughter of countless peoples. It "condones" these actions by lack of condemnation and their very inclusion in the text. I know that you have problems with basic English but here is what the word condone means: "To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure." I did not once mention, imply, suggest or insinuate that the bible "stands for" these things, nor did I mention that those claiming to be adherents to religions that utilize the bible as their doctrinal framework "stand for" murdering babies.
You are mistaken if you think that you are welcome to come to this blog to argue points of contention neither stated nor implied. This "discussion" has been a monumental waste of time. I have not blocked you this time around because in an earlier comment I have stated that if you wanted to re-establish yourself in this forum, I would not dredge up the past. As you slip into your old habits of obstinacy and arguing irrelevant points, you are making this increasingly difficult to adhere to.
posted by
gomedome
on November 14, 2008 at 8:35 AM
| link to this | reply
Good morning Gomedome – I was very active in sports.
Reading the Bible never kept me from participating in sports. In fact, in case you are unaware, there is an organization called “Fellowship of Christian Athletes” that is very active among athletic teams. There is nothing in reading the Bible that prevents one from being active in sports. There were many Christians on my football and basketball teams. Calling people names like “religious wacko” is without foundation and truly accomplishes nothing but the rise of discord.
Nothing in your statements here have proven me wrong in the least and no logical person who reads this exchange is ever going to believe that the Bible stands for murdering babies. In fact, I thought of you this morning on my drive into work when I passed a gang of religious zealots, out protesting before an abortion clinic, and waving their Bibles in the air. One of them actually had a bull horn attached to his belt so that his shouts against baby murder could be heard inside the cars stopped at the traffic light. Nothing could be more clear than the fact that religious fundamentalists and the Bible stand against the murder of babies, even before they are born. Just look at who is on what side of the abortion issue.
As I said, the passages that you read are the repercussions of sin, not an advocacy for baby murder. But you know that already. And as the text is so ancient, there is no reason to expect it to be anything but primitive.
Thank you for the continued invitation to return to your blog, as in the past I’ve been concerned about leaving more than a few comments at the risk of being blocked. I am very glad that you are now open to an exchange. But I do want to keep it civil. My time is also limited as I have a business to run.
posted by
ammon
on November 14, 2008 at 7:18 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: Gomedome……truly your post and comments here are nothing less than an open
ammon - I believe that you have yet to develop an ability for rational thought. It may stem from your very strange childhood where normal kids were out playing sports and doing what normal kids do while you were indoors reading the bible. (This by your own admission) It's okay though, keep coming back to this blog and you may eventually learn how normal people think and in time, how they act. I must remind you however that I did not make you a religious wacko, in that regard you are a self made man. Again by your own admission when you attempted to tell me that you were not subject to religious indoctrination as a child but instead somehow adopted all of the propaganda and false promises of belief of your own volition.
I agree however that the bible is "one of the most profound pieces of ancient literature". Profound in the sense that a book filled with so many inconsistencies, cruelty, redundancy and primitive thinking has as much relevancy as it does in the minds of too many people. Sorry about your luck that you are one of those people, maybe in time you will grow out of it. Maybe you will even realize that your little demonstration in these past few comments has illustrated for us once again that you are not capable of adult discussion, try as you might. Testament to this in the fact that once you were proven wrong you have reverted to your old ways of unsolicited analysis of other bloggers and criticism of the content of their blogs.
One last time, I did not use the word "promote" nor did I imply it. I specifically said "condone". Your take on what that specific bible passage actually says is laughable. It is clearly about acts of vengeance including murdering babies. Try to take being wrong like a man for once.
posted by
gomedome
on November 13, 2008 at 10:48 PM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome……truly your post and comments here are nothing less than an open
attack against a sacred book……”bastardized versions?”…..”redundant gibberish?”……. such language is totally unnecessary to make a point. But you are not content to address the content of such ancient writing in a decent manner…..your goal here is to berate and ridicule -and nothing less, as seems the goal of your entire blog. I believe it to be a psychological aberration, or lashing out, against the religious zealots that abused you as a child and corrupted your youth! What else could motivate one to such a fierce display against the Holy Bible, one of the most profound pieces of ancient literature. You have totally ignored the context of the passages, as I have explained to you, in favor of some wholesale attempt to contend that the Bible promotes baby murder, which it clearly does not! You are raving against your past and exhibiting displaced aggression.
posted by
ammon
on November 13, 2008 at 8:26 PM
| link to this | reply
Sunnybeach7 - I can't help myself, whenever I read parts of the bible I
think about the Monty Python movie Life of Brian.
"He's not the messiah, he's just a very naughty boy."
When I am thinking of that type of humor, then have people stop into my comments and begin ludicrous arguments denying things that are clearly true, I just can't take it seriously. It doesn't matter which of the bastardized versions of the bible are used to make the point, in this case the passage clearly speaks of murdering babies as an act of vengeance.
The problem is much more deep reaching than someone just refusing to see what is clearly there however. The reasons they refuse to see it are the real problem. This book which is comprised primarily of redundant gibberish, is held in such reverence that it is never looked at objectively and defended when portions of it are undefensible. Or in cases such as this recent dialogue, never looked at with any form of honesty.
posted by
gomedome
on November 13, 2008 at 7:40 PM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome – well, if we have to agree to disagree, so be it,
but it has nonetheless been my pleasure to participate in this Bible Study with you today, even if we were bothered to no end by that pestering fly.
posted by
ammon
on November 13, 2008 at 4:04 PM
| link to this | reply
Gome,
They are never going to figure that out...because they don't want to.
I think some people just "need" to believe in this... like if it's not true, it cancels out their whole reason for living.
I think that is the same reason some push so hard too...if they can make others believe in their fantasies..they must be true, right?
Ya know...I've actually met women (one in particular especially comes to mind) who KNEW and was thrilled that her place was "under" her husband, and to obey and do whatever he wants and says ...no questions. WTF?
Why'd God give women a brain?
About those there verses of the Bible... I interpret his the same as I interpret yours. Did I miss something? lol
Probably not even relevent...but being barren is not the same thing as miscarrying.
And back during this time (and they had no way of knowing) for those who could not conceive, there was likely at least as much chance, if not more, that the guys were shooting blanks than the women actually being barren.
I'm no expert, but... to my knowledge a lot of women with those problems have serious health complications and likely would not have even lived without todays advanced medical treatment.
posted by
Afzal_Sunny7
on November 13, 2008 at 3:27 PM
| link to this | reply
ammon - you just can't admit when you are wrong can you?
That passage says nothing of the sort. If it is allegorical as you are implying, it is speaking about the wrath of God and clearly describing all manner of revenge he will take because he is pissed at some past transgressions. There is no way on your mythical God's green earth that anyone could read that passage and come up with what you suggest it means without some form of outside influence/brainwashing.
The first step to "uplifting goodness" is to show a bit of integrity. Admit that you are wrong. Or if you want to stick to your bogus interpretation (as I know you will), then we will have to dismiss the entire bible as a book of fables who's meaning is entirely in the eyes of the beholder. But some of us knew that already, the only part of the bible that anyone can quote with absolute certainty as to its authenticity . . . are the page numbers.
posted by
gomedome
on November 13, 2008 at 3:21 PM
| link to this | reply
Sunnybeach7 - I've often wondered why so many women can ignore the
clearly subserviant roles they are assigned in the bible.
And it is always God who is looking out for us while the other guy, tribe, country or army, is fighting for evil purposes. When are these people going to figure out that they are petitioning nature as if it has consciousness and the collection of stories found in ancient religious manuscripts are nothing more than a collection of stories?
posted by
gomedome
on November 13, 2008 at 3:10 PM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome – here’s the version that I referred to
and as you can see, this is clearly speaking to a barren womb except at the end and that part is speaking to the repercussions from sin – these repercussion exist even today and I have blogged about them many times, the obese have heart attacks, alcoholics wither away, the greedy are left lonely and bereaved, and so on …… .this is a statement of the penalty for failing to recognize goodness and lifting it up …… .it ’ s so simply just to lift up goodness and basic human decency and avoid the pitfalls of sin …… ..and even if you can ’ t live up to the good ideal you can at least commit and believe, which will also gain you salvation ……… but to totally reject the good way and to openly relish in sin is to draw upon yourself catastrophes like those mentioned
11 Ephraim's glory will fly away like a bird—
no birth, no pregnancy, no conception.
12 Even if they rear children,
I will bereave them of every one.
Woe to them
when I turn away from them!
13 I have seen Ephraim, like Tyre,
planted in a pleasant place.
But Ephraim will bring out
their children to the slayer."
14 Give them, O LORD—
what will you give them?
Give them wombs that miscarry
and breasts that are dry.
15 "Because of all their wickedness in Gilgal,
I hated them there.
Because of their sinful deeds,
I will drive them out of my house.
I will no longer love them;
all their leaders are rebellious.
16 Ephraim is blighted,
their root is withered,
they yield no fruit.
Even if they bear children,
I will slay their cherished offspring."
posted by
ammon
on November 13, 2008 at 2:11 PM
| link to this | reply
Gome,
Well... I for one have read the Bible numerous times....and I have seen all that you speak of, and more. Most of which are my reasons for turning away from Christianity.
Being a woman, how can I condone or respect a God that insists on violence and subduing women and children (not to mention others)?
Even if I was a man...if I've ever had a mother or a sister or a girlfriend...
It's just ridiculous.
Not to mention all the contradiction in the Bible. After Noah...spread all these people to different parts of the world, using different languages, etc...to repopulate the earth.... but then let's have them all kill each other...because now there are "bad guys" and "good guys".
The "good guys" kill for the good of all mankind...while the "bad guys" kill for evil purposes... give me a break... killing is killing is killing.
posted by
Afzal_Sunny7
on November 13, 2008 at 10:45 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: We don’t have to argue about it, as I said, anyone can read the passages
ammon - yes, you are correct, anyone can read the passages such as one of which you have defended as describing being "barren of pregnancy and not about mudering children" . . . It is actually more than that; it is not only about murdering children, it is about merciless revenge and ruthless judgement. Anyone can judge for themselves:
Hosea 9:11-16 (New King James Version)
11 As for Ephraim, their glory shall fly away like a bird—
No birth, no pregnancy, and no conception!
12 Though they bring up their children,
Yet I will bereave them to the last man.
Yes, woe to them when I depart from them!
13 Just as I saw Ephraim like Tyre, planted in a pleasant place,
So Ephraim will bring out his children to the murderer.”
14 Give them, O LORD—
What will You give?
Give them a miscarrying womb
And dry breasts!
15 “ All their wickedness is in Gilgal,
For there I hated them.
Because of the evil of their deeds
I will drive them from My house;
I will love them no more.
All their princes are rebellious.
16 Ephraim is stricken,
Their root is dried up;
They shall bear no fruit.
Yes, were they to bear children,
I would kill the darlings of their womb.”
So spare us the bogus interpretations . . . . and I don't drink liquor.
posted by
gomedome
on November 13, 2008 at 10:16 AM
| link to this | reply
We don’t have to argue about it, as I said, anyone can read the passages
for themselves and see what they say. And thanks for the invitation, I’d love to drop back by sometime soon. Maybe I’ll bring a single malt scotch!
posted by
ammon
on November 13, 2008 at 9:38 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: This post is nothing but a blatant attempt to falsely represent the Bible
ammon - all you have to do is take your rose colored God fan club glasses off for two seconds to realize that you are only seeing what you want to see. The very fact that such horrific acts are included in the text at all is a form of condoning it. The conclusions drawn should be a no brainer but apparently not for people like you who want to insist that only how you see it is what was intended by the authors.
Eventually there will come a time when that archaic text is deemed as X rated and recognized for what it is: Aside from the sum total of mankind's wishful thinking, it is nothing more than the ravings of primitives and nearly completely redundant to the modern world.
If you want to get clubbed over the head again, by all means come on back, we're here all week.
posted by
gomedome
on November 13, 2008 at 8:12 AM
| link to this | reply
This post is nothing but a blatant attempt to falsely represent the Bible
and you know it. You are absolutely wrong on this and it is easy for anyone who wants to read these passages to see that you are wrong. In Hosea they are speaking about being barren of pregnancy, not about murdering children. In Ezekiel they are recounting a vision, not validating any event. In Leviticus they are speaking about the repercussions of sin, not condoning any violent act. In Isaiah, you are again reading a prophecy about what is to occur as repercussion for sin, not anything that is promoted or condoned. Perhaps if you will try to read the Bible from a perspective of understanding it instead of criticizing it, you will unveil the treasure that awaits you there.
posted by
ammon
on November 13, 2008 at 7:59 AM
| link to this | reply
ammon - Re: Have you read the Bible?
First off, learn to read English. To say that the bible "condones" something is not the same as saying that it "stands for" or endorses something. But to directly address your completely bogus suggestion that the list of horrific acts I mention in this post are not "condoned" in the bible, you can start with the following passages; Hosea 9:11-16, Ezekiel 9:5-7, Exodus 12:29-30, Leviticus 26:21-22 (baby killing), Isaiah 13:15-18 (rape and murder)
Every horrific act I mention in this post is "condoned" in the bible numerous times. My suggestion is that perhaps you learn what you are talking about before attempting to refute that which is so easily validated.
posted by
gomedome
on November 13, 2008 at 6:37 AM
| link to this | reply
Have you read the Bible?
Or are you just relying upon the interpretations handed down to you by the religious zealots that infected your youth? Your contentions here about what the Bible says are totally false. For example, baby killing is absolutely not condoned in the Bible. In fact, the sacrifice of children is demonstrated to be an absolute wrong. I’ve never met anyone who has read the Bible through who would contend that it stands for the things you assert here. My suggestion is that perhaps you read a book before embarking upon a critique of it.
posted by
ammon
on November 13, 2008 at 6:08 AM
| link to this | reply