Religions > Atheism > Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction)
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Editor of EvilBible.com" |
| Date: |
01 Jan 2004 03:13:12 PM |
| Object: |
Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1, 2004 from www.EvilBible.com:
Complete Destruction (Jeremiah 25:8-11 NLT)
"And now the LORD Almighty says: Because you have not listened to me, I
will gather together all the armies of the north under King Nebuchadnezzar
of Babylon, whom I have appointed as my deputy. I will bring them all
against this land and its people and against the other nations near you. I
will completely destroy you and make you an object of horror and contempt
and a ruin forever. I will take away your happy singing and laughter. The
joyful voices of bridegrooms and brides will no longer be heard. Your
businesses will fail, and all your homes will stand silent and dark. This
entire land will become a desolate wasteland.
What kind of person would get their moral guidance from an ancient book of
myths and magic that says it is OK to murder, rape, pillage, and plunder?
Read more about the evils of the Bible at www.EvilBible.com
.
|
|
| User: "melikamp" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
01 Jan 2004 04:56:16 PM |
|
|
Editor of EvilBible.com wrote:
Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1, 2004 from www.EvilBible.com:
Complete Destruction (Jeremiah 25:8-11 NLT)
"And now the LORD Almighty says: Because you have not listened to me, I
will gather together all the armies of the north under King Nebuchadnezzar
of Babylon, whom I have appointed as my deputy. I will bring them all
against this land and its people and against the other nations near you. I
will completely destroy you and make you an object of horror and contempt
and a ruin forever. I will take away your happy singing and laughter. The
joyful voices of bridegrooms and brides will no longer be heard. Your
businesses will fail, and all your homes will stand silent and dark. This
entire land will become a desolate wasteland.
What kind of person would get their moral guidance from an ancient book of
myths and magic that says it is OK to murder, rape, pillage, and plunder?
A kind of person who understands that this ancient text was addressed to
audiences long gone, and should be evaluated as such. The developement
of moral & theological thought is not much different from that of the
scientific thought. If, today, someone would try to build the nuc'ular
power plant using nothing but Newton's physics, I would consider this
man a criminal; but does it make Newton a criminal, or his works - evil?
And, the crucial question is, did we have any chance of constructing our
quantum mechanics theory without Newton's physics in place?
In Bible, just like in any sacred text, we have a history of our moral
growth. Your values, just like mine, just like anyone else's in US,
are based, in large, on the work of thousands of Jewish thinkers and
humanitarians.
You are absolutely right if you say that the moral standars presented in
OT are dated; or when you state that /adherence/ to the letter of
the OT law is an atrocity today.
I claim that people who realize that, can learn much from the Bible,
and to improve their understanding of moral & ethics, by getting a
historical perspective. If it's done with an honest desire to become a
better person, I don't see who can have a grudge against these people,
or the book they are using.
Mel
.
|
|
|
| User: "Editor of EvilBible.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
01 Jan 2004 07:12:45 PM |
|
|
"melikamp" <jplsp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kA1Jb.724131$Fm2.624806@attbi_s04...
Editor of EvilBible.com wrote:
Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1, 2004 from www.EvilBible.com:
Complete Destruction (Jeremiah 25:8-11 NLT)
"And now the LORD Almighty says: Because you have not listened to
me, I
will gather together all the armies of the north under King
Nebuchadnezzar
of Babylon, whom I have appointed as my deputy. I will bring them all
against this land and its people and against the other nations near you.
I
will completely destroy you and make you an object of horror and
contempt
and a ruin forever. I will take away your happy singing and laughter.
The
joyful voices of bridegrooms and brides will no longer be heard. Your
businesses will fail, and all your homes will stand silent and dark.
This
entire land will become a desolate wasteland.
What kind of person would get their moral guidance from an ancient book
of
myths and magic that says it is OK to murder, rape, pillage, and
plunder?
A kind of person who understands that this ancient text was addressed to
audiences long gone, and should be evaluated as such. The developement
of moral & theological thought is not much different from that of the
scientific thought. If, today, someone would try to build the nuc'ular
power plant using nothing but Newton's physics, I would consider this
man a criminal; but does it make Newton a criminal, or his works - evil?
And, the crucial question is, did we have any chance of constructing our
quantum mechanics theory without Newton's physics in place?
Our knowledge and understanding of the physical universe clearly advances
with the passage of time. Every day new advances are made in the various
areas of science. I think nearly everyone agrees with that. But that has
absolutely nothing to do with morality. Why do you think that something
that is clearly wrong, such as intentionally killing babies without a good
reason, could be wrong one day and right the next? Do you think that 3000
years from now the Nazi holocaust will somehow be morally acceptable?
In Bible, just like in any sacred text, we have a history of our moral
growth. Your values, just like mine, just like anyone else's in US,
are based, in large, on the work of thousands of Jewish thinkers and
humanitarians.
Isn't the Bible supposed to be the word of God, or at least inspired by God?
If the Bible is just the work of men, then why do you feel the need to
defend the Old Testament baby killers? Why don't you just claim that they
were immoral men, or that they were pretty damn stupid?
Don't you think I've heard this crap before? Whatever you don't like in the
Bible you attribute to the writing of men. Whatever you do like you
attribute to God.
You are absolutely right if you say that the moral standars presented in
OT are dated; or when you state that /adherence/ to the letter of
the OT law is an atrocity today.
I am not saying the Biblical atrocities in the Bible are dated, I'm saying
they are evil. They were evil then and they are evil now. There was never
a time when intentionally killing babies without a good reason was not
wrong. Apparently your religious beliefs has you so messed up that you
think that killing babies was a good thing at one time.
I claim that people who realize that, can learn much from the Bible,
and to improve their understanding of moral & ethics, by getting a
historical perspective. If it's done with an honest desire to become a
better person, I don't see who can have a grudge against these people,
or the book they are using.
Sure you can learn a lot about morality by studying good and evil. But I
don't think you can learn very much by studying evil and thinking that it is
good.
.
|
|
|
| User: "melikamp" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
01 Jan 2004 07:57:40 PM |
|
|
Editor of EvilBible.com wrote:
"melikamp" <jplsp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
What kind of person would get their moral guidance from an ancient book
of
myths and magic that says it is OK to murder, rape, pillage, and
plunder?
A kind of person who understands that this ancient text was addressed to
audiences long gone, and should be evaluated as such. The developement
of moral & theological thought is not much different from that of the
scientific thought. If, today, someone would try to build the nuc'ular
power plant using nothing but Newton's physics, I would consider this
man a criminal; but does it make Newton a criminal, or his works - evil?
And, the crucial question is, did we have any chance of constructing our
quantum mechanics theory without Newton's physics in place?
Our knowledge and understanding of the physical universe clearly advances
with the passage of time. Every day new advances are made in the various
areas of science. I think nearly everyone agrees with that. But that has
absolutely nothing to do with morality. Why do you think that something
that is clearly wrong, such as intentionally killing babies without a good
reason, could be wrong one day and right the next? Do you think that 3000
years from now the Nazi holocaust will somehow be morally acceptable?
"something that is clearly wrong, such as intentionally killing babies
without a good reason" - that sounds like a claim made by a fundamentalist.
You will probably agree that when lion intentionally kills a baby, it's not
wrong. I will argue that when an ancient Jew, who lacks today's moral
standards, killed a baby, it was not as wrong then, as it would be today.
And for the former point, accumulation of scientific knowledge is not
different from the accumulation of moral knowledge. Advanced
concepts are built on the basic ones. You only think that killing babies
is wrong because you were raised up with such a value (perpetuated, at least
in part, by Christians!). I respect your value; I even share this particular
one; but I don't see how we can judge the civilizations long gone with our
current values.
Were humans 100'000 years ago wicked? I'm sure they fought and killed
each other on occasion, fighting for mates and habitat. How about
1'000'000 years ago? Shouldn't the same values apply? Thinking like that
I will have to assert that humans were *wicked* even when they lacked the
language to express any kind of moral concept, mere animals.
In Bible, just like in any sacred text, we have a history of our moral
growth. Your values, just like mine, just like anyone else's in US,
are based, in large, on the work of thousands of Jewish thinkers and
humanitarians.
Isn't the Bible supposed to be the word of God, or at least inspired by God?
If the Bible is just the work of men, then why do you feel the need to
defend the Old Testament baby killers? Why don't you just claim that they
were immoral men, or that they were pretty damn stupid?
See, I cannot claim they were immoral, I explained you why. Your moral
values from today should not be applied to them, because they didn't
have them around. I'm not defending Jews even (although I could), I defend
the usefulness of the Bible, its applicability for instruction even on
morals, when it's approached critically, and *not* as a source of
fundamental moral thruths.
To make this entirely clear, I reject a notion of a fundamental moral
truth, for the reasons stated above and below.
Don't you think I've heard this crap before? Whatever you don't like in the
Bible you attribute to the writing of men. Whatever you do like you
attribute to God.
I attribute the writing of the Bible to men only. Hehe, not even humans.
Men. I evaluate it as such.
There was never
a time when intentionally killing babies without a good reason was not
wrong. Apparently your religious beliefs has you so messed up that you
think that killing babies was a good thing at one time.
You are displaying a fundamental belief in wrongness of killing the babies.
You have nothing to back up your private opinion, exept a reasonable
explanation of *why* it is wrong; but then, I'll give you a reasonable
explanation of an ancient Jew, of why it is right. Me and you today think it
is wrong. Jews (and the world around them) thought it was OK. People change.
Morals change.
Mel
.
|
|
|
| User: "Editor of EvilBible.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
01 Jan 2004 10:02:22 PM |
|
|
"melikamp" <jplsp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:oe4Jb.254251$_M.1164259@attbi_s54...
Editor of EvilBible.com wrote:
"melikamp" <jplsp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
What kind of person would get their moral guidance from an ancient book
of
myths and magic that says it is OK to murder, rape, pillage, and
plunder?
A kind of person who understands that this ancient text was addressed to
audiences long gone, and should be evaluated as such. The developement
of moral & theological thought is not much different from that of the
scientific thought. If, today, someone would try to build the nuc'ular
power plant using nothing but Newton's physics, I would consider this
man a criminal; but does it make Newton a criminal, or his works - evil?
And, the crucial question is, did we have any chance of constructing our
quantum mechanics theory without Newton's physics in place?
Our knowledge and understanding of the physical universe clearly
advances
with the passage of time. Every day new advances are made in the
various
areas of science. I think nearly everyone agrees with that. But that
has
absolutely nothing to do with morality. Why do you think that something
that is clearly wrong, such as intentionally killing babies without a
good
reason, could be wrong one day and right the next? Do you think that
3000
years from now the Nazi holocaust will somehow be morally acceptable?
"something that is clearly wrong, such as intentionally killing babies
without a good reason" - that sounds like a claim made by a
fundamentalist.
Are you fucking nuts??? Apparently nothing is ever right or wrong to you.
If you can't see that killing babies without a good reason is evil then I
think the best place for you is a prison cell.
Please answer my question:
Do you think that 3000 years from now the Nazi holocaust will somehow be
morally acceptable?
You will probably agree that when lion intentionally kills a baby, it's
not
wrong. I will argue that when an ancient Jew, who lacks today's moral
standards, killed a baby, it was not as wrong then, as it would be today.
The lion who kills a baby is trying to survive by eating it. The father of
the baby who shoots the lion is also trying to survive. They both have a
reason for killing. It's not that they lacked a sense of right and wrong as
both the lion and the father are trying to survive. Self survival is part
of their morality.
If the Israelites killed babies for no good reason than they are evil. If
they lacked a moral standard that prohibited killing babies then they are
nothing more than a gang of amoral killers.
And for the former point, accumulation of scientific knowledge is not
different from the accumulation of moral knowledge. Advanced
concepts are built on the basic ones. You only think that killing babies
is wrong because you were raised up with such a value (perpetuated, at
least
in part, by Christians!). I respect your value; I even share this
particular
one; but I don't see how we can judge the civilizations long gone with our
current values.
So if Christians raised you up to believe that killing babies for no good
reason was perfectly acceptable you would see nothing wrong with that???
Are you really that stupid? If your parents taught you that dropping
children off of tall buildings just to watch them die was a good thing would
you being doing this today? How sick are you?
The truth of the matter is that your sense of right and wrong is obtained
only partially from your upbringing. Most of us have a conscience that is
independent of our upbringing.
Were humans 100'000 years ago wicked?
I'm sure some were.
I'm sure they fought and killed
each other on occasion, fighting for mates and habitat. How about
1'000'000 years ago? Shouldn't the same values apply?
If they killed without a good reason then they were evil.
Thinking like that
I will have to assert that humans were *wicked* even when they lacked the
language to express any kind of moral concept, mere animals.
*Some* humans were wicked. Not all of them. Most were probably very nice.
In Bible, just like in any sacred text, we have a history of our moral
growth. Your values, just like mine, just like anyone else's in US,
are based, in large, on the work of thousands of Jewish thinkers and
humanitarians.
Isn't the Bible supposed to be the word of God, or at least inspired by
God?
If the Bible is just the work of men, then why do you feel the need to
defend the Old Testament baby killers? Why don't you just claim that
they
were immoral men, or that they were pretty damn stupid?
See, I cannot claim they were immoral, I explained you why. Your moral
values from today should not be applied to them, because they didn't
have them around.
What a bunch of crap! Moses and the Ten Commandments said "thou shall not
kill". The biblical baby killers happened after this. Clearly they had a
written moral code that said not to kill babies. Even Exodus 1:17 tells of
God fearing people who did not kill babies because they feared God's wrath.
I'm not defending Jews even (although I could), I defend
the usefulness of the Bible, its applicability for instruction even on
morals, when it's approached critically, and *not* as a source of
fundamental moral thruths.
We all know by now that you simply discard most of the Bible and assert that
your subjective opinion is God's word.
To make this entirely clear, I reject a notion of a fundamental moral
truth, for the reasons stated above and below.
You also reject all morality.
Don't you think I've heard this crap before? Whatever you don't like in
the
Bible you attribute to the writing of men. Whatever you do like you
attribute to God.
I attribute the writing of the Bible to men only. Hehe, not even humans.
Men. I evaluate it as such.
Then we agree that the Bible is only a book of fiction.
There was never
a time when intentionally killing babies without a good reason was not
wrong. Apparently your religious beliefs has you so messed up that you
think that killing babies was a good thing at one time.
You are displaying a fundamental belief in wrongness of killing the
babies.
Damn right! I thought that most everyone thought that killing babies for no
good reason was immoral. I guess you are the only ***** who thinks
otherwise.
You have nothing to back up your private opinion, exept a reasonable
explanation of *why* it is wrong;
What were you expecting, an unreasonable explanation? You seem to have a
monopoly on that.
but then, I'll give you a reasonable
explanation of an ancient Jew, of why it is right.
Me and you today think it
is wrong. Jews (and the world around them) thought it was OK. People
change.
Morals change.
That has got to be the most unreasonable explanation ever. Especially since
murder was one of the Ten Commandments. So first it was wrong and then it
wasn't and then it was??? Sounds like anything goes to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "melikamp" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
02 Jan 2004 12:11:41 AM |
|
|
Editor of EvilBible.com wrote:
"melikamp" <jplsp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
"something that is clearly wrong, such as intentionally killing babies
without a good reason" - that sounds like a claim made by a
fundamentalist.
Are you fucking nuts??? Apparently nothing is ever right or wrong to you.
If you can't see that killing babies without a good reason is evil then I
think the best place for you is a prison cell.
Yes. According to you, and to many people with fundamental
beliefs, I'm just that nuts. Some things are right to me, some
are wrong, but I do not wish to extend my beliefs on others,
nor to evaluate them using my moral standards. Why? Because
I don't believe in universals.
And if you want to discuss the ontological status of universals,
be warned, I can be a real hard-***** about it :P
Please answer my question:
Do you think that 3000 years from now the Nazi holocaust will somehow be
morally acceptable?
I cannot see that far into the future, but I know that it is so today,
and to an easily identifiable group of people too.
<snip snip>
At this point, I wish to retreat from this topic. Please do not
percieve it as a sign of disrespect. I simply cannot see how can we agree
on anything, having such a gap between our ontological standpoints.
Till the next quote!
Mel
.
|
|
|
| User: "Editor of EvilBible.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
02 Jan 2004 01:00:55 AM |
|
|
"melikamp" <jplsp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:xY7Jb.727425$Fm2.629926@attbi_s04...
Editor of EvilBible.com wrote:
"melikamp" <jplsp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
"something that is clearly wrong, such as intentionally killing babies
without a good reason" - that sounds like a claim made by a
fundamentalist.
Are you fucking nuts??? Apparently nothing is ever right or wrong to
you.
If you can't see that killing babies without a good reason is evil then
I
think the best place for you is a prison cell.
Yes. According to you, and to many people with fundamental
beliefs, I'm just that nuts. Some things are right to me, some
are wrong, but I do not wish to extend my beliefs on others,
nor to evaluate them using my moral standards. Why? Because
I don't believe in universals.
So if someone broke into your house and stabbed you in bed and left you for
dead while he raped your 4 your old boy and your dog, you would not extend
your moral beliefs to him? I find that impossible to believe.
And if you want to discuss the ontological status of universals,
be warned, I can be a real hard-***** about it :P
So you're a hard-***** baby killer, one of those really crazy Christians.
Please answer my question:
Do you think that 3000 years from now the Nazi holocaust will somehow be
morally acceptable?
I cannot see that far into the future, but I know that it is so today,
and to an easily identifiable group of people too.
I guess I should have said "could" instead of "will". But I already know
your answer. You are a moral relativist. That is you have no morals at
all. Nazis are just fine to moral relativists.
At this point, I wish to retreat from this topic. Please do not
percieve it as a sign of disrespect. I simply cannot see how can we agree
on anything, having such a gap between our ontological standpoints.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hypatia Kosh" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
02 Jan 2004 06:01:07 PM |
|
|
melikamp <jplsp@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<xY7Jb.727425$Fm2.629926@attbi_s04>...
Editor of EvilBible.com wrote:
"melikamp" <jplsp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
"something that is clearly wrong, such as intentionally killing babies
without a good reason" - that sounds like a claim made by a
fundamentalist.
Are you fucking nuts??? Apparently nothing is ever right or wrong to you.
If you can't see that killing babies without a good reason is evil then I
think the best place for you is a prison cell.
Yes. According to you, and to many people with fundamental
beliefs, I'm just that nuts. Some things are right to me, some
are wrong, but I do not wish to extend my beliefs on others,
nor to evaluate them using my moral standards. Why? Because
I don't believe in universals.
So if my moral code said that I should kill you now, that would be
perfectly okay because you don't believe in extending your beliefs to
others?
Incroyable.
-Hypatia Kosh
--
I fink therefore I can.
Free BSD!
.
|
|
|
| User: "melikamp" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
02 Jan 2004 06:37:47 PM |
|
|
Hypatia Kosh wrote:
melikamp <jplsp@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<xY7Jb.727425$Fm2.629926@attbi_s04>...
Editor of EvilBible.com wrote:
Are you fucking nuts??? Apparently nothing is ever right or wrong to you.
If you can't see that killing babies without a good reason is evil then I
think the best place for you is a prison cell.
Yes. According to you, and to many people with fundamental
beliefs, I'm just that nuts. Some things are right to me, some
are wrong, but I do not wish to extend my beliefs on others,
nor to evaluate them using my moral standards. Why? Because
I don't believe in universals.
So if my moral code said that I should kill you now, that would be
perfectly okay because you don't believe in extending your beliefs to
others?
If you were honestly acting on what you believed, I would not say
that you are any more "evil" than the chain saw you used to slice me up.
While OK in a moral sense, it would not be OK in a social sense.
I am for propagating a moral standard that benefits the society as a whole,
and I find it very unlikely that your personal stnadard, as discribed,
would fit the humanity as it is today, in 2004.
Mel
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
01 Jan 2004 09:34:01 PM |
|
|
melikamp wrote:
And for the former point, accumulation of scientific
knowledge is not different from the accumulation of moral
knowledge. Advanced concepts are built on the basic
ones. You only think that killing babies is wrong because you
were raised up with such a value (perpetuated, at least
in part, by Christians!).
The christian religion had nothing to do with it. In every
society operating above a subsistence level the killing of
babies is wrong. Even in China where is it practiced
regularly, it is considered wrong.
Were humans 100'000 years ago wicked?
We are not talking about humans 100,000 years ago. Go back a
little over 200 years ago and they, those moral christians,
were burning people, alive, at the stake because they were
*accused* of being a witch. That's not considered moral today?
See, I cannot claim they were immoral, I explained you
why. Your moral values from today should not be applied
to them, because they didn't have them around.
Then what is the difference? The bible stayed the same but
the morals changed. Why is it immoral to burn live people
today, but it was a moral duty not long ago?
I defend the
usefulness of the Bible, its applicability for
instruction even on morals, when it's approached
critically, and *not* as a source of fundamental moral
thruths.
Then it is a useless book. Any moral lesson in there can be
gotten from modern sources.
To make this entirely clear, I reject a notion of a
fundamental moral truth..
That's what the bible is used for; a source of fundamental
moral truths. The problem is that the bible doesn't contain
any moral truths.
--
David V.
Yosemite Llama Ranch
UDP for WebTV
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. DuFonet" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
01 Jan 2004 10:42:59 PM |
|
|
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:096dnZlJFZIxe2miRVn-vw@sti.net...
melikamp wrote:
And for the former point, accumulation of scientific
knowledge is not different from the accumulation of moral
knowledge. Advanced concepts are built on the basic
ones. You only think that killing babies is wrong because you
were raised up with such a value (perpetuated, at least
in part, by Christians!).
The christian religion had nothing to do with it. In every
society operating above a subsistence level the killing of
babies is wrong. Even in China where is it practiced
regularly, it is considered wrong.
Were humans 100'000 years ago wicked?
We are not talking about humans 100,000 years ago. Go back a
little over 200 years ago and they, those moral christians,
were burning people, alive, at the stake because they were
*accused* of being a witch. That's not considered moral today?
See, I cannot claim they were immoral, I explained you
why. Your moral values from today should not be applied
to them, because they didn't have them around.
Then what is the difference? The bible stayed the same but
the morals changed. Why is it immoral to burn live people
today, but it was a moral duty not long ago?
I defend the
usefulness of the Bible, its applicability for
instruction even on morals, when it's approached
critically, and *not* as a source of fundamental moral
thruths.
Then it is a useless book. Any moral lesson in there can be
gotten from modern sources.
To make this entirely clear, I reject a notion of a
fundamental moral truth..
That's what the bible is used for; a source of fundamental
moral truths. The problem is that the bible doesn't contain
any moral truths.
--
David V.
Yosemite Llama Ranch
UDP for WebTV
It gets into the concept of war. The Americans in Vietnam napalmed
civilians. The soldiers weren't authorized to stop and think about it. The
Chinese army killed a lot of people in Tien An Men Square. DId we arrest the
soldiers that killeed the Vietnam civilians/ Did the Chinese arrest the
soldiers that killed the protesters? The ancient Jews killed babies of the
other peoples, and wrote about it. The peoples who fought them might have
done the same to their babies and didn't write in a language that we now can
translate. When the editor of th Evil Bible asks what kind of people get
their moral guidance from it, he is asking an inflammatory rhetorical
question, since no one does, and even the people who wrote that stuff might
not have read it and then said, "Let's go out and rape pillage and plunder!"
He is in a way creating a straw-man argument. The soldiers in viet Nam
didn't read the bible and then decide to napalm somebody. They were under
stress and feared for their own lives. Do you think the ancient Jews should
have set up orphanages in tents?
--
Freedom of thought entails no "Intellectual Property".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Editor of EvilBible.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
01 Jan 2004 11:59:26 PM |
|
|
"Dr. DuFonet" <accordiondoc@mindsproing.cop> wrote in message
news:nF6Jb.30101$Pg1.19394@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:096dnZlJFZIxe2miRVn-vw@sti.net...
melikamp wrote:
And for the former point, accumulation of scientific
knowledge is not different from the accumulation of moral
knowledge. Advanced concepts are built on the basic
ones. You only think that killing babies is wrong because you
were raised up with such a value (perpetuated, at least
in part, by Christians!).
The christian religion had nothing to do with it. In every
society operating above a subsistence level the killing of
babies is wrong. Even in China where is it practiced
regularly, it is considered wrong.
Were humans 100'000 years ago wicked?
We are not talking about humans 100,000 years ago. Go back a
little over 200 years ago and they, those moral christians,
were burning people, alive, at the stake because they were
*accused* of being a witch. That's not considered moral today?
See, I cannot claim they were immoral, I explained you
why. Your moral values from today should not be applied
to them, because they didn't have them around.
Then what is the difference? The bible stayed the same but
the morals changed. Why is it immoral to burn live people
today, but it was a moral duty not long ago?
I defend the
usefulness of the Bible, its applicability for
instruction even on morals, when it's approached
critically, and *not* as a source of fundamental moral
thruths.
Then it is a useless book. Any moral lesson in there can be
gotten from modern sources.
To make this entirely clear, I reject a notion of a
fundamental moral truth..
That's what the bible is used for; a source of fundamental
moral truths. The problem is that the bible doesn't contain
any moral truths.
It gets into the concept of war. The Americans in Vietnam napalmed
civilians. The soldiers weren't authorized to stop and think about it. The
Chinese army killed a lot of people in Tien An Men Square. DId we arrest
the
soldiers that killeed the Vietnam civilians/ Did the Chinese arrest the
soldiers that killed the protesters?
None of your examples describe an intentional killing of babies. They are
irrelevant.
The ancient Jews killed babies of the
other peoples, and wrote about it. The peoples who fought them might have
done the same to their babies and didn't write in a language that we now
can
translate.
Totally unsupported speculation is useless here.
When the editor of th Evil Bible asks what kind of people get
their moral guidance from it, he is asking an inflammatory rhetorical
question, since no one does,
Plenty of people get their moral guidance from the Bible, and the Bible does
have passages that approve of murder, rape, pillage and plunder.
and even the people who wrote that stuff might
not have read it and then said, "Let's go out and rape pillage and
plunder!"
The Bible commands murder, pillage, and plunder. It doesn't command rape,
but it allows it.
He is in a way creating a straw-man argument.
How's that?
The soldiers in viet Nam
didn't read the bible and then decide to napalm somebody. They were under
stress and feared for their own lives.
No one here is claiming that the Vietnam war was a religious war.
Do you think the ancient Jews should have set up orphanages in tents?
Absolutely! It beats the hell out of murdering babies for no good reason.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. DuFonet" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
13 Jan 2004 08:53:35 PM |
|
|
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message
news:2N7Jb.1958$uF6.639020@news1.news.adelphia.net...
"Dr. DuFonet" <accordiondoc@mindsproing.cop> wrote in message
news:nF6Jb.30101$Pg1.19394@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:096dnZlJFZIxe2miRVn-vw@sti.net...
melikamp wrote:
To make this entirely clear, I reject a notion of a
fundamental moral truth..
That's what the bible is used for; a source of fundamental
moral truths. The problem is that the bible doesn't contain
any moral truths.
Of course if there are no moral truths it can't contain any. But if
wrongness of baby-killing is universal, as you have stated, then the Bible
is not teaching baby-killing as a moral truth, since such a teaching would
be laughed at, just as you are trying to hold it up to ridicule as a
so-called false moral truth, an oxymoron.
It gets into the concept of war. The Americans in Vietnam napalmed
civilians. The soldiers weren't authorized to stop and think about it.
The
Chinese army killed a lot of people in Tien An Men Square. DId we arrest
the
soldiers that killeed the Vietnam civilians/ Did the Chinese arrest the
soldiers that killed the protesters?
None of your examples describe an intentional killing of babies. They are
irrelevant.
they are not irrevelant, since babies have no greater right to live than any
innocent civilian, or are you putting babies in a special class, since you
stated that it is universally recognized as wrong. it's also unversally
recognized as wrong to kill non-combatants by the people who do it, unless
they happen to be pathologically sadistic.
The ancient Jews killed babies of the
other peoples, and wrote about it. The peoples who fought them might
have
done the same to their babies and didn't write in a language that we now
can
translate.
Totally unsupported speculation is useless here.
When the editor of th Evil Bible asks what kind of people get
their moral guidance from it, he is asking an inflammatory rhetorical
question, since no one does,
Plenty of people get their moral guidance from the Bible, and the Bible
does
have passages that approve of murder, rape, pillage and plunder.
They get their moral justification form parts of the bible that have nothing
to do with killing babies, at least on the surface meaning. They don't get
their moral guidance from the raping and pillaging part.
and even the people who wrote that stuff might
not have read it and then said, "Let's go out and rape pillage and
plunder!"
The Bible commands murder, pillage, and plunder. It doesn't command rape,
but it allows it.
The bible doesn't command it, it simply explains that it was done as a
socrched earth policy, by certain people who were then blessed. It does not
even say the blessing was a direct result of the means to the end of
victory. In other words it does not imply that the means were themselves
blessed. It could and is easily argued that the bible prescribes penance or
even a curse upon the victors due to their methods.
He is in a way creating a straw-man argument.
How's that?
by saying that the Bible advocates killing and then saying that that is a
sort of moral guidance by asking rhetorically who usues that guidance. the
implication being that believers in the bible do.
The soldiers in viet Nam
didn't read the bible and then decide to napalm somebody. They were
under
stress and feared for their own lives.
No one here is claiming that the Vietnam war was a religious war.
But it was, you know.
Do you think the ancient Jews should have set up orphanages in tents?
Absolutely! It beats the hell out of murdering babies for no good reason.
Well, I'm sorry you weren't there.
--
Freedom of thought entails no "Intellectual Property".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Editor of EvilBible.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
14 Jan 2004 01:41:28 AM |
|
|
"Dr. DuFonet" <accordiondoc@mindsproing.cop> wrote in message
news:Pa2Nb.8583$zj7.3838@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message
news:2N7Jb.1958$uF6.639020@news1.news.adelphia.net...
"Dr. DuFonet" <accordiondoc@mindsproing.cop> wrote in message
news:nF6Jb.30101$Pg1.19394@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
It gets into the concept of war. The Americans in Vietnam napalmed
civilians. The soldiers weren't authorized to stop and think about it.
The
Chinese army killed a lot of people in Tien An Men Square. DId we
arrest
the
soldiers that killeed the Vietnam civilians/ Did the Chinese arrest
the
soldiers that killed the protesters?
None of your examples describe an intentional killing of babies. They
are
irrelevant.
they are not irrevelant, since babies have no greater right to live than
any
innocent civilian, or are you putting babies in a special class, since you
stated that it is universally recognized as wrong. it's also unversally
recognized as wrong to kill non-combatants by the people who do it, unless
they happen to be pathologically sadistic.
Firstly, I was using an example of something that is *clearly* wrong. I
said: "Why do you think that something that is clearly wrong, such as
intentionally killing babies without a good reason..." Your examples may or
may not be wrong but they are irrelevant because they do not describe a
situation that is *clearly* wrong.
Secondly, I did not say that this was *universally* recognized as wrong.
This would mean that everyone in the universe recognizes it as wrong. It is
accepted as wrong by a vast majority of the people of the world, but not
all.
Thirdly, you seemed to have dropped "intentionally" and "without a good
reason" from your paraphrase of what I have said. This drastically changes
the meaning. Then you extrapolate from that. It seems that you are
starting to twist my words around.
The ancient Jews killed babies of the
other peoples, and wrote about it. The peoples who fought them might
have
done the same to their babies and didn't write in a language that we
now
can
translate.
Totally unsupported speculation is useless here.
When the editor of th Evil Bible asks what kind of people get
their moral guidance from it, he is asking an inflammatory rhetorical
question, since no one does,
Plenty of people get their moral guidance from the Bible, and the Bible
does
have passages that approve of murder, rape, pillage and plunder.
They get their moral justification form parts of the bible that have
nothing
to do with killing babies, at least on the surface meaning. They don't get
their moral guidance from the raping and pillaging part.
Some people do get their moral guidance from the raping and pillaging part.
The people that kidnapped (and probably raped) Elizabeth Smart is one
example. There was also a case of a mountain man and his son who kidnapped
a women to take as a wife because of what is written in the Bible. The
Salem witch hunters were getting their moral guidance from the Bible. So
were the crusaders.
and even the people who wrote that stuff might
not have read it and then said, "Let's go out and rape pillage and
plunder!"
The Bible commands murder, pillage, and plunder. It doesn't command
rape,
but it allows it.
The bible doesn't command it, it simply explains that it was done as a
socrched earth policy, by certain people who were then blessed. It does
not
even say the blessing was a direct result of the means to the end of
victory. In other words it does not imply that the means were themselves
blessed. It could and is easily argued that the bible prescribes penance
or
even a curse upon the victors due to their methods.
I see you have never read the whole Bible. Here are some examples:
------
"They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they
killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings - Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur,
and Reba - died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the
sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children
and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They
burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After
they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they
brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community
of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River,
across from Jericho.
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to
meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military
commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the
women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's
advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount
Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people.
Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the
young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."
(Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)
-------
"Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that
some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by
encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine
the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a
detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and
completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then
you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put
the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That
town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the
plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn
from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on
you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your
ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and
keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him."
(Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
-----
He is in a way creating a straw-man argument.
How's that?
by saying that the Bible advocates killing and then saying that that is a
sort of moral guidance by asking rhetorically who usues that guidance. the
implication being that believers in the bible do.
But the Bible does command and advocate killing. It can't be a strawman
argument if it's true.
Beside that, a strawman argument requires making a false argument *and
attributing that to your opponent* and then proving that false. You need to
study logic some more.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. DuFonet" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
14 Jan 2004 06:07:27 AM |
|
|
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message
news:Io6Nb.680$iD6.327614@news1.news.adelphia.net...
"Dr. DuFonet" <accordiondoc@mindsproing.cop> wrote in message
news:Pa2Nb.8583$zj7.3838@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message
news:2N7Jb.1958$uF6.639020@news1.news.adelphia.net...
"Dr. DuFonet" <accordiondoc@mindsproing.cop> wrote in message
news:nF6Jb.30101$Pg1.19394@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
It gets into the concept of war. The Americans in Vietnam napalmed
civilians. The soldiers weren't authorized to stop and think about
it.
The
Chinese army killed a lot of people in Tien An Men Square. DId we
arrest
the
soldiers that killeed the Vietnam civilians/ Did the Chinese arrest
the
soldiers that killed the protesters?
None of your examples describe an intentional killing of babies. They
are
irrelevant.
they are not irrevelant, since babies have no greater right to live than
any
innocent civilian, or are you putting babies in a special class, since
you
stated that it is universally recognized as wrong. it's also unversally
recognized as wrong to kill non-combatants by the people who do it,
unless
they happen to be pathologically sadistic.
Firstly, I was using an example of something that is *clearly* wrong. I
said: "Why do you think that something that is clearly wrong, such as
intentionally killing babies without a good reason..." Your examples may
or
may not be wrong but they are irrelevant because they do not describe a
situation that is *clearly* wrong.
Secondly, I did not say that this was *universally* recognized as wrong.
This would mean that everyone in the universe recognizes it as wrong. It
is
accepted as wrong by a vast majority of the people of the world, but not
all.
Thirdly, you seemed to have dropped "intentionally" and "without a good
reason" from your paraphrase of what I have said. This drastically
changes
the meaning. Then you extrapolate from that. It seems that you are
starting to twist my words around.
The ancient Jews killed babies of the
other peoples, and wrote about it. The peoples who fought them
might
have
done the same to their babies and didn't write in a language that we
now
can
translate.
Totally unsupported speculation is useless here.
When the editor of th Evil Bible asks what kind of people get
their moral guidance from it, he is asking an inflammatory
rhetorical
question, since no one does,
Plenty of people get their moral guidance from the Bible, and the
Bible
does
have passages that approve of murder, rape, pillage and plunder.
They get their moral justification form parts of the bible that have
nothing
to do with killing babies, at least on the surface meaning. They don't
get
their moral guidance from the raping and pillaging part.
Some people do get their moral guidance from the raping and pillaging
part.
The people that kidnapped (and probably raped) Elizabeth Smart is one
example. There was also a case of a mountain man and his son who
kidnapped
a women to take as a wife because of what is written in the Bible. The
Salem witch hunters were getting their moral guidance from the Bible. So
were the crusaders.
and even the people who wrote that stuff might
not have read it and then said, "Let's go out and rape pillage and
plunder!"
The Bible commands murder, pillage, and plunder. It doesn't command
rape,
but it allows it.
The bible doesn't command it, it simply explains that it was done as a
socrched earth policy, by certain people who were then blessed. It does
not
even say the blessing was a direct result of the means to the end of
victory. In other words it does not imply that the means were themselves
blessed. It could and is easily argued that the bible prescribes penance
or
even a curse upon the victors due to their methods.
I see you have never read the whole Bible. Here are some examples:
------
"They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they
killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings - Evi, Rekem, Zur,
Hur,
and Reba - died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with
the
sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children
and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They
burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After
they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they
brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole
community
of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River,
across from Jericho.
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to
meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military
commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the
women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's
advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount
Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's
people.
Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only
the
young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."
(Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)
-------
"Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that
some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by
encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine
the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a
detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and
completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock.
Then
you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it.
Put
the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God.
That
town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of
the
plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn
from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on
you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your
ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and
keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to
him."
(Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
-----
He is in a way creating a straw-man argument.
How's that?
by saying that the Bible advocates killing and then saying that that is
a
sort of moral guidance by asking rhetorically who usues that guidance.
the
implication being that believers in the bible do.
But the Bible does command and advocate killing. It can't be a strawman
argument if it's true.
Beside that, a strawman argument requires making a false argument *and
attributing that to your opponent* and then proving that false. You need
to
study logic some more.
If I were to study logic, I would have to logically see a reason to do so.
In which case I already have all the logic I need. Any extra logic would be
superfluous. but back to our subject; Now Christians will say that David
was not allowed to build the temple because of his sin. His sin was not only
adultery but war. The bible also says he who lives by the sword will die by
the sword. Reminds me of the Bob Dylan song, "I was so much older then; I'm
younger than that now."
--
Freedom of thought entails no "Intellectual Property".
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
14 Jan 2004 11:24:36 AM |
|
|
Dr. DuFonet wrote:
If I were to study logic, I would have to logically see a
reason to do so.
Uh.... to learn how to make logical arguments.
In which case I already have all the logic I need. Any
extra logic would be superfluous.
Obviously, you're lacking in the logic department.
but back to our subject; Now Christians will say that
David was not allowed to build the temple because of his
sin.
Logic would tell you that christians can say whatever they
want, but just saying it won't make it true. This David of
the bible, is only a myth. So, if you're talking about him
as a myth, then continue, but if you're talking about him as
a real person and all that is claimed that he did is real,
then you need to prove all that.
His sin was not only adultery but war.
That's a strange sin coming from a book full of adultery and
war.
The bible also says he who lives by the sword will die by
the sword.
So.
--
David V.
Yosemite Llama Ranch
UDP for WebTV
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. DuFonet" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
14 Jan 2004 08:58:22 PM |
|
|
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kaCdnbQN8v3L5pjd4p2dnA@sti.net...
Dr. DuFonet wrote:
If I were to study logic, I would have to logically see a
reason to do so.
Uh.... to learn how to make logical arguments.
It wasn't a question. It was a statement.
In which case I already have all the logic I need. Any
extra logic would be superfluous.
Obviously, you're lacking in the logic department.
Be that as it may, it should not disqualify me from posting in alt.atheism
but back to our subject; Now Christians will say that
David was not allowed to build the temple because of his
sin.
Logic would tell you that christians can say whatever they
want, but just saying it won't make it true. This David of
the bible, is only a myth. So, if you're talking about him
as a myth, then continue, but if you're talking about him as
a real person and all that is claimed that he did is real,
then you need to prove all that.
I'm talking about him as a character which has no objective reality like
anything else here in cyberspace, it's about you, and about your perception.
His sin was not only adultery but war.
That's a strange sin coming from a book full of adultery and
war.
Exactly my point. Just because it's a chronicle of sin doesn't necessarily
mean it advocates sin. I could read the U.S. Constitution as a
justification for slavery, but now slavery has been abolished by amend ment.
but if I ignore the amendment I am in the early 19th century legally, in my
mind.
The bible also says he who lives by the sword will die by
the sword.
So.
So that most Christians claim that all that hooliganism was really not
sanctioned by the bible.
--
Freedom of thought entails no "Intellectual Property".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Editor of EvilBible.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
14 Jan 2004 10:42:45 PM |
|
|
"Dr. DuFonet" <accordiondoc@mindsproing.cop> wrote in message
news:ilnNb.9137$1e.5063@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kaCdnbQN8v3L5pjd4p2dnA@sti.net...
That's a strange sin coming from a book full of adultery and
war.
Exactly my point. Just because it's a chronicle of sin doesn't necessarily
mean it advocates sin. I could read the U.S. Constitution as a
justification for slavery, but now slavery has been abolished by amend
ment.
but if I ignore the amendment I am in the early 19th century legally, in
my
mind.
The Bible clearly advocates these evil things. It is not just a history
book. The US constitution clearly allowed slavery in many states prior to
the 19th amendment. Then it was changed. It's the same with the Bible. It
is absurd to say that the US constitution did not condone slavery, and it is
equally absurd to say that the Bible did not condone evil acts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. DuFonet" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
15 Jan 2004 10:16:20 AM |
|
|
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message
news:9ToNb.337$Fp1.112878@news1.news.adelphia.net...
"Dr. DuFonet" <accordiondoc@mindsproing.cop> wrote in message
news:ilnNb.9137$1e.5063@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kaCdnbQN8v3L5pjd4p2dnA@sti.net...
That's a strange sin coming from a book full of adultery and
war.
Exactly my point. Just because it's a chronicle of sin doesn't
necessarily
mean it advocates sin. I could read the U.S. Constitution as a
justification for slavery, but now slavery has been abolished by amend
ment.
but if I ignore the amendment I am in the early 19th century legally, in
my
mind.
The Bible clearly advocates these evil things. It is not just a history
book. The US constitution clearly allowed slavery in many states prior to
the 19th amendment. Then it was changed. It's the same with the Bible.
It
is absurd to say that the US constitution did not condone slavery, and it
is
equally absurd to say that the Bible did not condone evil acts.
Uh-huh. The bible is ambiguous. And the New testament is supposed to change
everything a la amending it. The New testament is the Bill of Rights and the
Book of Revelation is the subsequent amendments. What the bible advocates
depends on who is willing or eager to take certain actions and justify them
on religious grounds. Same is now being said about Islam. Just because
somewhere in the Koran it says to kill unbelievers, (if it does) doesn't
necessarily mean that most Moslems believe Jihad is to do that. So while I
enjoy your Bible class here, doesn't mean that I will blame the bible for
all the sorts of ills described in it, any more than I would blame Sigmund
Freud for the types of hysteria and mental derangements he described. The
bible teaches not only sin but a remedy for sin. If you believe in it, it
can work for you at least temporarily until reality sets in. It means
different things to different people, and works extremely well for those
whose economic existence is facilitated by it. That's not much different
from capitalism, the court system, public education, the timber industry,
accordion repair, or the military industrial complex.
--
Freedom of thought entails no "Intellectual Property".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Editor of EvilBible.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
15 Jan 2004 12:05:57 PM |
|
|
"Dr. DuFonet" <accordiondoc@mindsproing.cop> wrote in message
news:o1zNb.10182$1e.9418@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message
news:9ToNb.337$Fp1.112878@news1.news.adelphia.net...
"Dr. DuFonet" <accordiondoc@mindsproing.cop> wrote in message
news:ilnNb.9137$1e.5063@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kaCdnbQN8v3L5pjd4p2dnA@sti.net...
That's a strange sin coming from a book full of adultery and
war.
Exactly my point. Just because it's a chronicle of sin doesn't
necessarily
mean it advocates sin. I could read the U.S. Constitution as a
justification for slavery, but now slavery has been abolished by amend
ment.
but if I ignore the amendment I am in the early 19th century legally,
in
my
mind.
The Bible clearly advocates these evil things. It is not just a history
book. The US constitution clearly allowed slavery in many states prior
to
the 19th amendment. Then it was changed. It's the same with the Bible.
It
is absurd to say that the US constitution did not condone slavery, and
it
is
equally absurd to say that the Bible did not condone evil acts.
Uh-huh. The bible is ambiguous. And the New testament is supposed to
change
everything a la amending it. The New testament is the Bill of Rights and
the
Book of Revelation is the subsequent amendments. What the bible advocates
depends on who is willing or eager to take certain actions and justify
them
on religious grounds.
The Bible changes from the early parts to the older parts. That doesn't
mean it is ambiguous, it means that it changes. If it were ambiguous there
would contradictory statements in the same era (which there are). It is
absurd to call changes in time ambiguous. The US constitution changed over
time regarding slavery. That doesn't mean it was ambiguous, that means it
was changed. Saying that the US constitution is ambiguous regarding slavery
is absurd. Saying the Bible is ambiguous about the evil commands in the OT
because they were changed by Paul in the NT is absurd. These commands were
there in the OT and Paul says to ignore them in the NT. There is nothing
ambiguous about that.
Same is now being said about Islam. Just because
somewhere in the Koran it says to kill unbelievers, (if it does) doesn't
necessarily mean that most Moslems believe Jihad is to do that. So while
I
enjoy your Bible class here, doesn't mean that I will blame the bible for
all the sorts of ills described in it, any more than I would blame Sigmund
Freud for the types of hysteria and mental derangements he described.
The OT is not describing atrocities, ***it commands them***!!!! Read it
some time. Or at least read the quotes I post.
The bible teaches not only sin but a remedy for sin.
The Bible teaches that not believing in God is the greatest sin. The remedy
for this "sin" is to kill the sinner.
If you believe in it, it
can work for you at least temporarily until reality sets in. It means
different things to different people, and works extremely well for those
whose economic existence is facilitated by it. That's not much different
from capitalism, the court system, public education, the timber industry,
accordion repair, or the military industrial complex.
And promoting suicide bombings is good for the economic existence of the
bomb makers. That doesn't mean that it's good.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
15 Jan 2004 11:19:44 AM |
|
|
Dr. DuFonet wrote:
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote
The Bible clearly advocates these evil things. It is
not just a history book. The US constitution clearly
allowed slavery in many states prior to the 19th
amendment. Then it was changed. It's the same with
the Bible. It is absurd to say that the US constitution
did not condone slavery, and it is equally absurd to
say that the Bible did not condone evil acts.
Uh-huh. The bible is ambiguous. And the New testament is
supposed to change everything a la amending it..;..
Uh.... the bible is not ambiguous on slavery. It encourages
the capture of virgin females to take on as slaves. Nowhere
does it say anything against slavery or the ownership of
people and their offspring. Even the NT tells you how to
treat slaves. It's time to throw that book out and start
using something that has more relevance to todays society.
--
David V.
Yosemite Llama Ranch
UDP for WebTV
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
14 Jan 2004 11:46:47 PM |
|
|
Dr. DuFonet wrote:
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote
Dr. DuFonet wrote:
If I were to study logic, I would have to logically
see a reason to do so.
Uh.... to learn how to make logical arguments.
It wasn't a question. It was a statement.
You still need to study logic.
In which case I already have all the logic I need.
Any extra logic would be superfluous.
Obviously, you're lacking in the logic department.
Be that as it may, it should not disqualify me from
posting in alt.atheism
It should, after all it is alt.atheism, not
alt.godlovesyoubutwillpunishyourfornotkissingitsass.
but back to our subject; Now Christians will say that
David was not allowed to build the temple because of
his sin.
Logic would tell you that christians can say whatever
they want, but just saying it won't make it true. This
David of the bible, is only a myth. So, if you're
talking about him as a myth, then continue, but if
you're talking about him as a real person and all that
is claimed that he did is real, then you need to prove
all that.
I'm talking about him as a character which has no
objective reality like anything else here in cyberspace,
it's about you, and about your perception.
It's about people actually believing that the bible actually
contains something that's true.
His sin was not only adultery but war.
That's a strange sin coming from a book full of
adultery and war.
Exactly my point. Just because it's a chronicle of sin
doesn't necessarily mean it advocates sin.
But it does.
I could read the U.S. Constitution as a justification
for slavery...
But the US Constitution doesn't tell one how to treat, or
capture, slaves.
The bible also says he who lives by the sword will
die by the sword.
So.
So that most Christians claim that all that hooliganism
was really not sanctioned by the bible.
They make lots of false claims. That's what christians do.
--
David V.
Yosemite Llama Ranch
UDP for WebTV
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Walton" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
15 Jan 2004 01:44:19 PM |
|
|
This is what you call evil:
The case against Scott Peterson was delivered by God, to prove that
any moron who accuses this man of murder, is the scum of the earth.
To accuse Scott Peterson of murder, one would have to believe that
this young man, who produced a receipt to prove he had launched a boat
that nobody had ever heard of before, deliberately set himself up to
create suspicion. Murderers make excuses, they do not produce
preposterous alibis, and the suggestion that Scott Peterson used a
boat that nobody had ever heard of to dump his wife in the Bay is
ultimately preposterous because under the circumstances, the "secret"
is not Laci's lifeless body --the "secret" is the boat that nobody had
ever heard of, and Scott Peterson never tried to hide this secret.
Indeed, the smile on his face was broader than the horizon, not
because he thought he was getting away with murder, but because he was
playing with his new toy, and Scott Peterson's nightmare began, not
when he was exposed trying to hide his secret boat, but when he
frantically scoured the neighborhood, in search of his missing wife.
In the final analysis, if one examines all the evidence, it doesn't
take a genius to figure out that Laci Peterson was kidnapped, but in
fairness, nobody has ever claimed that Peterson critics, Court TV
blowhards Beth Karas and Nancy Grace, who repeatedly suggest that
Scott Peterson is guilty, are anything more than ignorant, repugnant
liars.
The fact that Nancy Grace and Beth Karas promote ignorant lies was
conclusively exposed on January 14, 2004, when somebody placed a call
on Larry King Live, to complain about Court TV message boards because
they are heavily censored. The caller complained because messages that
support Scott Peterson are routinely deleted, yet Beth Karas and Nancy
Grace had the unmitigated gall to deny the indisputable fact that
Court TV message boards are routinely censored. Clearly, we have
investigated many of these recurring complaints about Court TV message
boards ourselves, and if Beth Karas and Nancy Grace are too stupid to
understand the merit of the complaint about Court TV message boards,
they are inadvertent liars.
In a nutshell, anybody who slanders Scott Peterson is applauded on
Court TV message boards, but anybody who defends Scott Peterson is
banned. Despite this outrageous censorship, morons like Beth Karas and
Nancy Grace claim that Court TV does not take a stand, where the guilt
or innocence of Scott Peterson is concerned, and that is clearly an
outright lie. The fact of the matter is, the claim that Scott Peterson
murdered Laci cannot survive scrutiny, and that is why Court TV bans
anybody who states the obvious. In the final analysis, it is not at
all surprising because blowhards like Nancy Grace act like National
Enquirer advocates, and this in not an isolated perversion of justice.
Indeed, if Elizabeth Smart had been murdered, as Laci was, Nancy Grace
would be applauding law enforcement for arresting Richard Albert Ricci
whom she blamed for the abduction, and that would have provided the
opportunity to murder Elizabeth Smart without the fear of ever being
punished. Clearly, morons like Nancy Grace and Beth Karas aide and
abet murderers when they accuse innocent people, and they should be
prosecuted because they are ultimately responsible for the inexcusable
failure to at least try to rescue Laci Peterson.
In the final analysis, critics like Beth Karas and Nancy Grace are
stupid liars who should be prosecuted, for covering up the truth about
the murder of Laci Peterson. These morons who pollute the airwaves
with their moronic lies do not deserve a life, because Laci Peterson
and Connor were pleading for theirs, when this poor, helpless,
kidnapped woman was probably shot in the head, because the cowardly
creeps who did this knew that they could get away with murder as long
as they can rely upon morons like Nancy Grace and Beth Karas.
Some of the following messages that were posted on Court TV message
boards were deleted because they do not support the preposterous claim
that Scott Peterson murdered Laci.
Scott Peterson was sleeping with his wife, when he allegedly murdered
Laci, in the middle of the night. Richard Albert Ricci was sleeping
with his wife, when he allegedly kidnapped Elizabeth, in the middle of
the night, and visions of delusions, danced in the heads of Nancy
Grace and Beth Karas.
http://www.geocities.com/mobaster/Censored.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "melikamp" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
01 Jan 2004 11:24:39 PM |
|
|
David V. wrote:
melikamp wrote:
And for the former point, accumulation of scientific
knowledge is not different from the accumulation of moral
knowledge. Advanced concepts are built on the basic
ones. You only think that killing babies is wrong because you
were raised up with such a value (perpetuated, at least in part, by
Christians!).
The christian religion had nothing to do with it. In every society
operating above a subsistence level the killing of babies is wrong. Even
in China where is it practiced regularly, it is considered wrong.
Considered by who? By people who are doing it? Impossible. They must
consider it morally acceptable, if they do it on a regular basis.
But you are right, of course: it is true what you say about the
subsistence level; that is a very basic concept, present even in
very early societies. Yet, my main point stands: this concept can
be overshadowed by an "advanced" moral reasoning (like they have in
China), and yet it was perpetuated (but not initiated) by Christians,
even to the point that some non-Christians today consider it universal
and applicable to any culture, at any time in history ;)
Were humans 100'000 years ago wicked?
We are not talking about humans 100,000 years ago. Go back a little over
200 years ago and they, those moral christians, were burning people,
alive, at the stake because they were *accused* of being a witch. That's
not considered moral today?
See, I cannot claim they were immoral, I explained you
why. Your moral values from today should not be applied
to them, because they didn't have them around.
Then what is the difference? The bible stayed the same but the morals
changed. Why is it immoral to burn live people today, but it was a moral
duty not long ago?
I will argue that these particular witch-burning Christians
had little or no excuse.
But ancient Jews are a different matter. To them, a reasonable
explanation was present for their conquest: they needed to survive
as a tribe; and there was nothing to prevent them from kicking the
crap out of the other tribes.
Why was it moral, to burn witches... According to who?
Not according to the Bible, at any rate. Fanatics who did it could
not be justified by OT: they weren't Jews; nor could they appeal
to NT, with its love message. Certanly, it was moral to them,
but if they used the Bible to justify themselves, they didn't use
it the way it was intended.
I defend the
usefulness of the Bible, its applicability for
instruction even on morals, when it's approached
critically, and *not* as a source of fundamental moral
thruths.
Then it is a useless book. Any moral lesson in there can be gotten from
modern sources.
How is it useless if it can provide us with understanding of how we
came to have the moral values that we have today? Are you arguing
for blindly accepting the moral values that were handed to you
by your parents, or your state, or whatever are you modern sources?
If not, how are you going to evaluate them, if not by appealing to
the history of their developement?
It is exactly by comparing atrocities that Christians did throughout
the history with the message in mmm... say, Paul, we can assert that
they were atrocities. Only by showing that their actions contradict
the teaching in NT you can hope to judge some Christians as evil.
(They truly knew better, and they didn't do it.) By dismissing the
Bible you are taking out a foundation for your own moral judgement.
Same for the fundamentalists today. Only by showing that they
are in odds with the very teaching they boast to profess, you can
hope to convince them of their wrongdoing. Well, may be not them,
silly me, but even if you are just trying to convince yourself,
it's the right way to go.
As for its relevance even today, please show me a better moral
standard, than loving your neighbour as yourself. A libertarian
survival race, may be? Yeah, nevermind God, just beat the
golden rule. Uh. I sound kinda coarse, sorry :P Libertarians are
OK... But golden rule is still pretty good, no?
Not useless :P
To make this entirely clear, I reject a notion of a
fundamental moral truth..
That's what the bible is used for; a source of fundamental moral truths.
The problem is that the bible doesn't contain any moral truths.
It doesn't have to be treated this way. And in many cases, it wasn't.
IMO, it is a moot point, whether the Bible did more good or evil.
IMO, it *can* do much good; I would even say, it is indespensable for
understanding of our modern moral values & ethics. OTOH, I aknowledge
that it did a great deal of evil in the wrong hands. Still, a question
stands, what are we going to do with the Bible? It is hopeless, to try
to take it away from the fundamentalists; and almost as hopeless to
try to have them *understand* it, and to take it for what it is.
Yet, I hope, we agree, that something should be done along these lines.
Having attested the Bible's worth for us, I'll attempt the latter :P
Mel
P.S. Take away the Bible, and they'll find something else to blindly
believe in. Bible is not the root of the problem here. Bible actually
offers solutions, but people like to do the opposite.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Editor of EvilBible.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
02 Jan 2004 12:40:23 AM |
|
|
"melikamp" <jplsp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rg7Jb.191250$8y1.617972@attbi_s52...
David V. wrote:
melikamp wrote:
And for the former point, accumulation of scientific
knowledge is not different from the accumulation of moral
knowledge. Advanced concepts are built on the basic
ones. You only think that killing babies is wrong because you
were raised up with such a value (perpetuated, at least in part, by
Christians!).
The christian religion had nothing to do with it. In every society
operating above a subsistence level the killing of babies is wrong. Even
in China where is it practiced regularly, it is considered wrong.
Considered by who? By people who are doing it? Impossible. They must
consider it morally acceptable, if they do it on a regular basis.
How stupid can you get? Murder is fairly common in every society and yet it
is morally u | | | | | | |
