02 May 12
Originally posted by ZahlanziIf that's what it is, its a terrible moral system. But I don't agree that that is what it is. The Bible is a collection of books written for different purposes. Some are clearly intended to be historical records, some are poetry, some are theology, and some are a combination of the above and other things. There is even one that is just the ramblings of a lunatic.
The fact that the bible does not mention bacteria, perhaps the earth's most prevalent and widespread form of life, is a proof that the bible is not a scientific book but a philosophy book. a moral system.
02 May 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadit's a moral system for that time
If that's what it is, its a terrible moral system. But I don't agree that that is what it is. The Bible is a collection of books written for different purposes. Some are clearly intended to be historical records, some are poetry, some are theology, and some are a combination of the above and other things. There is even one that is just the ramblings of a lunatic.
and actually quite "moral" considering what them savages were doing before.
and yes, you are right, your definition is more precise.
i was just trying to make a point that to consider the bible to be a science book is folly. both for religious zealots and angry atheists trying to bash christianity on account of jesus not mentioning string theory and trying to simplify the origin story in order to quickly get to the important part(be nice with each other ya aholes) before he gets killed.
02 May 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadno so, the provision for a thief to repay what they stole through work is vastly superior
If that's what it is, its a terrible moral system. But I don't agree that that is what it is. The Bible is a collection of books written for different purposes. Some are clearly intended to be historical records, some are poetry, some are theology, and some are a combination of the above and other things. There is even one that is just the ramblings of a lunatic.
to the system of incarceration in the west or cutting the perpetrators hands off as in
Arabia and elsewhere. The former places the burden on society rather than the
individual themselves and the latter fails to take into account the magnitude of the
crime. Simply because you dont understand the meaning of a passage does not make
it the ramblings of a lunatic, it simply means you cannot understand the passage.
02 May 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieyes, because there is a wonderfully nice and fluffy sentiment behind "stone a little girl to death if she doesn't bleeds on the sheet in her wedding night"
no so, the provision for a thief to repay what they stole through work is vastly superior
to the system of incarceration in the west or cutting the perpetrators hands off as in
Arabia and elsewhere. The former places the burden on society rather than the
individual themselves and the latter fails to take into account the magnitude of the
cri ...[text shortened]... oes not make
it the ramblings of a lunatic, it simply means you cannot understand the passage.
02 May 12
Originally posted by ZahlanziNevertheless, a terrible one (as you essentially admit by placing it in time and trying to compare it to others).
it's a moral system for that time
and actually quite "moral" considering what them savages were doing before.
I don't believe you. Can you give us a list of moral systems prior to that time and explain why they were worse? What exactly were 'them savages' doing prior to that time?
both for religious zealots and angry atheists trying to bash christianity on account of jesus not mentioning string theory and trying to simplify the origin story in order to quickly get to the important part(be nice with each other ya aholes) before he gets killed.
My biggest concern is that Jesus did not directly speak out against a lot of immoral practices (slavery, stoning for adultery etc).
Originally posted by ZahlanziFAIL, please note the provision for theft is not the same as alleged punishment for non
yes, because there is a wonderfully nice and fluffy sentiment behind "stone a little girl to death if she doesn't bleeds on the sheet in her wedding night"
bleeding on wedding night, making your assertion not only irrelevant but completely
fallacious, cmon Zippy you know better than that, try to actually address the content of
the post.
02 May 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhatever you think the Holy Bible is means nothing to me. The truth however does. The writings of the Holy Bible identifies it as a collection of holy scriptures written by inspired holy men of God. That is the real truth. HalleluYah !!! 😏
If that's what it is, its a terrible moral system. But I don't agree that that is what it is. The Bible is a collection of books written for different purposes. Some are clearly intended to be historical records, some are poetry, some are theology, and some are a combination of the above and other things. There is even one that is just the ramblings of a lunatic.
02 May 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieit does however have relevance to how you retorted to twhite that the bible is indeed an awesome moral system. or were you simply mentioning the fact that among 100 evil (by nowadays standard) there is something that is reasonable?
FAIL, please note the provision for theft is not the same as alleged punishment for non
bleeding on wedding night, making your assertion not only irrelevant but completely
fallacious, cmon Zippy you know better than that, try to actually address the content of
the post.
02 May 12
Originally posted by ZahlanziI merely provided an example of a superior and practical method of dealing with the
it does however have relevance to how you retorted to twhite that the bible is indeed an awesome moral system. or were you simply mentioning the fact that among 100 evil (by nowadays standard) there is something that is reasonable?
matter of theft as outlined in the Bible, which is an issue of morality. You have still yet
to state anything in relevance to that and instead made an irrelevant reference to some
other moral issue as if it negates the point i was making when it does nothing of the
sort and some more irrelevant reference to whitey as if it too invalidates the claim i
was making when indeed it does nothing of the sort. You need to address the actual
point the proposer is making for it to be of any relevance, otherwise you end up aiming
your blows into space.
02 May 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieby your reasoning, whenever someone mentions someone is wrong, or evil, i can point out "well there was that one time when he was right or not evil". equally pointless, but i am technically correct.
I merely provided an example of a superior and practical method of dealing with the
matter of theft as outlined in the Bible, which is an issue of morality. You have still yet
to state anything in relevance to that and instead made an irrelevant reference to some
other moral issue as if it negates the point i was making when it does nothing of ...[text shortened]... er is making for it to be of any relevance, otherwise you end up aiming
your blows into space.
get it through your skull. twhite said the bible is a flawed moral system. you didn't address that claim of his (because duh, you can't). instead you mentioned one example where the bible suggests something civilized. nobody is arguing that the bible is 100% evil. only religious fanatics such as yourself are arguing that it is 100% correct and awesome.
Originally posted by Zahlanziand you have still failed to address the actual point i was making, i provided not only
by your reasoning, whenever someone mentions someone is wrong, or evil, i can point out "well there was that one time when he was right or not evil". equally pointless, but i am technically correct.
get it through your skull. twhite said the bible is a flawed moral system. you didn't address that claim of his (because duh, you can't). instead you men ...[text shortened]... l. only religious fanatics such as yourself are arguing that it is 100% correct and awesome.
an example of a Biblical moral system, but a superior one to the present system, you
attempted to negate this with some irrelevancy and the point still remains unanswered.
It was a complete non sequitur
Ralph Wiggum: Martin Luther King had a dream. Dreams are where Elmo and Toy Story
had a party and I was invited. Yay! My turn is over!
Zippy: your example cannot be moral because it mentions elsewhere that you could be
stoned to death for a completely different and unrelated moral crime.
what i think about the Bible and whether its 100 percent morally sound is also
irrelevant. Simply because you deem the Bible immoral in some parts doesn't
mean that its immoral in all parts, does it.
02 May 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadJust one? 😵
If that's what it is, its a terrible moral system. But I don't agree that that is what it is. The Bible is a collection of books written for different purposes. Some are clearly intended to be historical records, some are poetry, some are theology, and some are a combination of the above and other things. There is even one that is just the ramblings of a lunatic.