Religion

[Efstathios]

NOCTVRNVS

Efstathios

NOCTVRNVS

Ugh, can we please stop calling the Bible outdated and mistranslated? If you don't seek to offend people then there is no need for such intentionally offensive rhetoric.

Do you really believe that the bible is not outdated? I'll give that I've heard compelling arguements that it is not mistranslated.

Please explain how it IS outdated, perhaps my definition of "outdated" is radically different from yours.

*blinks trying to figure out where to begin*

For one example let's try one of my favorite beefs with the bible.
The story of Lot and his daughters.
The man offered his virgins daughters to be gang-raped by an angry mob. And he was a rightous man. He was one of the good guys and he offered his daughters to an horny mob.
At the time this was considered hospitality. Nowadays we call the cops.
Also the later incest of this same man and his daughters actually began the line that eventually produced Jesus. Which doesn't really mean anything, it just kinda makes me shudder.

We could probably go back and forth about this for a while.
Would you care to make a thread debating the bible and allow this thread to remain friendly? I think we both probably feel strongly on this matter and might not stay completely civil >.<  

[Dirus]

I'm a pagan. I worship nature and god/dess in all her forms. Most people would think of me as a polytheist because I use many names for god/dess, but I suppose I'm really a monotheist. I believe that the names I call spirit are just different aspects of one being.

I was raised in a Baptist household, though. I like being a pagan because it feels real to me, and not like something that people just go through the motions of because its tradition or because its something you're supposed to do.  

[TempestRising]

Efstathios

*blinks trying to figure out where to begin*

For one example let's try one of my favorite beefs with the bible.
The story of Lot and his daughters.
The man offered his virgins daughters to be gang-raped by an angry mob. And he was a rightous man. He was one of the good guys and he offered his daughters to an horny mob.
At the time this was considered hospitality. Nowadays we call the cops.
Also the later incest of this same man and his daughters actually began the line that eventually produced Jesus. Which doesn't really mean anything, it just kinda makes me shudder.

We could probably go back and forth about this for a while.
Would you care to make a thread debating the bible and allow this thread to remain friendly? I think we both probably feel strongly on this matter and might not stay completely civil >.<

There are many stories in the Bible that don't make sense in a modern sense. The book of Job was a pet peeve of mine for a while, however one must take the bible with a grain of salt.

The bible is the word of God... as it was written by human males many years ago. Many stories in the bible contrast slightly based on the beliefs of the man doing the writing, however the core of the bible is sound.

If you ever seek a true understanding of the Bible, I suggest you start from the new testament and travel backward to the old testament.

I find it refreshing to read the words of Jesus Christ, and realize that he never really said anything sexist, or racist. The Bible can't be taken piece by piece, if one looks at it as a whole, one may find that it's over all message is pure.  

[Efstathios]

TempestRising

Efstathios

*blinks trying to figure out where to begin*

For one example let's try one of my favorite beefs with the bible.
The story of Lot and his daughters.
The man offered his virgins daughters to be gang-raped by an angry mob. And he was a rightous man. He was one of the good guys and he offered his daughters to an horny mob.
At the time this was considered hospitality. Nowadays we call the cops.
Also the later incest of this same man and his daughters actually began the line that eventually produced Jesus. Which doesn't really mean anything, it just kinda makes me shudder.

We could probably go back and forth about this for a while.
Would you care to make a thread debating the bible and allow this thread to remain friendly? I think we both probably feel strongly on this matter and might not stay completely civil >.<

There are many stories in the Bible that don't make sense in a modern sense. The book of Job was a pet peeve of mine for a while, however one must take the bible with a grain of salt.

The bible is the word of God... as it was written by human males many years ago. Many stories in the bible contrast slightly based on the beliefs of the man doing the writing, however the core of the bible is sound.

If you ever seek a true understanding of the Bible, I suggest you start from the new testament and travel backward to the old testament.

I find it refreshing to read the words of Jesus Christ, and realize that he never really said anything sexist, or racist. The Bible can't be taken piece by piece, if one looks at it as a whole, one may find that it's over all message is pure.

Certainly. I like the historical Jesus and most, if not all the sayings attributed to him. The point I was trying to make with my post was merely that some parts of the bible are outdated. Some of the lessons don't apply anymore. For instance it is no longer legal or moral to keep slaves, but the bible (old testament, true) says only that Jewish people may not be kept as slaves.
I did quote the post I was replying to, I sincerely hope I did not deeply offend you or anyone, though it is difficult to prove a point on this subject without offending someone a little.  

[NOCTVRNVS]

TempestRising

Efstathios

*blinks trying to figure out where to begin*

For one example let's try one of my favorite beefs with the bible.
The story of Lot and his daughters.
The man offered his virgins daughters to be gang-raped by an angry mob. And he was a rightous man. He was one of the good guys and he offered his daughters to an horny mob.
At the time this was considered hospitality. Nowadays we call the cops.
Also the later incest of this same man and his daughters actually began the line that eventually produced Jesus. Which doesn't really mean anything, it just kinda makes me shudder.

We could probably go back and forth about this for a while.
Would you care to make a thread debating the bible and allow this thread to remain friendly? I think we both probably feel strongly on this matter and might not stay completely civil >.<

There are many stories in the Bible that don't make sense in a modern sense. The book of Job was a pet peeve of mine for a while, however one must take the bible with a grain of salt.

The bible is the word of God... as it was written by human males many years ago. Many stories in the bible contrast slightly based on the beliefs of the man doing the writing, however the core of the bible is sound.

If you ever seek a true understanding of the Bible, I suggest you start from the new testament and travel backward to the old testament.

I find it refreshing to read the words of Jesus Christ, and realize that he never really said anything sexist, or racist. The Bible can't be taken piece by piece, if one looks at it as a whole, one may find that it's over all message is pure.

Well, to Esthafehuiohsdfos lady, I am not intent on making this a heated discussion... your perspective on the Bible is certainly no grounds for frustration. And this is the "religion" topic...

Anyway, you seem to either be forgetting or just misunderstand the whole context of the Lot situation. He did not offer his daughters to rape, and especially not for hospitality. To believe this is to misunderstand the entire chapter really. The men of Sodom, where Lot had lived, were quite blatantly a bunch of fags ("homosexuals" for you who don't appreciate my humour). They were a dispicable bunch of people who had been doing everything from murder, to rape, to just plain old fudge-packin' ("homosexual activities" for you who don't appreciate my humour). But, as you know, God is ALWAYS fair (that wasn't sarcasm, no), so when He was going to have this city done-away with for good, He actually sent angels to Lot -- who was the ONLY righteous man to be found in the entire city (yes, including even his family who were a bunch of dirty-a** sinnin' hoes basically) -- to warn him of the city's imminent doom. Lot was granted a few minutes grace to flee to a city in the nearby mountains with his entire family, with the dramatic expression, "KEEP ON RUNNIN', AND NEVER LOOK BACK" (effectually). So as the angels vanished, Lot panicked and told his family to pack their things because they were movin' on out. During the time they were preparing to leave their home, the men of the city came to Lot's door, barging into his home and demanding that he bring out the angels that they had seen come to him minutes before. Of course, no-one but Lot knew that they were truly angels, as they disguised themselves as regular men on Earth. Well, come on, a whole mob of horny gay men in your living room, demanding to rape your friends, NOT COOL. What you are misinterpreting here is Lot's intention, which was not to "give away" his daughter as a pin-cushion. Basically he was saying, "you bunch of homos, why don't you want my DAUGHTERS, you want MEN instead?"

To which the answer is, of course, yes. Lot's daughters were thus not actually taken, or even seriously offered. So anyway, to ensure Lot's safety (as time is now running short), he is granted a rush of Godly energy and he forces everyone out of his doorway and shuts the door for good. They run to the hills and the city burns behind them.

[lower curtains]


Okay so, Act II basically. See, Lot didn't bang his daughters, it wasn't AT ALL like that. Remember how Lot was the only righteous one in Sodom? Yeah well, turns out his daughters are totally horny and, well, pretty damn freaky to be honest. They unpack the brewskies they happened to bring along with them from their little house on the prairie, and get their dad (who was probably pretty attractive in all fairness, God tends to pick the pretty ones, just look at Mel Gibson for example) really drunk off his arse. He passes out, as drunken daddies tend to do, and then his daughters take it all off and get down and dirty with daddy (yes, it is as disgusting as it sounds, sorry). Now maybe some bells are ringing as to just WHY God made Sodom go bye-bye in the first place, being a city full of people like these. That is some seriously nasty stuff.

So that's pretty much it for the story of Lot.

As for Tempest lady, well, that's a lot of your opinion and really nothing else. The book of Job? I never really thought THAT one to be especially offensive... I wonder why you felt that way?

The opinions of man being inserted in the Bible is not at all the way God happens to see it, but if you say so.

And as for reading the Bible from back-to-front, well, I think that's a pretty damn bad idea considering all the references in the NEW testament from the OLD testament would probably get a little confusing when you haven't READ the old testament. That's like watching Beyond Thunderdome BEFORE Road Warrior -- what the hell is going on and what is Tina Turner doing in that gigantic jungle-gym?*

*note that Tina Turner is not actually mentioned in the text of the Bible  

[Efstathios]

Well and good then.

How about the arguement I gave TempestRising.

The bible states explicitly that it is O.K. to enslave anyone who isn't one of God's chosen people. Nowadays it is not O.K. to enslave anyone.

It's also a sin to eat anything from the ocean that isn't a fish. For instance scallops, mussels, oysters, shrimp, crab, lobster. It is a sin to shave, to wear clothing woven of two fabrics, etc. These are now completely disregarded by christians everywhere. Why? Because Jesus said it was not necessary to follow all the commands of the old testament. Jesus himself said the old testament was outdated. He himself changed a bunch of the laws too. I'm sure you're familiar with the sermon on the mount? Where he goes back and changes all the rules from the old testament?

Y'know, the old testament said "An eye for an eye" Jesus says nope that's wrong you should "turn the other cheek"

If you still hold that it isn't outdated. I hope you have never petted a bunny or touched/eaten any other animal that "Cheweth the cud but divideth not the hoof"

There's no way to look at it objectively and see it as something we need to follow to the letter today. It is a bunch of stories with moral lessons, in which only the moral lessons in the second half are even applicable according to itself.  

[Efstathios]

As a side note, males who are passed out drunk do not usually have the ability to er...preform.
I don't see how that part of the story could possibly have been recorded accurately. This isn't really material anymore, but I just wanted to put that out there.  

[NOCTVRNVS]

Efstathios

Well and good then.

How about the arguement I gave TempestRising.

The bible states explicitly that it is O.K. to enslave anyone who isn't one of God's chosen people. Nowadays it is not O.K. to enslave anyone.

It's also a sin to eat anything from the ocean that isn't a fish. For instance scallops, mussels, oysters, shrimp, crab, lobster. It is a sin to shave, to wear clothing woven of two fabrics, etc. These are now completely disregarded by christians everywhere. Why? Because Jesus said it was not necessary to follow all the commands of the old testament. Jesus himself said the old testament was outdated. He himself changed a bunch of the laws too. I'm sure you're familiar with the sermon on the mount? Where he goes back and changes all the rules from the old testament?

Y'know, the old testament said "An eye for an eye" Jesus says nope that's wrong you should "turn the other cheek"

If you still hold that it isn't outdated. I hope you have never petted a bunny or touched/eaten any other animal that "Cheweth the cud but divideth not the hoof"

There's no way to look at it objectively and see it as something we need to follow to the letter today. It is a bunch of stories with moral lessons, in which only the moral lessons in the second half are even applicable according to itself.

Well first for the sake of clarification I'll address the minor inaccuracies here...

Your idea of slavery is probably a lot different from that of the men during the time the Bible was written. You are probably thinking of something like the negro slavery in the United States. What would now be a more accurate way to look at the word as it is used in the Bible would be "servitude", as in being a butler pretty much, or even an employee really. People back then did a lot more hard work than we do in the 21st century, no offices and desk-jobs; only construction, farming, and the like. Remember though, there wasn't any machinery to help with these jobs so the only way they got done was a whole lot of manpower. There are laws of slavery in the Bible as well, you know, including much about the payment of your "slaves", and about abusing slaves. It's not like they were put outside picking cotton all day without shoes on and then ate watermelon slices when the sun went down. Sure, slavery was probably pretty rough around Jesus' time, but that's not because of religion. It's because of people who wanted slaves and abused religion, picking-and-choosing what they liked and didn't like about God's laws of slavery and taking advantage of them accordingly. After all who is going to know what really goes on behind closed doors right? Well, God knows, of course, but that doesn't make much of a difference when you are a blasphemous heretic abusing the Bible anyway. So, you're probably thinking, "but if we don't need all this manpower in the current day, then it IS outdated". There are at least two reasons it isn't. Really, we still HAVE butlers, maids, farmhands, and employees. The Bible is just a guideline so that we know how to treat them properly. The second I will get to in a minute.

I don't know about the Bible saying it's okay to enslave only those who aren't God's chosen people, you'll have to quote that for me so I can see for myself.

Next, I don't think the Bible actually says it is a mortal SIN to eat such things as swine and crawfish, just that it is a bad idea -- which it is. I don't think it's outdated at all. Oysters, crawfish, and swine can carry all kinds of terrible disease! Which is why I don't eat them. You must understand, swine were put here basically as recycling bins to get rid of everything NOTHING ELSE would eat! They're just the vultures of the land rather than of the air. That is why farmers feed their swine anything -- leftovers, rotten bread, spoiled milk, carcasses, the list goes on. They will gladly eat anything they can. They really are very disgusting animals (albeit so cute, I guess really they haven't always been that cute though considering the appearance and demeanour of wild boars). And while the sky has vultures, and the land has swine, the sea has crawfish and oysters. Crawfish swim about eating little floating bits of crap (literally), and debris polluting their water. Oysters have the sea-floor covered, absorbing plenty of waste that finds its way down to the bottom of the sea and closes it all inside its shell -- in fact, that's exactly what a pearl is. Years and years of culminated waste purified and then solidified into a jewel, all inside a clamshell. So you can imagine what actually happens in there during that process, I mean the dirt's gotta go somewhere, and it's not back out again. So when you think about the eating habits of these creatures, I mean, all of that waste is going into their bodies. These animals are all made in a way that eating waste doesn't hurt them like it would us, because of course that is their job and they've gotta do it. Hell, they wanna do it. It's fun for them. But when you eat an animal that's been putting waste into its body all its life...

As for petting bunnies, you have the passage completely wrong. Either you are referring to, "But whatsoever cheweth indeed the cud, and hath a hoof, but divideth it not, as the camel, and others, that you shall not eat, but shall reckon it among the unclean," or, "But of them that chew the cud, but divide not the hoof, you shall not eat, such as the camel, the hare, and the cherogril: because they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof, they shall be unclean to you". So, it doesn't ask you not to TOUCH a bunny. It does ask that you do not eat them however, which is totally understandable since eating bunnies is pretty much the same as eating cats gonk
And I mean... eating camels... uhh, that would probably be both pretty damn disgusting and pretty damn unhealthy.
Apart from this, the Bible does say that such animals you should not touch the CARCASS of. Carcass as in when you find them lying there dead. I would say touching dead bunny carcasses is generally a pretty bad idea... considering there was no actual scientific way to know that touching dead bodies could lead to health issues at the time, I'd say this passage is the OPPOSITE of outdated and was actually ahead of its time.

Also, once again, do keep in mind that touching or eating "dirty" animals is not even a sin. The Bible simply mentions that it is unclean, which it is. Uncleanliness is not a sin, so there's no real consequence involved other than potential health problems. And have you ever eaten a bad oyster? neutral

Anyway, to answer the common question about "turning the other cheek", and to continue what I was saying earlier -- Christ didn't change ANY laws of the Bible. He never said that His teachings would make obsolete the teachings of His Father, as you seem to think He did. In fact interestingly enough, Christ said that He did not come to change even "one iota" of His Father's word, directly contradicting what you have expressed. And He was right, for one very simple (and oft-overlooked) reason:

The Old Testament was written for the Jews.

Christians are not Jews, we simply share the faith of the Jews but believe in the teachings of Christ as Lord, which they don't. So Christ didn't actually change any of the laws of the Old Testament, He simply gave laws to the Christians, called the New Testament! So you see, Christians aren't the ones whose faith is outdated. Jews are. Jews are commanded to exile homosexuals; do they? No. So Jews do not actually follow their religion. To be fair, yes, MOST laws are followed by orthodox Jews, such as the trimming of beards, and the food laws, but if any Jew does not follow the laws given him by God can he really be a Jew? I think not. And this is because Christ came to SAVE the Jews! Talk about irony. The entire point of Christ's mortal life was to establish Christianity and lead Jews to follow it. He did not say that the Old Testament was replaced, certainly not. Who can't acknowledge the wisdom of the Old Testament? But they are not OUR laws to follow. They are the laws of the Jews. Christ's laws are the laws of Christians. Do some of Christ's laws partially contradict some of the Old Testament's laws? Yes, but that is irrelevant because we are no longer Jews. Jews were not supposed to have resisted the teachings of Christ, who was their Saviour, and IS our Saviour, it was meant that they would follow Christ into the "new ways". Jews "missed the train" in other words, so to speak. However, the real irony is, they insist on denying the teachings of Christ, yet don't have the will to follow the laws of the Old Testament! You are looking for hypocrasy within the teachings of Christ but in truth, it can be found in great bounty in other religions such as Islam and Judaism.

I hope this helps you understand my interpretation of the Bible.  

[NOCTVRNVS]

Efstathios

As a side note, males who are passed out drunk do not usually have the ability to er...preform.
I don't see how that part of the story could possibly have been recorded accurately. This isn't really material anymore, but I just wanted to put that out there.

Well, your information's a bit inaccurate here. Drunk people CAN "perform", I mean if you think drunken sex doesn't happen well then... I don't know, go to a party? lol

I believe it may have even mentioned that Lot mistook his daughters for other women, now that you mention it, but I won't look it up because it really makes no difference. His judgment was greatly altered and he was, in effect, raped quite honestly (LOL)! If he was drunk enough to think, "hey, two women suddenly appeared in my tent and they're taking my pants off, this is sweet" then he was obviously drunk enough to not realize it was actually just his daughters.

A minor detail either way.  

[Efstathios]

Ok...Since your response was long and right up there anyway, I hope you won't object if I condense it a little.

NOCTVRNVS

They weren't actually slaves, more like servents or maids. Source?

Leviticus Chapter 25, beginning at about verse 35 to end. Particularly since treatment of maids and servents is discussed earlier in the chapter and price is discussed after that point. We usually don't buy or own servents or employees. In support of your view God does say that isrealites can't be bondmon or bondwomen because they are servents of God. Whether this implies that they're already owned or superior to "heathens" is a matter of interpretation.

NOCTVRNVS

All those things it calls abominations are gross, why would you want to eat them anyway? You got the quote wrong and it doesn't say not to touch bunnies just not to eat them. Saying not to touch dead animals is way ahead of it's time and unclean =/= sin.

Here are some non-scavenger unclean animals.
Coney
Hare
Birds of prey
Heron
Stork
Swan
Pelican
Bat
Anything with paws
Weasel
Tortoise
Lizard
Snail
Mole

Some clean animals you can eat.
Locusts
Beetles (Eww, Dung beetles)
Grasshoppers
Bottom feeding fish (Included only because your arguement against scavengers)

I don't know about you, but it seems pretty arbitrary to me. Also it calls the unclean animals "Abominations" Which for some reason, I was led to believe was equated with sin, my mistake.
As for the carcass thing, I'm not really astonished that people then had figured out that disease had something to do with death rolleyes

NOCTVRNVS

Jesus didn't change the laws

During the sermon on the mount, he goes through some of the rules and replaces them. See Matthew chapter 5. I have a KJV and in the little summing up at the begining of ch. 5 it says

Matthew

Jesus preaches the sermon on the mount-Its teachings replace and transcend some aspects of the Law of moses-Men are commanded to be perfect like their father in heaven

NOCTVRNVS

The old testament applies to the Jews, not christians. Only the new testament applies to christians. Jews missed the boat.

Well that makes it outdated for Jewish people ninja
Aside from that point this is your strongest arguement. Most of my biggest problems with the Bible are in the OT, the NT I can't argue with as readily.
It's not as offensive and also, being written a few millenia later it's a bit less outdated.

So...Basically with that arguement you can deflect debates utilizing elements of the OT, that leaves the NT.

NOCTVRNVS

Drunk people can have sex

Ever heard of "whiskey d**k"? The Bible says he got so drunk he passed out, no way he could've gotten up until more alcohol was out of his system, and by then I think that sort of activity could've woken him up. As for him not knowing it was his daughters...The reason they did it was because they thought they were the last people on Earth. The Bible actually seems to support their actions to "save the human race" and Lot never questions who the babies' fathers are.  

[NOCTVRNVS]

Efstathios

Ok...Since your response was long and right up there anyway, I hope you won't object if I condense it a little.

NOCTVRNVS

They weren't actually slaves, more like servents or maids. Source?

Leviticus Chapter 25, beginning at about verse 35 to end. Particularly since treatment of maids and servents is discussed earlier in the chapter and price is discussed after that point. We usually don't buy or own servents or employees. In support of your view God does say that isrealites can't be bondmon or bondwomen because they are servents of God. Whether this implies that they're already owned or superior to "heathens" is a matter of interpretation.

NOCTVRNVS

All those things it calls abominations are gross, why would you want to eat them anyway? You got the quote wrong and it doesn't say not to touch bunnies just not to eat them. Saying not to touch dead animals is way ahead of it's time and unclean =/= sin.

Here are some non-scavenger unclean animals.
Coney
Hare
Birds of prey
Heron
Stork
Swan
Pelican
Bat
Anything with paws
Weasel
Tortoise
Lizard
Snail
Mole

Some clean animals you can eat.
Locusts
Beetles (Eww, Dung beetles)
Grasshoppers
Bottom feeding fish (Included only because your arguement against scavengers)

I don't know about you, but it seems pretty arbitrary to me. Also it calls the unclean animals "Abominations" Which for some reason, I was led to believe was equated with sin, my mistake.
As for the carcass thing, I'm not really astonished that people then had figured out that disease had something to do with death rolleyes

NOCTVRNVS

Jesus didn't change the laws

During the sermon on the mount, he goes through some of the rules and replaces them. See Matthew chapter 5. I have a KJV and in the little summing up at the begining of ch. 5 it says

Matthew

Jesus preaches the sermon on the mount-Its teachings replace and transcend some aspects of the Law of moses-Men are commanded to be perfect like their father in heaven

NOCTVRNVS

The old testament applies to the Jews, not christians. Only the new testament applies to christians. Jews missed the boat.

Well that makes it outdated for Jewish people ninja
Aside from that point this is your strongest arguement. Most of my biggest problems with the Bible are in the OT, the NT I can't argue with as readily.
It's not as offensive and also, being written a few millenia later it's a bit less outdated.

So...Basically with that arguement you can deflect debates utilizing elements of the OT, that leaves the NT.

NOCTVRNVS

Drunk people can have sex

Ever heard of "whiskey d**k"? The Bible says he got so drunk he passed out, no way he could've gotten up until more alcohol was out of his system, and by then I think that sort of activity could've woken him up. As for him not knowing it was his daughters...The reason they did it was because they thought they were the last people on Earth. The Bible actually seems to support their actions to "save the human race" and Lot never questions who the babies' fathers are.

I really hope you aren't being totally serious here. Okay, go and eat a bat or tortoise and tell me that it's clean. I mean you're arguing that the Bible's outdated and then you complain because it forbids you to eat lizards and swans? WHO EATS LIZARDS AND SWANS? Maybe it's your diet that's outdated. And I have yet to mention even that you're completely wrong; most of the animals you just named are speficially mentioned in the following few passages. Regarding insects, well, you're right. Except that there's nothing unclean about eating certain insects! In fact eating some insects such as the locust and grasshopper is common and very rich with vitamins! Turtles and lizards, as well as bottom-feeding fish, "trail their breasts upon the earth" and are thus also declared unfit for eating.

Actually we DO buy employees, it's called a wage. And regardless, it's not outdated. It just depicts a slightly different model of business ethic than we have now in America, how does that make it outdated? If Jews want to be Jews, then they have to follow the Old Testament whether they like it or not. And in this case that means altering your business practise a little. Even if it were referring to what we know as "slaves", Christians are not called to follow these rules. So once again it would be the Jews, and not the Christians.

Right, during the Sermon on the Mount Jesus decrees new laws which TRANSCEND the laws of His Father. Not replace them. I already explained all of that.

The Old Testament's not outdated for Jews, sorry to say -- it's the Jews that are outdated! After all they were supposed to get with the program and switch to the New Testament, remember? So then who is really outdated here?

Additionally, you seem to be judging the Bible based on your own personal code of morals. It's not your place to judge what in the Bible is "offensive" or "outdated", it's simply your own perspective based on what YOU think. I find not a single word of the Bible to be "offensive" based on my moral code, so speak for yourself.

And sorry to say, but "whiskey d**k" is pretty much a myth. Apparently you haven't been to enough drunken social events and been able to witness such spectacles as the "unconscious b*****b". Pity! The Bible doesn't put their actions in a GOOD LIGHT, it portrays them as the whores they ARE. No wonder Lot didn't question where their children came from, he knew well they were a couple of harlots. But seriously, I'm worried about how much you are analyzing this minute detail. Something tells me two young girls could get a drunk man fairly aroused outside at night without much trouble. I guess if you disagree you could always go out and actually try it... you know, in the name of science.

Drinks on me!  

[Efstathios]

NOCTVRNVS

I really hope you aren't being totally serious here. Okay, go and eat a bat or tortoise and tell me that it's clean. I mean you're arguing that the Bible's outdated and then you complain because it forbids you to eat lizards and swans? WHO EATS LIZARDS AND SWANS? Maybe it's your diet that's outdated. And I have yet to mention even that you're completely wrong; most of the animals you just named are speficially mentioned in the following few passages. Regarding insects, well, you're right. Except that there's nothing unclean about eating certain insects! In fact eating some insects such as the locust and grasshopper is common and very rich with vitamins! Turtles and lizards, as well as bottom-feeding fish, "trail their breasts upon the earth" and are thus also declared unfit for eating.

You've never heard of tortoise shell soup? There's nothing unclean about birds, ever had duck? People do eat lizards and swans and anything else they can kill. If you want to eat locusts and dung beetles go right ahead. (Recall they lived in the desert, there would've been plenty of dung beetles and not many other kinds) Also fish, including bottom-feeders, are clean and good to eat according to the Bible.

NOCTVRNVS

Actually we DO buy employees, it's called a wage. And regardless, it's not outdated. It just depicts a slightly different model of business ethic than we have now in America, how does that make it outdated? If Jews want to be Jews, then they have to follow the Old Testament whether they like it or not. And in this case that means altering your business practise a little. Even if it were referring to what we know as "slaves", Christians are not called to follow these rules. So once again it would be the Jews, and not the Christians.

It speaks of buying them and of buying their (the 'heathen's) children. It calls them bondmen and bondwomen, which are slaves. Also if it was just employment why couldn't one isrealite employ another?

NOCTVRNVS

Right, during the Sermon on the Mount Jesus decrees new laws which TRANSCEND the laws of His Father. Not replace them. I already explained all of that.

What's the difference?

NOCTVRNVS

The Old Testament's not outdated for Jews, sorry to say -- it's the Jews that are outdated! After all they were supposed to get with the program and switch to the New Testament, remember? So then who is really outdated here?

huh? The religion isn't outdated, just the people who follow it? So blazers aren't out of fashion, the people who wear them are? (bad example, but you see the point?). Usually when someone switches from the old to the new (Say IE 5 to IE 6) Doesn't that make the old outdated? I suppose you might call people using the old outdated, but I would call the software outdated, not the person.

NOCTVRNVS

Additionally, you seem to be judging the Bible based on your own personal code of morals. It's not your place to judge what in the Bible is "offensive" or "outdated", it's simply your own perspective based on what YOU think. I find not a single word of the Bible to be "offensive" based on my moral code, so speak for yourself.

Very well.

NOCTVRNVS

And sorry to say, but "whiskey d**k" is pretty much a myth. Apparently you haven't been to enough drunken social events and been able to witness such spectacles as the "unconscious b*****b". Pity! The Bible doesn't put their actions in a GOOD LIGHT, it portrays them as the whores they ARE. No wonder Lot didn't question where their children came from, he knew well they were a couple of harlots. But seriously, I'm worried about how much you are analyzing this minute detail. Something tells me two young girls could get a drunk man fairly aroused outside at night without much trouble. I guess if you disagree you could always go out and actually try it... you know, in the name of science.

Drinks on me!

-closes eyes and shudders- Trust me, I know about all I want to know about drunken parties. Whee, alcohol poisening.

Whiskey d**k is not a myth. If he was clear enough to be awake and get aroused (remember, he only had one bottle of wine, and this was a man who liked his alcohol, he must've had tolerance) this "rightous man" should have known better. My ex could be drunk, and be absolutely panting ready to, ya know "go at it" and still hold himself back. And he's an atheist. He lived in a beach town with beer flowing, hot willing college girls (Who weren't related to him in any way) and managed to hold back. So something isn't quite right there.  

[A Touch of Evil]

Life's a dance you learn as you go
Sometimes you lead, sometimes you follow

1. What religion are you?-LaVayen/Atheistic Satanist

2. How long have you been in this religion?-I have been an atheist for the past 4-5 years but I recently learned a lot about Satanism. So for the past couple of months I have considered myself a Satanist.

3. Why do you believe in this faith?-In theory I am supposed to be Muslim. When I did believe in God, way too much bull s**t would happen, I would still get hurt, I wondered why God wouldn't help out. I dont' believe in God and I don't think I ever will again.

I believe in the philosophy set forth by Anton LeVay because it just makes complete sence to me. It's all common sense and when I was an atheist but not a satanist, I had created my own set of beliefs and they were very similar to those of LeVay's. So I am happy and proud of my religion.

4. What do you hate about other religions?I don't really hate other religions. I try to be open minded and learn as much as I can because I am very interested in others beliefs and opinions. The only thing I dislike about other religions is how people tend to completly rely on "God." To me, (and yes I am entitled to my own opinion. don't flame) people who rely completely on God just prove that they are too weak to do something themselves. When they have the mentality of, "Oh god is with me" or "God will help me" just proves that they don't believe enough in themselves to be able to do it themselves.

5. If you are agnostic/atheist please tell us why?-I am an atheist because I had gotten to a point in my life where my religion (Islam) was not helping me but actually making me feel worse. I was disgruntled. So I stopped believing in god and instead, I started believing in myself. If I want to do something or get something done, god won't help me. Instead I have to push myself and never give up to accomplish what ever it may be that I want to accomplish. I believe that I have to focus hard enough and never give up, only then I will have reached my goals.

Don't worry about what you don't know
Life's a dance you learn as you go

 

[NOCTVRNVS]

Efstathios

NOCTVRNVS

I really hope you aren't being totally serious here. Okay, go and eat a bat or tortoise and tell me that it's clean. I mean you're arguing that the Bible's outdated and then you complain because it forbids you to eat lizards and swans? WHO EATS LIZARDS AND SWANS? Maybe it's your diet that's outdated. And I have yet to mention even that you're completely wrong; most of the animals you just named are speficially mentioned in the following few passages. Regarding insects, well, you're right. Except that there's nothing unclean about eating certain insects! In fact eating some insects such as the locust and grasshopper is common and very rich with vitamins! Turtles and lizards, as well as bottom-feeding fish, "trail their breasts upon the earth" and are thus also declared unfit for eating.

You've never heard of tortoise shell soup? There's nothing unclean about birds, ever had duck? People do eat lizards and swans and anything else they can kill. If you want to eat locusts and dung beetles go right ahead. (Recall they lived in the desert, there would've been plenty of dung beetles and not many other kinds) Also fish, including bottom-feeders, are clean and good to eat according to the Bible.

NOCTVRNVS

Actually we DO buy employees, it's called a wage. And regardless, it's not outdated. It just depicts a slightly different model of business ethic than we have now in America, how does that make it outdated? If Jews want to be Jews, then they have to follow the Old Testament whether they like it or not. And in this case that means altering your business practise a little. Even if it were referring to what we know as "slaves", Christians are not called to follow these rules. So once again it would be the Jews, and not the Christians.

It speaks of buying them and of buying their (the 'heathen's) children. It calls them bondmen and bondwomen, which are slaves. Also if it was just employment why couldn't one isrealite employ another?

NOCTVRNVS

Right, during the Sermon on the Mount Jesus decrees new laws which TRANSCEND the laws of His Father. Not replace them. I already explained all of that.

What's the difference?

NOCTVRNVS

The Old Testament's not outdated for Jews, sorry to say -- it's the Jews that are outdated! After all they were supposed to get with the program and switch to the New Testament, remember? So then who is really outdated here?

huh? The religion isn't outdated, just the people who follow it? So blazers aren't out of fashion, the people who wear them are? (bad example, but you see the point?). Usually when someone switches from the old to the new (Say IE 5 to IE 6) Doesn't that make the old outdated? I suppose you might call people using the old outdated, but I would call the software outdated, not the person.

NOCTVRNVS

Additionally, you seem to be judging the Bible based on your own personal code of morals. It's not your place to judge what in the Bible is "offensive" or "outdated", it's simply your own perspective based on what YOU think. I find not a single word of the Bible to be "offensive" based on my moral code, so speak for yourself.

Very well.

NOCTVRNVS

And sorry to say, but "whiskey d**k" is pretty much a myth. Apparently you haven't been to enough drunken social events and been able to witness such spectacles as the "unconscious b*****b". Pity! The Bible doesn't put their actions in a GOOD LIGHT, it portrays them as the whores they ARE. No wonder Lot didn't question where their children came from, he knew well they were a couple of harlots. But seriously, I'm worried about how much you are analyzing this minute detail. Something tells me two young girls could get a drunk man fairly aroused outside at night without much trouble. I guess if you disagree you could always go out and actually try it... you know, in the name of science.

Drinks on me!

-closes eyes and shudders- Trust me, I know about all I want to know about drunken parties. Whee, alcohol poisening.

Whiskey d**k is not a myth. If he was clear enough to be awake and get aroused (remember, he only had one bottle of wine, and this was a man who liked his alcohol, he must've had tolerance) this "rightous man" should have known better. My ex could be drunk, and be absolutely panting ready to, ya know "go at it" and still hold himself back. And he's an atheist. He lived in a beach town with beer flowing, hot willing college girls (Who weren't related to him in any way) and managed to hold back. So something isn't quite right there.

Sometimes I honestly think you argue simply to uphold an extremely liberal self-image. I can't really find another rational motive for your argument and unwillingness to comprehend what I'm saying.

I just proved that bottom-feeding fish, as well as turtles and lizards, are not clean according to the Levitical food laws, as they "draggeth their breast upon the earth" which it explicitly calls unclean. Swans and other creatures you listed are actually directly NAMED in the following few passages. You obviously didn't even attempt to read the entire chapter -- for someone who tries to argue against taking Biblical passages out of context that isn't exactly a great practice.

Why weren't Jews allowed to employ other Jews as bondmen? Because these were the undesirable jobs, the McDonald's attendant or toilet repairman of the day. It was actually much worse than that, obviously, but then again so were ALL jobs. We still BUY farmhands, maids, butlers, and the like, but now they are generally viewed as "honourable" and "upper-class" jobs, which isn't really the truth. It simply appears that way because they SERVE the upper-class so they must act among the upper-class. They are not necessarily paid well even now. God ordered that His people would not be made to do these jobs for others who are God's people, ensuring that they all held each other on the same level. It is not a law of prejudice but rather a law of equality; if all men eventually dedicated themselves to the path of righteousness then all men would also rightfully treat each other equally. Once again, perhaps you disagree with the rules -- that doesn't necessarily make the Bible outdated. Plenty of people disagreed with them back then, too, which explains why we have such a history of unrighteousness and death.

What's the difference between making new laws that TRANSCEND the old, and making new laws that REPLACE the old? It really depends on the perspective through which you look at it. To Christians the laws did not simply disappear as they would if they had been replaced; they still exist as a source of wisdom and understanding. To jews, they are still current! Theoretically, anyway. For example, I'm playing CS 1.4. Suddenly, there's an update. The current version is being upgraded to 1.5. But WTF? Riot shield? More expensive guns and armour? I can only hold one damn grenade, seriously wtf. But you know, turns out 1.5 is an assload of fun too, it's great and I don't really want 1.4 back now that I've played 1.5. But I still learned a lot about CS back in 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 so I'll keep them on my hard-drive too for when I wanna remember what they were like and see the awesome stuff that was in those versions that ain't in 1.5. I mean the game is a lot of fun with 1.5, all the new stuff and improvements and whatnot, but that doesn't mean it's going to replace 1.4. It's just what I'll play from now on because everyone is supposed to switch to 1.5, but I still realize that 1.4 was just as great. The improvements in 1.5 are pretty minor, most of the game still just how it was in 1.4, but some stuff has been altered to improve gameplay and balance now that the game has left beta finally.

Yes... wisdom from Counter-Strike...


Well, I thought your example was pretty good. Blazers aren't out of fashion by any means, but people who wear them exclusively probably are -- at least they are if they don't realize that people aren't wearing blazers every day anymore. But in the case of Jews it's really more like inuits coming to Africa and still wearing inuit clothes. Yeah, the inuit clothes have a purpose and they are great. Obviously there is a lot of wisdom and reason behind wearing inuit clothes when you're in the North Pole -- but now you're in Africa (the arrival of Christ) and you're not supposed to wear THOSE clothes anymore. You have got to switch to African clothes. But okay, if you want to wear your eskimo jacket that's fine, just don't expect to live very long (reap the eternal reward) if you're too dumb to wear African clothes in Africa.

Other than that, I'm sorry, I can't really take your argument seriously. I feel you are just trying to play the devil's advocate here and make up ridiculous arguments that you yourself don't even actually support. You're using the observed judgment model of your alcoholic ex-boyfriend to evidence that another man, who you know almost nothing about... actually I'm not even sure WHAT you're trying to evidence with that. That he lied and actually wanted to have sex with his daughters? Or that his daughters never really had sex with him? Gee, I guess you're just gonna have to consider the phrase, "truth is stranger than fiction". And even then, I really don't see what's so extraordinary about having sex while drunk confused
You're acting like it can't happen.

By the way, kind of irrelevant (but not really), "alcohol poisoning" is also a myth. What is the poison content of alcohol per gallon? Usually a flat 0. Thus you can't actually be poisoned from alcohol. Can you get sick from it? Quite evidently. Does your bloodstream contain poison when you drink alcohol? Generally not.

And not to interfere with your social life or anything but, perhaps you should be questioning whether or not your ex-boyfriend truly WAS able to "hold back" rather than judging the accuracy of a story about a man you've never met with evidence that's not necessarily accurate.