The Dangers of Religious moderation

Kadayi Polokov said:
The only joke around here is you Mecha. You made a bullshit statement that doesn't hold water and it's plain as day to anyone when they look at the evidence for 5 minutes. Your big on literal interpretation of the Bible when it suits your needs, but when those same literal messages turn around and bites your arguments in the ass your suddenly off into the heady realms of tenuous long winded speculation to try and win your argument by the back door. 2000 years of History and innumerable religious study by countless dedicated scholars and yet at no point have either the Jews or the Christian churches ever declared a world wide holy war against all other nations who worship false gods. If ever there was a clear indicator that your argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny it's that irrefutable fact. Or are you going to next claim you are the next coming and only you see the wisdom of Gods instructions clearly?
Click to expand...

Haha! Nice bit of hypocrisy there. What happened to no personal attacks? Different religions are open to different interpretations, for example you can read the Quran and see why blowing yourself up may be justified. However you can't really see that in Buddhism or Hinduism which are relatively easy going in comparison to even the Bible. Believing you get your morality from Buddhism or Hinduism is equally misguided however it’s easier to say you get your morality from them because they contain more nice verses than the Bible. The fact is people who take their morality from scripture are very deluded people because morality is a constantly shifting thing through time. For instance, a couple of hundred years ago it was perfectly OK to own slaves and think Black people didn't deserve the same moral considerations as White, that they were inferior. Nowadays that's unthinkable. So where did this change in morality come from? It’s certainly not the Bible since the Bible doesn't say anything against the holding of slaves, in fact it seems to promote slavery. The Moral Zeitgeist has moved one, and it's always been moving, since before the Bible and after it. Sometimes forwards, sometimes backwards. There is no "jump" in morality that comes with the uptake of religion. There haven't been any major religions invented in the pass 200 years for example that could explain our rejection of slavery. I happen to believe that Islam is at a younger stage in it's development that Christianity. However there were times in history where you could be executed for not believing in the Christian God, England in the middle of the last millennium for example. If you rejected God it could mean corporal punishment, or if you didn't believe in the type of Christianity in power over the country at the time you could be executed. For instance if you were a Catholic when the King was a protestant or vice versa. Remember Bloody Mary and her persecution of protestants? Islamists who blow themselves up are working off of the same basis as Christian persecutors, that their faith allows them do it and they will be rewarded for doing so. The only difference is persecution by Christians was institutionalized. That still however doesn't make it any more correct.
 
I shan't stick my oar into the discussion 'twixt Mecha and Kadayi because I've yet to read it all, plus it's a lot of fun from the sidelines.

I shall however drop in my two pence, as it were (although at the current exchange rate at time of writing, two cents works out at about one pence)

Let us suppose, for the moment, that religion is the source of human morality.
Acts considered immoral such as stealing, murder, rape, etc. are so deeply entrenched in human consciousness now that religion is not needed to reinforce them.

There was a time when we needed religion to explain the world. We weren't sophisticated enough to know how the universe came about, so we postulated that divine entity (or indeed entities) was responsible. We could understand that because it was familiar.
However over many millennia, our mental faculties have developed considerably and our powers of logic and reasoning are far beyond what they once were. As such, we do not need religion to understand the universe - we can explain and understand it ourselves, based on rationale, empirical observations, extrapolated theories and experimentation.

If religion is no longer central to our explanation of the world, why should it be central to the way we act in the world?
Even if religion was the kcick-start for modern morality, they are generally accepted principles that are not denied nor subverted by secularism. So why do we need religion to tell us what to do?
If we shed religious repression of understanding in favour of the process of scientific realisation, why should we not shed the "stabiliser wheels" religion is supposed to have given our morality? If we all already know principles against murder, etc. and have them integrated into society, why do we need religion to tell us what to do? Why should we not look at our own societies, take the moral springboard religion supposedly gave us and move on?

Why should we let religion hold us back?
 
This is turning into an Exhibit A that religion doesn't teach you morality. Kadayi is getting mean.

For the purposes of not humouring him, I'll simple cut out the needlessly insulting bits of his previous post.

And, for the sake of speed, I'll cut out the supposedly self-evident arguments that haven't been supported by fact in any way.

Kadayi Polokov said:
2000 years of History and innumerable religious study by countless dedicated scholars and yet at no point have either the Jews or the Christian churches ever declared a world wide holy war against all other nations who worship false gods.
Click to expand...

But they did start the many seperate crusades, the big conversion camps in the new world, etc. Tell us, when did the fighting in Ireland stop? Also, obviously it has issues with Islamic fundamentalism, which is the purest form of islamic thought. Also, there is a great deal of hate for Atheists, because a lot of christians consider atheism, secularism and science in general to be religions, and evil ones at that.
In fact, your argument, taken to its logical extent, explains the crusades exactly as I predicted. They went to liberate the holy land from islam.

Christianity hasn't the willpower or the resources to successfully attack the entire world. They're still struggling just fighting Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet those attacks still occur.

A huge number of fundamentalists are looking for the easy way out, which is why they support the victory of Israel over Palestine. Under their interpretation of prophecy, Israel winning means Jesus will fly down from space and an army of firebreathing horse-lions and will kill all the other relgions on Earth. Literally speaking, fueling the mideast conflict is a final solution against the jews.

And now you're saying that scholars cause morality? I thought it was the bible? All scholars tend to do is try to re-interpret the biblical teachings of the past to fit the modern day - even though you laud their obsolescence.
Interpretation of the bible is secularist. It means you're questioning the bible, and effectively adding laws to it.
Even jesus only elaborated on the definitions of certain laws, because anyone who redefines the laws is a de-facto false prophet.

If ever there was a clear indicator that your argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny it's that irrefutable fact. Or are you going to next claim you are the next coming and only you see the wisdom of Gods instructions clearly?
Click to expand...

My argument is not irrefutable fact, and I have never claimed it was. Lots of people have added on to it and it's undergone a great deal of elaboration and clarification since I invented it.
You are simply failing to provide adequate counter-evidence. For all your protestations, all that you have provided is a single line of text and a loose interpretation of it that justifies the crusades.

If I were the second coming of christ (and by all rights I could be), you would ask me to prove it and I wouldn't be able to. Because you're a secularist, you would not take my word for it even if I didn't contradict the laws (which, of course, I don't).
So, your moral imperative to trust or distrust me doesn't come from the bible, because the bible tells you to believe everything I say until I can be proven as a false prophet.

OWNED
Click to expand...

I'm not owned.
As was pointed out, the bible promotes slavery while secularism prevents it.
The fact that you can only (theorhetically) "own" someone on the internet is proof that your argument (whatever it is now) is flawed.

Trust me, writing this takes no effort at all. It's actually very simple, in a zen-like way. I just relax and the rebuttals write themselves. That's why you needn't worry about me taking this too seriously or needing to relax.

So stop worrying; you'll feel better about yourself. Trust me. :D


I'd like to thank my colleagues mortiz and chi for providing further elaboration on why the bible is not an adequate source of morality. The slavery point was a grand one, as is the excellent point that Kayadi is unintentionally calling for the end of the bible in his recognition that all its non-stupid ideals have been supplanted by secular law.
 
I already did. Christ!

Matthew 5:17-21.
This is at least the third time I have repeated this.
 
Thanks for that

Now with regard to this particular bit:-

Mechagodzilla said:
In Deuteronomy 7:22-24, God says that the Israelites will eventually destroy all of the peoples they encounter, and their lands will be taken from them.
Click to expand...

1) Can you provide the particular lines you are referring to there?

2) Can you also provide an explanation as to the context in which they are said.
 
I listed them: 22 through 24.
They are only three lines.

The notation of verses in the bible goes Book Chapter:Verse

So when I say "Deuteronomy 7:22-24" that means that I am refering to Verses 22, 23 and 24 in Chapter seven of the Book of Deuteronomy.

The context is the Convenant, or promise, god makes.
God promises that Israel is destined to destroy the peoples they encounter, refering specifically to the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites.

In 7:5-6, he makes it specific that he is destroying them for their religious differences.

"But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire. Destroy the altars, images, and places of worship of those with different religions.
For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth."

In 7:9, he says that the order to kill these nations lasts an extremely long time.

"Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations"
 
When I say context I mean in the narrative sense. For example Genesis is the tale of the creation of heaven and earth by God, then Gods creation of Adam and Eve, their banishment from the Garden of Eden, etc, etc. It reads as a tale, a linear history of events (you would agree on that I assume?)

Now can you tell me what is the contextual narrative of the Book of Deuteronomy? Who is it a tale about? And what does it cover in terms of events as a sequence?
 
Well to start with, it's not exactly accurate to treat the bible as a storybook when entire chapters are spent outlining single laws.

It is primarily a law book, with legal precedent and historical context added.

In any case, Deuteronomy, the word, means "copy of the law". It is the final collection of laws handed down to Moses by God before Moses' death.

In terms of narrative, it starts out by listing why the laws are good (basically, they celebrate how god is nice and remind that he will harshly punish those who disobey).
Next, it lists the laws that god invented.
Finally, it ends with Moses dying.
 
So is this a test to see if Mecha really understands the Bible?
 
Slightly off-topic, but still of interest to me: Mecha, have you read the bible through, or do you have a digital version on-hand? I ask only because you seem to know it better than any religious nut I've ever met... and you're about as far from a religious nut as possible.
 
I've read the bible indeed, although I'm most versed, so to speak, in the laws of the old testament and the Pauline epistles.

For research on other stuff, I typically use Wikipedia, which has the clearest concise record of the stories, their various interpretations and their historical context, etc.
The full quotes themselves are usually taken from the Skeptic's Annotated Bible and/or The Brick Testament, since they are not only smart and funny, but also easier to navigate than other online bible compendiums I've encountered over the years.

It's always amazing when I paraphrase the bible and christians invariably ask me what part it's from. Shouldn't it be memorized?

It's invaluable though, that you read the full bible. Individual quotes don't do justice to the absudrity of the entire work. If I hadn't, I would have missed how Jesus hilariously demands that you follow every single law of the old testament.
Christians everywhere invariably ignore that teaching.

Atheists are often, justifiably, not inclined to read the full bible (it is an absolutely awful piece of writing), and so tend to focus on the innummerable logical and scientific failings of the book. These are easy to list, but not useful for convincing people who have already completely shut down logical and scientific thought in those aspects of their lives.

The reality of the book is that it follows a strong internal logic most of the time, as far as the laws are concerned.
Christians, I theorize, are more likely to to understand the failings of the bible if it is adressed from the standpoint of this internal logic. If the bible is true, and it says that you must kill all gays and all unruly children, then that's irrefutable.

The advantage is that you can actually discuss the bible without explicitly bringing up how utterly retarded all religions are.
In my experience, even the most sensible and kind philosophy will get you nowhere.

Check, for example, the other thread going on about Atheism, in which Razaair calls me an "asshole" for saying we should not sit back and let billions of people be tortured in hell for eternity.

Normally, stopping billions of tortures would be considered unquestionably moral and just, but christianity changes that proposition because the usual (Pauline) interpretation of the New Testamnet is that literally ignoring that torture-genocide of hell will make the problem go away.


In any case, I'm kind of tired of this Deuteronomy talk, so how about Exodus?

Exodus 20:1-3, 23:13 and 22:20

"Then Yahweh spoke all these words. He said, 'I am Yahweh your God. You shall have no other gods before me. Do not mention the name of any other god -- let none ever be heard from your lips. Anyone who sacrifices to other gods must be destroyed."

That's the first commandment.

Exodus 20:8, 31:15

"Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. You shall do no work that day, neither your son nor your daughter, nor your slaves, men or women, nor your animals. Anyone who works on the Sabbath day must be put to death."

That's the fourth commandment.

Exodus 20:12, 21:15,17
"Honour your father and your mother. Anyone who strikes father or mother will be put to death. Anyone who curses father or mother will be put to death."

That's the fifth commandment.

Exodus 20:13, 21:12

"You shall not murder. Anyone who strikes a man and kills him must be put to death."

That's the sixth commandment.

Exodus 20:14, Leviticus 20:10

"You shall not commit adultery. If a man commits adultery with another man's wife,
both the man and the woman must be put to death."

That's the seventh.

Exodus 20:15, 21:16
"You shall not steal. Anyone who steals [from?] another man must be put to death."

That's the eighth.

What's interesting to note is that none of those commandments are subject to Kadayi's disputable "only in Israel" rule, because they were not written in Deuteronomy.

Kad, you may have thought you were testing my knowledge, but the reality of the matter is that I was testing yours.
Your argument, oddly, completely disregarded the entire first commandment, so I decided to continue the Deuteronomy argument to see if you'd bring ever it up.
You didn't.

Remember, I said:
If I say "as long as you are in my house, don't shoot guns at the wall" does that mean you can shoot at other people's houses?
Your interpretation is too loose because you have not accounted for variables outside the context of that single line.
Click to expand...
Your response was:
You made a bullshit statement that doesn't hold water and it's plain as day to anyone when they look at the evidence for 5 minutes.
Click to expand...
Next time spend more than five.


Jesus says to follow all these rules. Therefore, again, Jesus commands christians to kill all those of other religions.

Chapter and verse.
 
Mechagodzilla said:
In terms of narrative, it starts out by listing why the laws are good (basically, they celebrate how god is nice and remind that he will harshly punish those who disobey).
Next, it lists the laws that god invented.
Finally, it ends with Moses dying.
Click to expand...

Describe it as a linear story. I mean the book of Deuteronomy isn't simply a list of laws, it's an actual tale/recollection of events with Gods laws and assurances interspersed. Tell me whom is that tale about exactly, and what exactly does it cover in relation to them as a period of history?

Feel free to do the same about the Book of Exodus as well whilst you're at it. I mean if your going to start quoting excepts of scripture, you have to do so by providing the full narrative context within which they are expressed so that their meaning can be fully understood.

Also can you cite the particular version of the Bible you are using as your key reference.
 
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to legitimately ask you if you are are having a learning difficulty.

I have listed the version(s) of the bible I am using.

I have described the "plot" of Deuteronomy as concisely as is sensibly required.

Do you not know what the ten commandments are?
I ask that as an honest question, because you said that they are the key foundation of modern western society, and you are now apparently calling them obsolete.

I have repeatedly shown that Jesus demands you follow them exactly as they are written.
Historical context is not relevant to practices that MUST INVARIABLY CONTINUE UNTIL THE END OF THE WORLD.

Jesus did not say "follow these rules until the Enlightenment" he said "follow these rules until the end of time."
Is this difficult?


I'm not going to do your research for you. If you fail to provide counter-evidence, then that failure is yours.
Make a point because I will not slip up by accident.

If I am wrong, then prove it, because I am making falsifiable statements that should be easy to falsify - if the evidence exists.

Until then, stop spamming and stop lying.
 
Well karidya popompadov has been hit over and over by a barrage of concise and clear logic from Mecha, there's no way he can not accept what Mechas saying without looking the fool.

I expect an Ad Homein response tbh.
 
Mechagodzilla said:
I have described the "plot" of Deuteronomy as concisely as is sensibly required.
Click to expand...

I'm not interested in Concise Mecha, I'm interested in detailed. There is a narrative to the book and you haven't explained it at all. I've politely asked you to do that. If your as confident as you claim that your position is irrefutable,surely there is no harm in fulfilling my request. If I'm as inept and shamed as you purport what more harm can it do?
 
If you don't understand Deuteronomy to an adequate extent, then maybe you ought to actually, y'know, read the book.
If I missed any relevant details, then point them out.
If the details are not relevant, they are by definition irrelevant.


Deuteronomy Jr. is the 1945 sequel to the original Deuteronomy movie - Deuteronomy Come Home. Set in World War II the movie features Deuteronomy's son, Deuteronomy Jr. (played by Pal - who played Deuteronomy in the original). In the film Deuteronomy Jr. is a war dog in the British Royal Air Force.

Deuteronomy Jr. was the first movie ever to be filmed using the Technicolor Monobook method; where a single magazine of film was used to record all of the primary colours. Prior to this the most popular recording method was 3-Strip Technicolor which simultaneously used 3 individual film magazines to record the primary colours.

The lead human character is Joe Carraclough who (at the beginning of the film) joins the RAF during WW2. When he leaves for RAF training school he is forced to leave behind his dog Deuteronomy and her pup, Deuteronomy Jr. Deuteronomy Jr. follows Joe to the his training school and stows away on his plane, just as they embark on a dangerous mission. They are shot down over enemy territory and the majority of the film is of the 2 surviving on the run from enemy forces.
 
Now your just being facetious. I'm not doing it for my benefit (I know the events), I'm asking so you can provide the other readers with a fuller version, and we can see the context. As I said, if your position is irrefutable then it can do no harm to your arguments to do so can it?

Now perhaps you'll provide a more detailed explanation as to Deuteronomy in terms of who it is about, what befalls them, and Gods involvement at each stage.
 
Or they could just read the extensive wikipedia article on the subject.
Or, once again, actually read the bible.


Now that that is out of the way, you can start making points, right?

I explained all the relevant parts. Now you must explain the parts that are more relevant, if they exist.
You brought up Deuteronomy 12:1 as counter-evidence, but it was refuted by the existence of the First Commandment in Exodus 20:1-3, 23:13 and 22:20.

So, currently, I have presented adequate, relevant evidence and you have presented an idadequate amount of irrelevant evidence.

So get cracking. You'll never make a valid point at this rate.


Also, for the last time, MY POSITION IS NOT IRREFUTABLE SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU FAIL TO REFUTE IT.
All the claims I have made are falsifiable.
Either Moses and Jesus are recorded as saying these things or they are not.
If they are not, then prove it.
If you fail to prove it, then that is your problem and not mine.
 
Mechagodzilla said:
So get cracking. You'll never make a valid point at this rate.
Click to expand...

Seriously, what's the rush.

Anyhows for tonight (stuff to do, weekend and all). In the absence of you providing a narrative explanation as to what the Book of Deuteronomy is about (I did give you that option) it's fair to say then that you are happy that the Wikipedia summary of the book is an accurate breakdown of the books contents. You would agree to that yes?

Wiki Summary contained below:-

Deuteronomy consists chiefly of three discourses said to have been delivered by Moses a short time before his death, given to the Israelites, in the plains of Moab, in the penultimate month of the final year of their wanderings through the wilderness.

The first discourse (1-4) is a historical recollection of Israel's disobedient refusal to enter the Promised Land, and the resulting forty years of wandering in the wilderness.

The disobedience of Israel is contrasted by the justice of God. God is a judge to Israel, punishing them in the wilderness, and destroying utterly the generation who disobeyed God's commandment. God's wrath is also shown to the surrounding nations, such as King Sihon of Heshbon, whose people were utterly destroyed. In light of God's justice, Moses urges obedience to divine ordinances, and warns against the danger of forsaking the God of their ancestors.

God's forgiveness and grace towards the young generation of Israelites who are entering the land is a seemigly paradoxical contrast to God's justice. The same God who lovingly gave Israel the promised land, stayed with them in the wilderness as a cloud by day and fire by night. The following laws are also seen as a gift of divine grace.

The second discourse (5-26) is, in effect, the main body of the book, and is composed of two distinct addresses. The first of these (5-11), forms a second introduction, expanding on the Ethical Decalogue given at Mount Sinai. The second address (12-26) is the Deuteronomic Code, a series of mitzvot (commands), forming extensive laws, admonitions, and injunctions to the Israelites regarding how they ought to conduct themselves in Canaan, the land promised by God as their permanent home.

* The worship of God must remain pure, and be uninfluenced by neighbouring cultures and their 'idolatrous' religious practices. The death penalty is prescribed for following other gods, and for teaching the Israelites to do the same.
* The death penalty is also prescribed for males who disobey their parents
* Certain Dietary principles are enjoined. The significance of these laws is difficult to ascertain, they may have cultic significance.
* A Tithe for the Levites and charity for the poor
* A regular Jubilee Year during which all debts are cancelled
* That slavery of an individual lasts no more than 6 years.
* Yahwistic religious festivals, including Passover, Shavuot, and Sukkot are to be part of Israel's worship
* The offices of Judge, King, Kohen (temple priest), and Prophet
* A ban against the planting of trees, dedicated to Asherah, next to altars dedicated to God, and the erection of sacred stones
* A ban against children either from being immolated or from passing through fire (the text is ambiguous as to which is meant), divination, sorcery, witchcraft, spellcasting, and necromancy
* A ban preventing blemished animals from becoming sacrifices at the Temple
* Protection for those accused of manslaughter by the existence of three cities of refuge where they may flee from the avenger of blood.
* Exemptions from military service for the newly betrothed, newly married, owners of new houses, planters of new vineyards, and even anyone who is afraid of fighting.
* Peace terms before battle - the terms being that they enter slavery
* The Amalekites to be utterly destroyed under the ban
* A ban on environmental forms of warfare, such as the destruction of fruit trees, the mother of newly-born birds, and beasts of burden which have fallen over, or are lost
* Rules which regulate marriage, and Levirate Marriage, and allow divorce.
* Purity laws which prohibit the mixing of fabrics, of crops, of beasts of burden under the same yoke, and transvestitism, again with unknown, probably cultic, significance.
* The use of Tzitzit
* Prohibition against people from Ammon, Moab, or who are Mamzers, and their descendants, from entering the assembly of God, as well as imposing this restriction upon those who are castrated (but not their descendants)
* Regulations for ritual cleanliness, general hygiene, and the treatment of Tzaarath
* A ban on religious prostitution
* Regulations for slavery, servitude, vows, debt, usury, and permissible objects for securing loans
* Prohibition against wives making a groin attack on their husband's adversary.

The concluding third discourse (27-30) is hortatory, relating almost wholly to the solemn sanctions of the law, the blessings to the obedient, and the curse that would fall on the rebellious. In this discourse, the Israelites are solemnly adjured to adhere faithfully to the covenant between them and God, and so secure for themselves, and for their posterity, the promised blessings.

After the final discourse, the text describes Moses preparing himself to die. As the main part of preparation, Moses is described as conditionally renewing the covenant between God and the Israelites, the condition being the loyalty of the people, and at the same time, Joshua is also appointed by Moses as heir, a leader to lead the people into Canaan.

These addresses to the people are followed by what are generally regarded as three short appendices, namely:

* The Song of Moses, which the text states was created by Moses upon the request of God (Deuteronomy 32:1-47).
* The Blessing of Moses, which is pronounced upon the individual tribes of Israel (33)
* The story of the death of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:48-52), and subsequent burial (34).
 
Yes, that is in fact the content of the link that I just posted.

Or is it?

I've read the wikipedia article, but it would be helpful to other people watching if you posted a link to the wikipedia article.

Web address and name.

Also, could you post the exact sources from which that wikipedia article's data was collected?
If your argument is so irrefutable, it would do you no harm to post those other sources and the html source code of that website.
Also, don't forget to include a description of what a web address is, in case people reading do not understand how a website works.
I understand how a website works, but others might not.
Your irrefutable argument can't be hurt by posting a description of how a website works, can it?

Do you see what I am doing here?


This honestly the most convoluted and incoherent defense of the bible I have encountered, to date.

I've already shown that Deuteronomy is no longer relevant to this discussion. The topic has shifted to the First Commandment, recorded in Exodus.
Deuteronomy supplements that commandment, but it does not override that commandment.

There is indeed no rush, yet you are clearly struggling to keep up.
 
Kadayi Polokov said:
Now your just being facetious. I'm not doing it for my benefit (I know the events), I'm asking so you can provide the other readers with a fuller version, and we can see the context.
Click to expand...

Argue on your own. Not on the behalf of other readers.

Seriously, I don't want to butt in. But if you have a point to make, then make it. Telling Mecha to repeat something you claim to already know is usually just a tactic of waiting until your opponent makes a mistake, often due to an inability to refute the current argument.
 
Please do butt in.
If more people agree, he may be more inclined to stop being pedantic.

Currently, it's as though he assumes everyone reading is, basically, utterly retarded - except for him.
Additions like yours disprove that notion.
 
I lol'd.

But seriously. Kadayi. I'm having no trouble whatsoever following Mecha's argument. Yours is just a mess of you either

a) wasting time by asking Mecha to spew forth every piece of information related in any way to the topic at hand
b) repeating yourself
c) pretending to repeat yourself while in reality you are changing your position.

There's no need to argue on the behalf of forumgoers. Argue for yourself, stop being pedantic, and maybe this debate will move past this Who-Knows-More-About-The-Bible wank-fest.
 
Kadayi Polokov said:
Now your just being facetious. I'm not doing it for my benefit (I know the events), I'm asking so you can provide the other readers with a fuller version, and we can see the context. As I said, if your position is irrefutable then it can do no harm to your arguments to do so can it?

Now perhaps you'll provide a more detailed explanation as to Deuteronomy in terms of who it is about, what befalls them, and Gods involvement at each stage.
Click to expand...
As one of these said "other readers" I'm finding Mecha to be the one providing context and you doing nothing but asking him to provide more and different context for "other readers" (Not, of course, for your own benefit...).

Were you so confident in your contexts, I, as an "other reader", would expect you to provide your own contexts.
 
Kadayi Polokov said:
Now your just being facetious. I'm not doing it for my benefit (I know the events), I'm asking so you can provide the other readers with a fuller version, and we can see the context.
Click to expand...

Stalling for time and/or waiting for Mecha to slip up is hardly a worthwhile way to conduct a debate. At this point in time, it seems as though you're waiting to make a large point, and are stalling for time whilst trying to - find - that argument.
 
Well Polokov, seems you've hit a brick wall here. You're really not adding anything new to the argument. As Neo said, it seems you're merely stalling for time (not that that's a bad thing, just that it is mildly tedious). Eh, that's how I see it.
 
I did actually write out a much longer post addressing each of the points that Mecha has raised, but then I thought 'what's the point?', because given Mecha has already made a number of misrepresentations regarding the OT in order to defend his position, he's neither likely to change his stance or give up his duplicitous nature, his next post would just be more of the same.

If a man is as base to claim that an assurance made by God to the Israelites that they will be victorious in securing the Promised land (before they enter it), is in fact a prophesy that they will conquer the world eventually, or is a dubious enough cherry pick and stitch disparate verses together and present it as a paragraph to misrepresent their meaning, then there is no little point in choosing to debate with him further. All he is fooling is himself and the gullible.

The OT is first and foremost the history and laws of the Israelites, and it was written by them and for them, and what it contains in laws applies to them alone as a people bound to God through a Covenant to act as his priests within the confines of the Promised Land and to make it a Holy nation amongst all mankind. The Israelites acknowledge this covenant and role through the act of circumcision as decreed by God.

Exodus 19 3-6:-

"Then Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain and said, "This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: 'You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself. Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites."

In order to fully understand and interpret the OT you have to appreciate the time in which it was written, and the audience for whom it was originally written. It's not a book written from the perspective of there being a wider audience rather than the Israelites, so when it refers to 'false prophets amongst you' or 'wicked men have arisen among you' the you it is referring to is the Israelites themselves, not outsiders. For how the Israelites are to treat outsiders:-

Exodus 22:21-

"Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt"

Kadayi
 
Mecha has already made a number of misrepresentations regarding the OT
Click to expand...

Okay, let's see them.

[Mecha said] an assurance made by God to the Israelites that they will be victorious in securing the Promised land (before they enter it), is in fact a prophesy that they will conquer the world
Click to expand...

I didn't say that. I said it was proof that the boundaries have not been fully met, so bloodshed must continue regardless of whether the combat applies to only the holy land or not. I said nothing about "taking over the world" there.
Don't invent lies.

Mecha cherry pick[ed] and stitch[ed] disparate verses together and present[ed] it as a paragraph to misrepresent their meaning
Click to expand...

Which verses? What meaning was lost?
If you are talking about the commandments, I summarized the commandments, and I listed all the relevant verses so that people can check for for themselves and prove me wrong, which is something you have not yet managed to do.

That's why my argument is not infallible (as you complained it was). I used evidence, and evidence can be disproven - if you have your own.
You do not have your own.

Also, are you saying that being the wrong religion is not punishable by death according to the first commandment listed in Exodus?

The OT is first and foremost as the history and laws of the Israelites, and it was written by them and for them, and what it contains in laws applies to them alone as a people bound to God through a Covenant to act as his priests within the confines of the Promised Land and to make it a Holy nation amongst all mankind.
Click to expand...

It doesn't say that in the bible.
Even you said that the "only in Israel" policy only applies to the book of Deuteronomy. Here's what you said:

"All the laws in Deuteronomy that you use to form the basis of your argument are categorically set down in direct relation to the conduct of the Israelites."
"The laws in Deuteronomy are territorial laws of conduct tied to a people and a defined region. There are a great many laws in the OT that aren't territorial"

The first commandment is in Exodus, not in Deuteronomy.

In order to fully understand and interpret the OT you have to appreciate the time in which it was written, and the audience for whom it was originally written.
Click to expand...
Who was the bible written for?

God says the laws apply to all future generations of Israelis.
Jesus says those same laws now apply to the rest of the Earth.

God and jesus are not liars, are they?

when it refers to 'false prophets amongst you' or 'wicked men have arisen among you' the you it is referring to is the Israelites themselves, not outsiders.
Click to expand...
In Deuteronomy. Not Exodus.

You are adding laws where none were written.
That is false prophecy and an abomination before God.

For how the Israelites are to treat outsiders:-
Click to expand...
There is indeed no law against being from another country.
Unless that person is from another religion.

Or unless god is contradicting himself.

Why do you think God can contradict himself?
I don't think he can.


You haven't demonstrated a single misinterpretation on my behalf.
Are we just supposed to take your accusations on faith?

Sorry, but you need proof or no-one will believe your claims.
You should be an expert at the bible, since following it is the only way to avoid hell.
So why can't you prove me wrong?
 
I am not quote mining, Kadayi (as you accused me in another thread).

Quote mining means I am deliberately ignoring relevant information.

What relevant information am I ignoring?


You refuse to present a single shred of evidence to prove anything you say.
It doesn't look good.
Is this what you offer in defense of your faith? Anger and lies?
 
I thought quote-mining was picking out only the information that will support an argument, and ignoring anything presented that doesn't support an argument.

So far I haven't seen any information that doesn't support Mecha's argument, nor any argument or information brought up that there is information that doesn't support Mecha's argument.
 
Mechagodzilla said:
Is this what you offer in defense of your faith? Anger and lies?
Click to expand...

Defend my faith? I must of missed that bit where you moved onto attacking Taoism (more a philosophy of life than a religion it has to be said) :dozey:

Or are you going to personally label me a liar for the umpteenth time?
 
That depends on if you will stop making such things as false accusations against me.

And now I'm starting to become even more confused about your stance.
If you aren't Christian, then why are you going to such length as to make nonsense arguments and false accusations to support the bible?

Defending the bible is one thing. At least the motivation makes sense.
But making stuff up to defend it, when you don't even believe in it, is just bizarre.
 
Hey, I'm atheist and i still made arguments for the bible. Of course i was just doing that for fun. I don't think the arguments I've made in the past were nonsense, but actually allowed you to find flaws in your argument and alter it, thus making it stronger. Am i right?

I cant find the verse at the moment, but i remember it saying that anyone who adds to the laws is also a false prophet, which would sort of rule Jesus out of being a prophet.

EDIT:Found it, Its deuteronomy 4:2
You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
 
Why would I, even though I'm not a Christian choose to argue against you? I guess Mecha it's because regardless of my personal beliefs regarding Christianity and Judaism I disagree with your radical assertions regarding the Bible (surely not that confusing a notion). Please feel free to point me in the direction of the particular forum rule that states I have to have a vested interest in a subject to talk about it.

Incidentally in your previous to last post are you trying to argue that the Old Testament isn't the Hebrew Bible, simply because it doesn't say so within the Bible itself?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_testament

I mean beyond the arrangement of the chapters and the merging of kings the Old Testament is identical to the Hebrew Tanakh in terms of it's content and messages.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top