Religion
Related: About this forum
Georgia Parents Torture Adopted Daughter, Say They Were Just Following The Bible
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/07/13/georgia-parents-torture-adopted-daughter-say-they-were-just-following-the-bible/Diana and Samuel Franklin are the adoptive parents of a 15 year old girl. And they never should have been allowed to adopt any child whatsoever. Over the last two years, the Franklins have been torturing the girl by locking her up in a chicken coop for days, locking her in a small claustrophobic outhouse, and forcing her to wear a shock collar controlled by a remote. Authorities also found a leather belt that may have been used to beat the girl.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
CanonRay
(14,104 posts)WTF, where do these idiots come from.
ever have I ever read in my bible to torture kids or anyone for that matter. But I don't read a tea-publican bible that they wrote for themselves probably in the last ten years or so, they have taken Jesus out and replaced Him with money and power.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)CHILD EXECUTION - Deuteronomy 21:18-21
If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of the town. They shall say to the elders, 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard.' Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death...
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Craig_Langford
(48 posts)But just to play Devil's Advocate for a minute: Precisely which verse in the Bible were they following, or did the claim to be following?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)
Kookaburra
(2,649 posts)If the neighbor knew she was doing even 1/2 of the stuff she was doing to that child then why they hell didn't she report her to the authorities? What the hell?
mzteris
(16,232 posts)Where was the home study?
Sounds to me like the state didn't do their homework or follow up.
These people should be in jail for abuse.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)I think that's how it works.
mzteris
(16,232 posts)Just to check.
Of course they're overworked and underpaid and have case-loads that no normal human being could possibly serve, but still . . .
whoever oversaw the adoption has the duty to followup. (Maybe that's not true in all states, though, not sure about that.)
Trillo
(9,154 posts)I'm glad you posted this in the religion forum. I wanted to respond the other day, but felt GD was an inappropriate place for the following comment.
I presume the abusive woman who uses the shock collar, which she defends herself by saying the bible says such punishment is okay, refers to the idea summarized as "spare the rod, spoil the child". I find it very curious that folks like her believe they're Christians.
The corresponding verse in the bible is said to be in Proverbs. Proverbs is in the Old Testament. So, if the woman abuser was referring to the idea of punishment being biblical, then she needs to realize she's not resonating to the idea of forgivenness of sins, but instead punishment for sins.
So, here's my question for the Religion forum. Is the bible so over-complicated that some people who have read it, and claim to accept it, cannot distinguish between the Old and New Testaments, and thus misidentify themselves as Christians?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Cruel, sadistic people will use whatever excuses they can to justify their behavior. Perhaps these people were also abused as children by people waving a bible around saying they were doing god's work.
They can believe whatever they want about being christians. It makes no difference. They are bad people. That is all that matters.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)The parents said flat out that the Bible told them to do this. This was not a post-hoc rationalization, where they did something horrible just because they were sadistic people, and then looked around for something to attribute it to to get them off the hook. They were motivated by the Bible all along. Their behavior was under constant reinforcement by their Bronze Age superstitions.
rug
(82,333 posts)As it is, you have disturbed individuals grabbing what's handy to justify their disturbance.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Anything that only some subset of Christians do can't possibly be motivated by the Bible. Which would mean, among other things, that since not all Christians help the poor or the homeless, that this behavior must be motivated by something other than the Bible. In fact, people interpret what the Bible tells them they should be doing in all sorts of different ways, and there is no threshold percentage of Christians who have to be doing something in order to say that they are motivated by the Bible or their "faith". If you had some actual evidence that these people were lying about their motivation, you would have presented it, but you have nothing but your usual flailing and illogic.
People like you and cbayer keep making the argument that bad people will simply be bad and will find any excuse to justify it, so that the Bible can never, ever be blamed for motivating someone to do evil things. But good people will simply be good, too. Yet, you would like to give all the credit for the good done by people to their religious beliefs, just because they happen to like to dress up and sing on Sunday morning.
rug
(82,333 posts)Are you acknowleging that Christianity is not monolithic?
As to your "people like you" remark, it's easy to flip it and say that "people like you" say religion is the root of all evil. But that would be stupid.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that Christianity was monolithic? Please, point us to the quote, or acknowledge that your question is attacking (yet another) strawman.
And if you're claiming that apologists and shills for Christianity (recognize anyone?) haven't made exactly the argument I described, multiple times, right here on this board....well, that would be a lie. But you're not saying that, now are you? Of course not.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)argument is also very realistic and carries much weight. In fact, Scripture warns parents about harsh punishment of their children. One example: " Fathers, do not exasperate your children, that they may not lose heart" Col 3:21.
As usual, you are commenting on something of which you have imprecise knowledge.
Your agenda is quite clear and has been for some time now.
In fact, many parents abuse their children in many ways simply because that's how their parents treated them. And that is probably the case here. And certainly many of such incidents haven't a thing to do with religion.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)lied about their motivation, of if they're not religious at all, you would have presented it. But you have nothing.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)ya think that had anything to do with the Bible? Probably not. But it might indicate that sometimes bad people do bad things.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Not me and not anyone else here either, so your point pretty much crashes and burns. As usual.
The real point (which you, as usual, avoided addressing) is that taking your position about bad people while at trying to give direct credit to religion for any good that people who happen to be religious do is fundamentally flawed thinking. If you're going to argue that sometimes bad people just do bad things, you also have to acknowledge that good people sometimes just do good things, and that gawd doesn't deserve the credit by default.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)quite often.
But,the majority of child abuse cases that I have seen had absolutely nothing to do with being caused by religion. As for your motivation trying trying to link religion to severe child abuse, that's ridiculous and laughable.
I am also aware that many organizations working against child abuse are religious-based groups.
As a matter of fact, your entire rant against religion seems to be based on irrational thinking and vacuous arguments.
lindysalsagal
(20,692 posts)onto others. They don't recognize that they even hold a default answer, and so they label others as "difficult" or "rebellious" or "defiant" or "deniers."
The details of the debate are often interchangeable: It is the lack of perception of the implied, silent default opinion that causes the conflict.
People can't resolve conflict without the ability to consciously recognize their own predetermined default assumption.
The entire intelligent design defense is built on the presumption that anything beyond our human understanding is automatically attributable to an invisible old white-haired guy in the sky with a long stick and a mean temperament, who has omnipotent power, but has nothing better to do than root for one basketball team or another. He brought us all into being so we could harm each other, fighting over limited natural resources.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)You've heard of Daniel and Debbie Pearl, surely.
What of nauseous witch hunters such as Helen Ukpabio?
Or will your excuse be "They're not true Scots ..." sorry "... Christians"?
rug
(82,333 posts)And as a matter of empirical fact, Scots make up 1 1/2% of the earth's population so there's a 98 1/2% chance anyone you meet will not be a Scotsman.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)screams of torture coming from inside.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)They do so in the name of their religion. You saying they are "just three" distorts and belittles the massive problems of child abuse that these abhorrent Christians are teaching others to emulate.
Don't believe me? Check the sale figures for "To Train Up a Child"
Tumbulu
(6,291 posts)How do people who quote the old testament, but ignore the New Testament get to be referred to as Christians? Should there be something like a trademark agreement- that to call oneself a Christian one must follow the New Testament (love thy neighbor, forgiveness, etc) and only refer to the old testament for historical purposes- to COMPARE and CONTRAST the message that Christ brought?!!!! The message that one was to throw the old testament out?!!!!
Why is any foolish reading of the hateful spiteful part of the old testament allowed to be called Christian?
I think that the main Christian denominations should act more proactively about this.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)what parts of the Bible they choose to adhere to and what parts they choose to ignore, and then accuse those who choose differently than they do of not being "real" Christians.
As far as your other contention...baloney. Here is Christ's message:
http://bible.cc/matthew/5-18.htm
Are you really telling us you're unaware of this?
Tumbulu
(6,291 posts)I was told that just like the money changers were thrown out of the temple, so were all the hateful old testament "laws".
We were told that Christ said only two were to be kept : to Love God and to love one another. Drop all the rest.
So, I guess this is why the Protestants all thought the Catholics were a bunch of wild people.
Yes, I was unaware of that and frankly do not believe it- so there we are- I am proving your contention!
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Then you've proved my point about cherry picking the parts of the Bible you like and closing your eyes to the parts you don't, even when they're down in black and white.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Many things in the bible, and particularly in the old testament, should be discarded. "Cherry picking" is a reasonable thing to do when faced with a books written by men over a long period of time.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)ever answer the question of what things in the Bible they are certain are true, what events described in the Bible they are certain actually happened, and what words attributed to god or Jesus they are sure were actually said by them? It's been posed many times and always dodged by people like you, who are apparently afraid to be pinned down to anything.
Tumbulu
(6,291 posts)entitled "Jefferson's Bible". In it are the passages that after a lifetime of study he felt were actually the words of Jesus. And were actually true. No miracles, but all really big changes from the old testament. I actually bought it and it is really quite interesting so far. He put together this book and kept it quiet. The forward is illuminating, you may enjoy reading what he had to say. He was not considered a Christian by others, but he considered himself to be one- at least in terms of what he believed to have been the few real words of Jesus.
I see the old testament as a historical document. So many strange and odd (to me) things are discussed. In the same passages that prohibit intercropping and sodomy. So strange, what do they have to do with each other? Why are they discussed together, were the Jewish people the first to monocrop?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)fails to answer those questions. Xstians here are still batting .000
Tumbulu
(6,291 posts)to see what Jefferson thought was undisputed- why don't you order it or see if it is online? I have not read it yet, I cannot tell you what he had to say.
I am not some scholar. He was , although he was not considered a Christian.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)dodgy and disingenuous responses don't go over well in this room.
Tumbulu
(6,291 posts)how am I supposed to give a synopsis of it to you?
Why don't you read it and let me know what you think?
I do not appreciate being called dodgy or disingenuous.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)out as dishonest to sow doubt and confusion about the people they disagree withs' character and posts. Its a sad commentary on their own.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)for posters here to go through all sorts of contortions to avoid answering simple and direct questions about what they believe and why, and to accuse those who insist on evidence to back up claims that they've made of "bullying" or "persecution".
But you know all that.
Tumbulu
(6,291 posts)I feel as though there is a bit too much hostility for me.
And, what has evidence got to do with anything- isn't a this a religious group, not a science group?
Since you asked imo religion is how we humans try to make sense of a world that is full of things that do not make sense to us. The written codes of the religions give us a good glimpse into life in times long ago.
I see us as evolving beings and so the older texts give us an idea of how people understood things at the time.
I was raised Catholic and there were many very nice people who helped me grow up and gave me a personal framework that informed me that it was better to do things for other people than to do them for myself. I learned that to be greedy was wrong. That if I was given gifts of intelligence and the ability to work hard, then I needed to use those gifts to help everyone who was not given those gifts. And that they needed to share their gifts as well. That community mattered. All that sort of stuff. To grow my heart large enough so that I could forgive others failings and try to help them instead of judging them. I am grateful that I grew up with these messages.
I do not practice any religion these days, but I do think messages of love over greed are good. And I do think that humans need company and I also think that prior to the modern governments religions had a historical function of organizing societies.
I get tired of seeing religions bashed for human failings. We make the religions up, they reflect us. We need to keep evolving and getting better. What I have picked up so far in my reading of the Jefferson Bible is that he very much appreciated the messages of love that Christ brought forth. A pretty big advance for us in the western world.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I hope you will stick it out. While there is some hostility here, there is also a lot of good and productive discussion. It's easy to avoid one and engage in the other.
I will try to follow your good advice.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)All you have to do is stick your fingers in your ears and go "Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah.. I'M NOT LISTENING" to anyone who dares to disagree with you with anything less than obsequious politeness and deference.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)I've been here awhile so I know what goes on here. I was pointing to a common practice that is used by some to a poster that is new so why post a response to me why not them. All sorts of bullshit happens here it sometime helps to have a program to know the players. There is also honest and insightful discussion here if you can avoid the crap that is flung here. But you know all that too.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)The only things you have control of is your own actions.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)and now this is the third time that you've avoided addressing the questions I posed in #25. Saying "go look at what Thomas Jefferson wrote 200 years ago" is not an answer, it's a dodge. That you pretend that it isn't is being disingenuous. He's not on this board and his answers are not yours.
Tumbulu
(6,291 posts)but that Jefferson made a real attempt to answer your very question and that perhaps you could check his book out for yourself as he apparently spent a great deal of time researching this. I think that your question has been on the minds of many people and someone like me is in no position to answer it. A scholar of some kind would.
I was under the impression that this is a message board and not reserved for religious scholars. I am not one, I am just a person who thinks about religion at times.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)And in this letter to William Short, he then goes on to itemize all of the goofy woo that needs to expurgated from the NT:
Epictetus and Epicurus give laws for governing ourselves, Jesus a supplement of the duties and charities we owe to others The establishment of the innocent and genuine character of this benevolent Moralist, and the rescuing it from the imputation of imposture which has resulted from (misconstructions of his words by his pretended votaries) artificial systems*...
*e.g the immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection & visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity, original sin, atonement, regeneration, election orders of Hierarchy etc. (This footnote is often expurgated from published texts)
http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/jefflet.html
Tumbulu
(6,291 posts)That link takes one to the other link as well.
think
(11,641 posts)by the men who demanded she be stoned to death according to the OT law did Jesus say "go for it because it's the law" or did he come up with a better solution?"
It's called the new testament for a reason. It is unfortunate that people don't get it and would rather cherry pick verses rather than comprehend the much simpler teachings of Jesus, the message of love.
Even if you don't believe in Jesus the message is pretty simple unless you prefer to make it complicated.
Peace out...
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that all Christians cherry pick, but that the Bible is so full of contradictions that it's impossible to sort them out...not without more cherry picking. The "simple" message that you derive is by no means the same one that the next Christian takes away, and they have plenty of verses of their own to justify harshness rather than love. See post 31 right in this thread for just a partial list.
The really "simple" message is not to use the Bible or the words of Jesus and his dad as a guide to ANY kind of behavior. Human reason and experience and the moral principles that can be derived from them do just fine, thank you. You don't need Jesus and all of his baggage to tell you to be nice.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)that can be derived from them do just fine." Yep. History demonstrates how well that little piece of wisdom has worked in the past. LOL
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)between knowing what's right and doing it. The very fact that even YOU can look back on events in history and know that what was done was wrong proves the point that we CAN come to those understandings. And of course, religion is the great force in the world that claims incessantly to be the great motivator of morality, so if people who know what's right choose not to do it, that's where you should point the finger for both blame and hypocrisy.
You really do fail spectacularly. Thanks for not disappointing.
think
(11,641 posts)So you choose not to believe. Should others believe like you do because it is what you believe?
Do you have any concerns that your words and actions might be misconstrued or intentionally misrepresented so as to cause harm? Should we blame rock stars for the kids that kill themselves after listening to their music? Even a non religion is in itself a religion.
The bible is written by man and man at a very early stage in his evolution. (Here I go cherry picking and choosing to believe in both evolution and in God. My bad.) Man did his best to interpret the things of God and then a king had these interpretations put in a written manuscript. (Yes, I'm sure the king and his scribes cherry picked too.)
Basically I'm no fan of religion but I like good teachers. Though Christ refused to even allow himself to be called "good teacher" and submitted that only God is good. Christ spent the majority of his time chastising those in power in Jewish society for upholding the law for the wrong purposes.
As He put it "You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel" http://bible.cc/matthew/23-24.htm . In other words the Jewish priests and lawyers would follow even the tiniest of the laws and hold those guilty of those minor infractions punished. By doing this they in their lust for power, control, and self importance ignored the greater law of love.
So basically even a non believer who reads these passages and understands the context sees how people of power as you say "cherry pick" the laws of God to control the masses for their own benefit and/or self righteous indignation.
Even one of the most self righteous upholders of the law; a Jewish Pharisee named Saul who was later called St.Paul, who murdered Christians for their corruption of the law by believing in Christ, finally saw the light.
Although I have my contentions with some of the teachings of St. Paul (cherry picking), he said this: "He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." http://bible.cc/2_corinthians/3-6.htm
The above is not part of the simple message but aimed at those that require the entirety of the law trump the true intent for why the law was created and existed.
Through out the bible God uses losers like Paul to carry His message. Paul was a murderer, Moses a murderer also. You can find adulterers, thieves, and others guilty of grave sins who were still used as instruments of God despite their serious short comings.
No the bible isn't perfect nor the people who wrote, translated, and compiled the texts. But there are some great lessons and teachings in the bible if one chooses to see them as such.
But to make the bible, God, and Jesus out as shitty examples of how to live one's life is a bit of an over reach. I agree many get the teachings wrong. And everyone cherry picks both believers and non believers. But many understand the main concept and gain insights from the teachings and lessons found within these texts.
Personally I think man is evolving quickly and unfortunately our comprehension of the bible's meaning and God's intent for man has not. When people want the Ten Commandments written on the wall rather than the law as given or interpreted by Jesus, that is a big step backwards. (IMO)
Here is how I cherry pick the law as given by Jesus:
Love your Lord God with all your heart, strength, soul, and mind (I have never been able to fulfill this law)
Love your neighbor as yourself (I've failed this one often)
Love your enemy also (Failed this one way too many times and still do)
Love covers a multitude of sins.
Could one state these things and ignore the rest? Yes, but the rest of the story gives context, examples, and lessons to help people understand why love and being nice is important.
Even if you don't believe in Christ and/or God you will need a framework to help teach morality. So far you suggest only that we can do it without the baggage of Christ. I'd love to see your framework. Will it be perfect and not misconstrued? Or will man just instinctively evolve to include morality in his decision process? I highly doubt it.
Sorry for the long diatribe....
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I look forward to reading more of your posts.
think
(11,641 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)I'm not cherry-picking, because I haven't PICKED anything from the Bible to believe or adhere to simply because it's in the Bible or because god or Jesus said it. It's you and those like you who have argued for the moral authority of SOME statements of god and Jesus, while conveniently ignoring others. See my post 56, because I'm tired of repeating this point.
As far as the rest, what moral principles can you cite that can be arrived at only through Christianity and in no other way? Can you answer that question simply and directly with a list? If you can, please do so. If not, please don't weary my ears with another long diatribe that does nothing but dodge and divert.
And no, non-belief isn't a religion, any more than not collecting stamps is a hobby.
think
(11,641 posts)You may not believe them but you sure go out of your way to make sure those are the verses that sum up why Christianity is bad even if they are taken out of context. But hey I add context and that is making you weary so I digress.
Hope you have a nice day sir.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)you do nothing to address the questions and substantive points I've raised. You simply trot out a talking point that has already been debunked multiple times on this thread.
I'm sure you're going to enjoy your stay in this group.
think
(11,641 posts)As for your points in your last response they are lost in your demands that I go see your other posts to find them.
I'm not your lap dog. If you want a response then please take the time to post them to me. I will not tell you to go fetch nor should you expect me to.
Good day sir.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)dodgy and disingenuous responses will get you no traction here. They only brand you as someone afraid to discuss things honestly and examine evidence objectively. Maybe they work other places you post, but not here. It would have taken you less time to go where I'd already posted a response that to formulate your little mini-rant here, so your excuse really rings hollow.
think
(11,641 posts)Trillo
(9,154 posts)I read the bible so many years ago (multiple decades), I don't recall much of it. But I certainly did feel there were lies and deceptions in the New Testament. Note I said "feel". It was my first reading of it, and it happens that it was also my last.
Now, on to thinking. If one believes that Jesus said something to the effect Love thy neighbor as yourself, it's very difficult to reconcile that with It's okay to beat your neighbor with a rod (or a child, for they also are a neighbor).
To put this in the context of this story, I supposed I'd want to know if this woman used the shock collar on herself when she made some error. I suppose that condition could be an example of the reconciliation of those two widely divergent thoughts.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)humblebum
(5,881 posts)that was the only quote attributed to Him. You really are cherry picking. Is that something "real" atheists do, too?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)But you seem to be saying either that Jesus was a liar, that he was very confused, contradicting himself constantly, or that you have no clue whatsoever which (if any) of the statements attributed to him in the Bible he really made.
And I'm not cherry picking, because I don't believe ANY of it was said by the son of gawd or that ANY of it should be given moral authority just because of that. This simply points out to people who DO cherry pick the nice parts of what Jesus said and ignore the bad parts that they are hypocrites. They have no criteria to judge any of these statements of Jesus as definitely or definitely not having been made by him. Except...gee...their own reason and experience concerning moral principles. Which they then project onto Jesus in the form of cherry picking which statements of his in the Bible they choose to adhere to and which they choose to ignore.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)specific purpose, whether you agree or not. They are also "cherry picked" to purposely cast Jesus as making only statements such as that - a very incomplete picture of the man.
Now would you like me to give a few examples of how societies operate flawlessly using only your ideal of "human reason and experience and the moral principles...?" It's not always so pretty. Really.
think
(11,641 posts)Thanks for wasting my time. I am suppose to "see post 56" which starts "see post 31". What a load of crap.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)to leave you wallowing on the floor with your excuses:
But you seem to be saying either that Jesus was a liar, that he was very confused, contradicting himself constantly, or that you have no clue whatsoever which (if any) of the statements attributed to him in the Bible he really made.
And I'm not cherry picking, because I don't believe ANY of it was said by the son of gawd or that ANY of it should be given moral authority just because of that. This simply points out to people who DO cherry pick the nice parts of what Jesus said and ignore the bad parts that they are hypocrites. They have no criteria to judge any of these statements of Jesus as definitely or definitely not having been made by him. Except...gee...their own reason and experience concerning moral principles. Which they then project onto Jesus in the form of cherry picking which statements of his in the Bible they choose to adhere to and which they choose to ignore.
But the point is not about "cherry-picking" quotes. The whole Bible is there for people to read no matter what, so any idiot would know I wasn't claiming that Jesus never said nice things. The point is about cherry-picking what things in the Bible you choose to believe and adhere to and what things (just as valid as heavenly admonitions), you choose to ignore, and then accusing those who pick different things of not being "real" Xstians. I don't choose to believe or adhere to ANYTHING in the Bible simply because it's in the Bible or because Jeebus supposedly said it, so your claim of "cherry-picking" is an epic fail.
Try again. This time with thought.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)throw out your past, ignore your history. He did say I have come to fulfill the Law and show you a new way. It is a fine line to accept the old way for what we can learn from it and still follow this new way and turning our back forever on where we have come from, many people have a problem with this and refuse to cast off the old.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)if they believe Jesus was the son of god and died to redeem the sins of the world. And if they believe the words of Jesus himself that all of the Old testament law was to be preserved, who are YOU to tell them they're wrong?
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)While the New Testament is filled with nice things like "I came to turn daughter against mother and father against son" or brilliant advice like "Give no thought to the morrow" you do seem to be overlooking a key part.
What's that little story about some poor sod wanting to get to heaven but can't....and Jesus said something like "oh he had the stories of Moses and those guys to follow but he didn't so now he's SOL".
So yes, it is a happy thought that the barbaric Old Testament is completely unrelated to the less barbaric New Testament except that guy Jesus had to go and link them like that!
Yeppers, the Prince of Peace put his seal of approval on that guide book of howto be an iron age asshole.
Hope this helps.
Julie
cordelia
(2,174 posts)Cherry picking and snark.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)It's all in there!
Julie
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)How do you make that determination?
OriginalGeek
(12,132 posts)As a person whose mother and step-asshole were firmly convinced I would not be spoiled I can say there are people who won't spare the rod and fully believe it is not just their right but their biblical duty to beat their children senseless if that's what it takes to keep them on the straight and narrow. (I left home 31 years ago by the way so it isn't just from the last ten years or so)
The worst part about it for me is that my little brothers caught more of it than I did (I am 4 years older than my next brother so I got to move out of the house a lot sooner than they did - they had more time with him...) and now apologize for him. "We deserved it..."
Bullshit. Fuck that asshole and the KJV bible he rode in on.
I can't speak for all denominations but my Independent, Fundamentalist Baptist mother and step-asshole and their church fully embraced the loving Jesus of the New testament and the fire and brimstone punishment of the Old. They were convinced one gave the right to practice the other - and which was which only depended on which was needed.
Mostly, though, I think he was just a sadistic prick with a Napolean complex and found good excuse in the bible to wage his war on sin.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I once tried to give one of my kids a whack on the butt, and it was the weirdest experience. It was like my arm had been grabbed or paralyzed or frozen. I just couldn't do it.
Violence begets violence and many who have been beaten go on to beat their own children. They have all kinds of ways to justify it, including using their religion.
It's despicable no matter what the cause or excuse.
Glad you got out. Sorry about your brothers.
OriginalGeek
(12,132 posts)many do repeat the pattern.
At least I learned from mine what kind of step-father not to be - it is a point of great pride for me that last year my step-son asked me to be Best Man for him at his wedding.
msongs
(67,417 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)That because Bronze Age superstitions masquerading as "faith" don't cause ALL of the problems in the world, they shouldn't be held to blame for the ones they DO cause?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Progress is being made.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)I think the general way they work it is...
A) Nobody who does anything bad is ever motivated by religious faith (or rather Christian faith - those pesky Mooslems are an exception), even if they say they are, use it as a defense, and explain why.
B) Nobody who does anything good would do it without religious motivation, even if they flat out state their lack of god beliefs.
I'm sure all group A use sugar in their porridge too.
struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)Does the passage say You shall love your neighbor as you love yourself? Or does it actually say You shall insist your daughter wear a shock collar and keep her in a chicken-coop?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)as you well know. And very often not even the most important one.
You're so fond of telling "the rest of the story"....do it now. And sorry, it won't be found on Google.
struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)(1) The 15-yo girl's complaint deserves to be taken seriously. Official action, taken to protect her while investigation proceeds, is appropriate. If her complaint is credible, of course, then the legal system can be appropriately invoked; and if her complaint finally turns out to be true, then further official action -- to protect her and to discourage such abuse in the future -- will be appropriate
(2) Some 15-yo girls have sometimes been known to tell less than truthful tales; the girl may also be telling the truth, and there may be corroborating testimony from neighbors, for example. It is our legal tradition here to presume that the accused has a right to day-in-court, and there is no evident reason why we should stray from that tradition in this particular case.
(3) A good technique for evaluating alleged quotations is to inquire how accurate the quotation is, how complete the quotation is, and how much context is available
One should here note that the half-sentence, attributed here to the woman accused, is actually the reporter's partial quote from an interview between the reporter and a neighbor. It is hearsay. Hearsay, of course, can accurately reflect conversations, but it's often inaccurate or misleading. So the half-sentence quote doesn't help us much here: read in conjunction with the girl's accusations, it may, or may not, help create an accurate impression of daily family life in the household
Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)truly was the reason they engaged in this cruel and harmful behavior or they are using this as a defense as they realize they could spend years in a Georgia prison (I live in Georgia and no way do I want to land in a Georgia penal institution).
The bottom line is that there are many things in then "bible", especially the OT that most Christians have jettisoned as belonging to the era of "the law" because that era was supplanted by the era of "Christ".
But we know they still like to use the OT, when convenient, to disparage gays, etc. They of course don't see a problem with eating shellfish, pork, copulating during a woman's period, cutting their hair and their beards, wearing clothing made of more than one fabric, etc.
As a Christian I am disgusted by their use of my faith to justify practices that are not justified if they are living in Christ.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)The No True Christian argument is logically flawed and intellectually bankrupt.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)
Matthew 19 >>
King James Version
Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. 14But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. 15And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.
Matthew 21 >>
King James Version
And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them. 15And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; they were sore displeased, 16And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise? 17And he left them, and went out of the city into Bethany; and he lodged there.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)Jesus said lots of hateful stuff that is ignored by Christians, such as "I come not in peace, but with a sword" etc.
Examples from just ONE BOOK of the GOSPELS:
Matthew
Those who bear bad fruit will be cut down and burned "with unquenchable fire." 3:10, 12
Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. 5:17
Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any women commits adultery. 5:29-30
Jesus says that most people will go to hell. 7:13-14
Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into the fire." 7:19
"The children of the kingdom [the Jews] shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 8:12
Jesus tells a man who had just lost his father: "Let the dead bury the dead." 8:21
Jesus sends some devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the waters below. 8:32
Cities that neither "receive" the disciples nor "hear" their words will be destroyed by God. It will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. And you know what God supposedly did to those poor folks (see Gen.19:24). 10:14-15
Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (this is one of the few "prophecies" in the Bible that has actually come true). "Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." 10:21
Jesus says that we should fear God who is willing and "able to destroy both soul and body in hell." 10:28
Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword." 10:34-36
Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. 11:20-24
Jesus will send his angels to gather up "all that offend" and they "shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." 13:41-42, 50
Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." (See Ex.21:15, Lev. 20: 9, Dt.21:18-21) So, does Jesus think that children who curse their parents should be killed? It sure sounds like it. 15:4-7
Jesus advises his followers to mutilate themselves by cutting off their hands and plucking out their eyes. He says it's better to be "maimed" than to suffer "everlasting fire." 18:8-9
In the parable of the unforgiving servant, the king threatens to enslave a man and his entire family to pay for a debt. This practice, which was common at the time, seems not to have bothered Jesus very much. The parable ends with this: "So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you." If you are cruel to others, God will be cruel to you. 18:23-35
"And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors." 18:34
God is like a rich man who owns a vineyard and rents it to poor farmers. When he sends servants to collect the rent, the tenants beat or kill them. So he sent his son to collect the rent, and they kill him too. Then the owner comes and kills the farmers and rents the vineyard to others. 21:33-41
"Whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder." Whoever falls on "this stone" (Jesus) will be broken, and whomever the stone falls on will be ground into powder. 21:44
In the parable of the marriage feast, the king sends his servants to gather everyone they can find, both bad and good, to come to the wedding feast. One guest didn't have on his wedding garment, so the king tied him up and "cast him into the outer darkness" where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 22:12-13
Jesus had no problem with the idea of drowning everyone on earth in the flood. It'll be just like that when he returns. 24:37
God will come when people least expect him and then he'll "cut them asunder." And "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 24:50-51
The servant who kept and returned his master's talent was cast into the "outer darkness" where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth." 25:30
Jesus tells us what he has planned for those that he dislikes. They will be cast into an "everlasting fire." 25:41
Jesus says the damned will be tormented forever. 25:46
=============
I don't see any religion of love here.
There are many more verses like this in the NT.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Do you have evidence that these quotes are not the true words of Jesus? If so, let's hear it. If not, why are you attempting to deflect from the issue at hand? Honest discussion of what's real and true would suit the room better.
rug
(82,333 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)quote directly from the Bible? How dare they use the words that Jesus is supposed to have said? Scandalous! Next thing you know, they'll be making up fake Jesus quotes and posting them on the internet to show that he was really an atheist.
Oh, wait..
rug
(82,333 posts)It's amusing to see this site after all the belly-aching about Christian apologists.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)but I understand your need to make things up. The point is not about "cherry-picking" quotes. The whole Bible is there for people to read no matter what. The point is about cherry-picking what things in the Bible you choose to believe and adhere to and what things (just as valid as heavenly admonitions), you choose to ignore, and then accusing those who pick different things of not being "real" Xstians.
rug
(82,333 posts)it's time for you to put down your broad brush and do some critical thinking.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Try again.
rug
(82,333 posts)
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that deserves thought, it will be provided.
rug
(82,333 posts)I expect I will receive it elsewhere.
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)You're mean.
rug
(82,333 posts)Shame on me for not responding in kind to his civility.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)No editorial comments at that link, just straight quotes from the Book of Hate and Superstition.
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)I like that.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)That is what happens. Being truthful is VERY unpopular.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)That's where the problem lies.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)How so? I think it's pretty clear.
Cruelty is not cruelty?
cordelia
(2,174 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)posts 40 and 56, Re: cherry-picking.
cordelia
(2,174 posts)Just like you accuse Christians and theists. Cherry picking.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Explain how it can be cherry-picking when I haven't picked ANYTHING to believe or to adhere to?
I did not cite the quote I did because I'm claiming it's more true or more correct than any other, but to show the hypocrisy of those who claim that the things they adhere to are, and that those who disagree with their particular cherry-picked beliefs and interpretations are not "real Christians".
You either get that or you don't. Continuing to repeat your mantra with no supporting argument doesn't make it truer.
cordelia
(2,174 posts)an atheist website with evil things that Jesus said. But, they don't include the good - the Beatitudes, any of that.
And you act as an apologist for the web site's content that was posted in his/her post.
Cherry. Picking.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)But the point is not about "cherry-picking" quotes. The whole Bible is there for people to read no matter what, so any idiot would know I wasn't claiming that Jesus never said nice things. The point is about cherry-picking what things in the Bible you choose to believe and adhere to and what things (just as valid as heavenly admonitions), you choose to ignore, and then accusing those who pick different things of not being "real" Xstians. I don't choose to believe or adhere to ANYTHING in the Bible simply because it's in the Bible or because Jeebus supposedly said it, so your claim of "cherry-picking" is an epic fail.
Try again.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)when perfection and divinity are the claims. If someone is claimed to be God made flesh, and a kind and loving deity, then it only takes one imperfection found to show that claim false. What reason is there to believe that Jesus was more than just some semi-wise dude or a completely fictional character? What makes him worth worship?
ButterflyBlood
(12,644 posts)"A sword" in this case being a metaphor for "the truth" or "the word".
just1voice
(1,362 posts)No need to remain stuck in the past, or so we're told when it comes to torturers.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)The NT asserts it quite clearly in 2 Timothy 3 16
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
It's hard to make that any clearer. Especially the part about reproof and correction.
Tumbulu
(6,291 posts)Do you really think that planting a bean next to corn next to a pumpkin will send you to hell?
There are so many ridiculous things in the old testament that were recordings of the people of the time going through their evolution. To take the old testament as anything other than historical poetry is mystifying to me.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)We're a big happy family. I'm one of the nonbelievers. Like Satan, I can quote scripture to my purposes.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)If so what is it?
dimbear
(6,271 posts)I know I'm not going to convince any minds to change. What can be achieved is sensitizing people to the rights of others who aren't in the majority.
We are all liberals here. Some, interacting here with nonbelievers, are on the wrong side of a civil rights issue for the first time in their lives.
A little sensitivity to that and we're on the road to serenity.
How can I sensitize folk by irritating them? The squeaking wheel is soonest greased, they say.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)I hope you continue to use a method of tolerance and seeking to move to a common understanding. I wish others would do the same but I don't have much hope of that occurring given their past history and present attitudes. To those persons I say this doesn't entail surrender of principle it just means listening and trying to understand before you dismiss others as less than.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that atheists here don't listen and don't understand what the religionists are saying? Does that viewpoint even take into account that most atheists used to be religious? Far more than religious people who used to be atheists? And that they already are familiar with both sides of the street? Does it?
Leontius
(2,270 posts)Or do you feel guilty of this type of behavior and so associate it only with atheists?
humblebum
(5,881 posts)and why should that be taken into account simply on your say so? Do you have any proof? and just how do you gauge the degree of being religious?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)If so, what is it?
patrice
(47,992 posts)specifically how? instruction, specifically how?
How, as in what precise manner; mistakes are made by reading the mind of "God" and assuming one knows who/what/when/where/why/how to profit/reprove/correct/instruct others, instead of freely standing at the crossroads of knowing and belief and humbly/proudly accepting/challenging what happens there.
JustAnotherGen
(31,828 posts)Shock collars in the ancient middle east and North Africa.
PDJane
(10,103 posts)It is fiction, from an age that believed in a number of things that we can no longer justify. It's a great way to justify almost anything, but it's not a fact.
Beliefs don't have very much to do with fact; it's interpretation of the fiction, and that particular fiction is open to all kinds of interpretations.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)QED.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)there is a God who was able to create something from nothing, then why would such a minor event be so impossible. There is only one certainty and that is that there is no objective proof either way. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but proof? You have none.
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)What you think of our side -- I now think of yours. Exactly.
And no, I'm no telepath. No need to be one for that.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)declare something absolutely to be impossible or fantasy. The fact is that we do not know absolutely what many of the things described in the Bible mean.
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)
humblebum
(5,881 posts)of a Batman or something appearing as a Batman would be greatly increased. If a simple magic trick can be performed today, why could it not have been performed centuries ago, and might it not stand to reason that it would have appeared to be more real to a society that was certainly more impressionable than most today?
That fact still remains that there are no firm answers about any possibilities.
mzteris
(16,232 posts)is notoriously UNreliable.
If you're saying gullible people were being hornswoggled, I'd have to agree. That's all "religion" is. The duping of others by people in power to achieve an end result of power, control, and/or money (or it's equivalent in oxen...).
humblebum
(5,881 posts)and not one shared by me. That is not to say however, that religion doesn't have its share of hucksters. As far as eyewitness testimony being notoriously unreliable, there are certainly many variables that affect such a condition. Much depends upon the status of the witness and the number of witnesses, etc.
mzteris
(16,232 posts)Thanks for playing.
Diidja see the David copperfield make that jet disappear???
dimbear
(6,271 posts)instance, on several occasions, could easily have happened, couldn't it? No problems?
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)
Leontius
(2,270 posts)Or is your understanding of the histories of the world limited to the last few decades of this era.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)According to one source.
That suggests there may be some additional criminal responsibility among the siblings. Didn't find out how old they were.
It's like a story out of the Brothers Grimm.
Horrific.
