News1 min ago
Touchy Subject.
36 Answers
To start i should explain that i am buddhist, and buddhists are brought up to be accepting of other religions, which in this moden society is actually quite diffficult to do, what with 7/7 and 9/11 and i suppose even the glasgow bombings, which with the fact they were mostly, if not all, doctors. But i wish to, not question, but ask others about their genuine thought about the following... the bible, if god did invent the world the universe etc, why was it he said it was flat, surely the maker knew it wasn't.
why was moses the only one who can perform real magic, i.e parting the sea, applies for god and walking on water etc. but also that it is ok to sell your daughter into slavery, and that you can stone disobedient childeren to deathe, but then says it is wrong to kill another human
so it contradicts aswell, anyone care to either explain or give more examples,
why was moses the only one who can perform real magic, i.e parting the sea, applies for god and walking on water etc. but also that it is ok to sell your daughter into slavery, and that you can stone disobedient childeren to deathe, but then says it is wrong to kill another human
so it contradicts aswell, anyone care to either explain or give more examples,
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by king-aslan. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The bible actually refers to the circle of the earth, so it was known then to be a sphere and that it hangs on nothing. It's human's who thought it was flat - even up to Colombus's time and that Atlas held it up. Also, bear in mind the stoning etc is ancient law and set up to protect the people of the time; therefore is obviously not relevant today - look at the bible carefully and you'll find it does not contradict itself - it needs to be read properly, not bits picked out at random else it doesn't make sense.
king - just a point - the glasgow bombings were perpetrated by people attached to NHS jobs, but despite the headlines i think I remember that they weren't doctors?
Also, the suspects picked up afterwards - some of whom were, as you point out, doctors- were I think released without charge or press fanfare?
Also, the suspects picked up afterwards - some of whom were, as you point out, doctors- were I think released without charge or press fanfare?
At the funeral today, the minister said something I had never considered, he said we are all made up of atoms, and atoms never die, they recycle, and so does everything else, it all stays within our planet, the atoms change and move about, but they never go away. so we are forever and have always been forever and are made up of forever.
I also accept other people's religion although I don't "subscribe" to one myself.I'm not an atheist - nor do I sit on the fence- just in case there is a God (him or her!)
I do believe that everyone should have the right to worship but should also, if not embrace other religions, at least accept.However there is always the element of "extreme" which has gone on for years.
Makes me think of the football hooligans some years ago who really didn't give a stuff about the team they supported but just wanted to go to the game to give someone a good kicking!
This can be recognised by probably every religion we have in the world - from the Crusades onwards (& no doubt before)
My own opinion of the bible is that it is a series of books that is almost like a docu-drama - some bits might be true - but some may be embellished for entertainment value. I think each can read into it was they need/ want.
Well as Dave Allen would say - may your God go with you ( & I hope I haven't offended anyone)
I do believe that everyone should have the right to worship but should also, if not embrace other religions, at least accept.However there is always the element of "extreme" which has gone on for years.
Makes me think of the football hooligans some years ago who really didn't give a stuff about the team they supported but just wanted to go to the game to give someone a good kicking!
This can be recognised by probably every religion we have in the world - from the Crusades onwards (& no doubt before)
My own opinion of the bible is that it is a series of books that is almost like a docu-drama - some bits might be true - but some may be embellished for entertainment value. I think each can read into it was they need/ want.
Well as Dave Allen would say - may your God go with you ( & I hope I haven't offended anyone)
The bible also mentions the "four corners" of the Earth (Revelation 7:1) and its "ends" twice in separate passages in the book of Jobe. To answer the original question though, "god" never said the world was flat. There never has been and never will be a god. Whatever the bible says is not what "god" said. Why is that so hard to graspf or people? Humans invented this idea. The entire book is entirely fictitious and contains no morals we couldn't work out for ourselves without the a metaphorical story about it. This statement is proven by the fact we have cherry picked various morals from the bible, and excluded many others. The criterion we use to do this cherry picking means our ability to recognise good from bad is innate, and does not derive itself from the Good Book.
And I thought picking bits out of random is what Bible-bashers did best? Leviticus is one of their (Christian right) favourites due to its passage on homosexuality, yet Leviticus mentions a whole load of other things people shouldn't do. Wearing clothing with mixed materials, clipping your beard at the edges or eating pork or lobster. I wonder how many of them follow those rules? It's simply astounding people continue to take it seriously, or attempt to mould it into something different to better fit in with today's society - rather than just throw it in the bargain bucket where it belongs.
And I thought picking bits out of random is what Bible-bashers did best? Leviticus is one of their (Christian right) favourites due to its passage on homosexuality, yet Leviticus mentions a whole load of other things people shouldn't do. Wearing clothing with mixed materials, clipping your beard at the edges or eating pork or lobster. I wonder how many of them follow those rules? It's simply astounding people continue to take it seriously, or attempt to mould it into something different to better fit in with today's society - rather than just throw it in the bargain bucket where it belongs.
campfire has actually touched on my own feeling about the christian religion, again buddhists are supposed to be accepting of all other religions, but believing in them is a totally different thing, fine there are people who believe that this is all true, i am just not convinced. I can believe that there was a bloke called jesus, but i just think he was a normal guy, who another person wrote a story about, someone misunderstood and thus we are left with numerous storys in a world where we are all secretly hating eachother becasue of it.
I think all religious books are open to interpretation for how the person wants to see it. I understand that many of the words in the Quran can be translated into lots of different meanings and some of those meanings are actually quite diverse.
People often quite things such as "an eye for an eye" without reading the rest of the passage.
People often quite things such as "an eye for an eye" without reading the rest of the passage.
Goodsoulette: How is that any defense (if it attempts to be) of anything in this thread?
Of course any religious texts are open to interpretation. That does not mean that any interpretation is acceptable. Animal Farm can be a children's story or a satirical allegory of Soviet totalitarianism. The latter is more relevant and intentional. The bible is full of... well, crap.
Of course people only translate the basic principle of an "eye for an eye" in to modern principles. The rest of the passage reads:
"When a slave-owner strikes the eye of a male or female slave, destroying it, the owner shall let the slave go, a free person, to compensate for the eye. If the owner knocks out a tooth of a male or female slave, the slave shall be let go, a free person, to compensate for the tooth."
I like how an eye follows the same value of a tooth, and indeed, the same value of a foot. Nice also, how slaves are omitted from the modern-day idea of "eye-for-an-eye", but not the principle. Could this be yet another case of archaic BS thought up by non-thinkers that is still ruling over some people's lives? Oh why, I think it could!
Of course any religious texts are open to interpretation. That does not mean that any interpretation is acceptable. Animal Farm can be a children's story or a satirical allegory of Soviet totalitarianism. The latter is more relevant and intentional. The bible is full of... well, crap.
Of course people only translate the basic principle of an "eye for an eye" in to modern principles. The rest of the passage reads:
"When a slave-owner strikes the eye of a male or female slave, destroying it, the owner shall let the slave go, a free person, to compensate for the eye. If the owner knocks out a tooth of a male or female slave, the slave shall be let go, a free person, to compensate for the tooth."
I like how an eye follows the same value of a tooth, and indeed, the same value of a foot. Nice also, how slaves are omitted from the modern-day idea of "eye-for-an-eye", but not the principle. Could this be yet another case of archaic BS thought up by non-thinkers that is still ruling over some people's lives? Oh why, I think it could!
When I hear an eye for an eye I always think....You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other alsoIts in Matthew I think. I always thought it was saying turn the other cheek, don't retaliate to the violence. Reiterating the importance of forgiveness.
I'm not sure how much of the bible I believe could be true but I genuinely think they were stories told to provide moral structure to society.
I just see contradictions as "God hates mushrooms" and then later appearing as "god loves mushrooms". I cant say I have ever been aware of that. Who knows how and who by the passages have been translated by. People possibly using them to serve there own needs. I don't look for the bad in anything but I know that there are some women translating the Koran now, and they say that some words could mean very benign things, whereas men have translated it in the past and said "beat your wife" whereas, the newer translation say it could mean "walk away from your wife".
I'm not sure how much of the bible I believe could be true but I genuinely think they were stories told to provide moral structure to society.
I just see contradictions as "God hates mushrooms" and then later appearing as "god loves mushrooms". I cant say I have ever been aware of that. Who knows how and who by the passages have been translated by. People possibly using them to serve there own needs. I don't look for the bad in anything but I know that there are some women translating the Koran now, and they say that some words could mean very benign things, whereas men have translated it in the past and said "beat your wife" whereas, the newer translation say it could mean "walk away from your wife".
How can you possibly think the bible is comprised of stories specifically written to provide moral structure to society? Do you think people just went around without morals until the bible was fully compiled? Prior to the bible, it was okay to murder and rape?
As I have already explained, there are numerous examples of immorality of the highest degree in the bible. We've chosen what we do like and discarded what we don't to fit in with modern society. Due to some people's political agendas, and due to bigotry and ignorance, some bits have been kept even though they don't fit in with modern society (Leviticus is a shining example). The very fact we are able to innately pick what we want and what we don't means it could not have been the bible that provided moral structure in the first place.
If you cannot see the logic in that then we'll just have to agree to disagree. Turn the other cheek and all that ;)
As I have already explained, there are numerous examples of immorality of the highest degree in the bible. We've chosen what we do like and discarded what we don't to fit in with modern society. Due to some people's political agendas, and due to bigotry and ignorance, some bits have been kept even though they don't fit in with modern society (Leviticus is a shining example). The very fact we are able to innately pick what we want and what we don't means it could not have been the bible that provided moral structure in the first place.
If you cannot see the logic in that then we'll just have to agree to disagree. Turn the other cheek and all that ;)
Campfire, you are an athiest? Well what do you think the purpose in the books are then?
I assume you cant believe they are divinely inspired, word of god etc so what was the point in them?
I have absolutely no idea how many people were beating on each other, stealing, raping and murdering thousands of years ago. In my opinion it's not Gods word, so I can only presume its a collection of stories that tell us how we should live our life advising us of the moral path we should take.
I assume you cant believe they are divinely inspired, word of god etc so what was the point in them?
I have absolutely no idea how many people were beating on each other, stealing, raping and murdering thousands of years ago. In my opinion it's not Gods word, so I can only presume its a collection of stories that tell us how we should live our life advising us of the moral path we should take.
