Crusader_8 said: @redrosefring being unable to be perfect like god didnt seem to stop god from telling us murder is wrong or that adultery is wrong. Doesnt stop him from saying "dont bear false witness." But we throw this lame and ignorant excuse that when it comes to slavery, it was somehow just too much for god to tell us not to own humans as property? This is not an example of not reading the bible. This is an example of being VERY familiar with what the bible says and doesnt say. God couldnt be bothered to say rape and slavery were wrong but instead made a bunch of convoluted rules. When it's murder, theists say it was necessary for god to lay down his decree. But mysteriously when it comes to rape and slavery, there's a sudden show of mental gymanstics where all these "humans are imperfect so god had to just make sure they did slavery properly" statements come from. Humans are awful in general and murder a lot, but it was within god's power to decree "thou shalt not kill." It's a shame it wasn't within his power to say "thou shalt not own another person as thine own property." Heck, he didnt even TRY. and we're talking about a being who is sooo perfect that he decided the only way to fix humanity was to murder 99% of the population - including unborn children - and start fresh with noah's family. You are clearly comparing apples to oranges. Even societies that don't have the best of track records recognize that some wrongs are more crippling to functioning than others. How long do you think any society that disallowed divorce would last without the smallest social unit, the family, falling into madness? How long would a society that cannot deal with criminals last? How do you imagine a society with a norm of multiple wives per man would function if they were suddenly forced to adhere to single couples? Who would feed the dispossessed wives and children? How about those that couldn't pay off their debts? Is being killed the better alternative in your mind? It doesn't stop any of those things from being wrong, just because they were permitted so their society wouldn't collapse. That's where wisdom comes in, and dealing with human frailties in a way that doesn't destroy the humans themselves. People were allowed to have slaves, but no one could be forced into slavery beyond 7 years. Did you miss that? Do you need massive brain power to process that not being able to keep a slave forever means that slavery is not a state that people should be in permanently? That it was an allowance to deal with the issue of the indebted and guilty for a society with no luxuries like we have today? Do you think that people who couldn't pay their debts were better off being killed off rather than be a slave for 7 years to do so? That a man who wanted to divorce his wife could not do so, so they both end up killing each other because of pent up hatred? I don't know of any theists that make such a claim as you did, are you making a strawman for yourself? Where did rape come from as well? How did you get from slavery to rape? |
RedRoseFringApr 5, 2017 3:37 PM
| "Let Justice Be Done!" My Theme Fight again, fight again for justice! |
SubaTonic said: 1.1: So, yes. This seems to be a recurring pattern among those who don't have any interest in religion, not enough interest to begin, or are simply hostile to the idea of religion. This is completely fine since it's terribly difficult to teach the bible in an interesting way until you're old enough to make your own sense out of the thing. It's a book and I find it tedious. I don't care about it and I'm not interested in reading it, just like any other book I have no interest in. Zelev said: Same as 1.1.SubaTonic said: It's a book and I find it tedious. I don't care about it and I'm not interested in reading it, just like any other book I have no interest in. Honestly, same. I came from a religious family, and I don't recall ever touching a Bible lol... imeli said: No, I haven't studied it, but I have read it. That isn't to say I remember much, but from what I do remember , I don't exactly see any reason why I should put my faith into it. It's extremely similar to mythology and the only credible copy that is even left in existence is the Septuagint and every version after that has been edited or re-written in favor of politics. 1.2: Yes, oh great and mighty faith! I'll probably address this later, but I don't think you need to even begin to take a religious stance on the bible to still read it and gain something from that. Although you must agree that mythology, regardless of whether it really happened, has some clear basis in literature. To what extent do you feel like the whole book, or individual sections have been rewritten though, that we can't figure out a near (but never perfect) historical interpretation? Krenzin said: I've read the Bible, old and new, the translated Quran, and a few other religious texts. I've never really done a formal study on them in any real sense, but I'm a history buff, and religion is part of the history of the world. For that reason alone do I find them at all appealing. Frankly, the Bible never struck me as anything more than made up nonsense filled with contradictions and non sequiturs. Also, Atheism implies a lack of religion, not "religious in their own way". -Not an atheist. PS: What lack of evidence are you referring to, exactly? 1.3: I also like reading the text from a historical perspective. I admit that this is only recent, however, as a result of reading this response to a question about Saint Patrick and genocide in Ireland. Regarding the last sentence of your first paragraph: I must refer to my last sentence, and one of my first questions. How you decide to read the bible changes A LOT of what you get out of it. I might expand on this later. I fumbled on the religious sentence. I couldn't think of a word to describe how popular atheist belief is very enthusiastic about the idea of religion. As of right now however, I don't see how your average atheist is incredibly different from your average theist. Oh Terrible and Wondrous Evidence! I will expand on this later on, but similar to @LordPlucky 's example of law as a comparison: We can argue at length as to why we think a law is right or not right, whether God might love or hate gays, but do people really understand why the law itself exists, or what issue it was actually meant to address? How can we say that we have successfully applied the American constitution if we don't consider why it was written 300 years ago? 21 said: I've begun reading it. And the Bible though, certain aspects of it can be proven through historical evidence is not intended to be a history book that is supposed to be proven. It's the word of god that is supposed to spiritually supposed to guide his followers. It's not intended to prove anything, or convert atheist into believers. It's for those with faith. 1.4: My professor actually discussed this: The bible can be interpreted as a piece of historical fiction (First, think about what "fiction" means. Then, think about how you can describe history, which is factual, through a story that is entirely fiction). However, I must mention that I never actually intended to discuss whether or not someone should religiously "believe" in the bible, so these interpretations are interesting. Menzo- said: Refer to 1.1's last sentence and 1.3's first paragraph last sentence.I went to catholic school so it was compulsory to study it. I've never read it just studied bits and pieces of it. I am now an atheist more than ever purely because of how much rubbish is in that book. Crusader_8 said: 2.1: I imagine that that study needs to be redone as more people (I don't know whether we're talking about America or globally?) consider themselves atheistic or agnostic. I don't think it'd be too much of a stretch to see it go from right-skewed in favour of having read it, to left-skewed, in favour or having not read it, especially as more of the younger generations begin to face these ideas. I must refer to 1.4 though about proof or claims of an existing God, because it's another topic entirely. I was only interested in figuring out how read the Bible actually is. Because you know, I've actually not read the bible until very recently. nep-nep said: But if Christians don't read the bible, then how could we assume that your average atheist has? And don't give me your "I read like one passage in the bible that I don't like" bullshit, I mean actual academic study that was done to understand the contextual history and interpretation of the bible. Several studies and polls have shown that atheists and agnostics are exceedingly more familiar with the bible than christians. Also, any of the writers, professors and doctors who publicly debate on the atheism topic - Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, Dillahunty, etc - have read the bible inside and out. I myself have read about two thirds of it, but in general reading the bible isn't necessary. The book has been around for like, 1800 years or so? And there hasn't been anything in it that's been able to prove or verify theistic claims of a god that can create the entire universe but seems to be overly concerned with a slightly intelligent but otherwise unremarkable species residing on a single (and very temporary) speck of dust. On a side note, I know lots of christians who've read the whole thing. Some denominations make it a big point to read and study scripture. I forget which denomination my dad is but he studied scripture in various theology courses so he knows the whole thing too Again though, over time, how likely is it that you're going to convince any random person, whether affiliated with "Christianity" or not, to read the bible? I wonder how many people couldn't post in this thread because they already know that they themselves know nothing of real significance about the bible. Menzo- said: Refer to 1.3. Do you think the authors of the bible meant for their works to be interpreted wholly literally? Who specifically says that the bible is the absolute word of God? Is no one ever meant to analyze the Bible, just because it's the bible? In what way are you comparing science and religion- Are these two subjects even talking in the same room? (For that last one, look at Bill Nye vs Ken Ham lol. That is an example of why I think there's something strange in the way we discuss this). Don't know why you quoted me three times but anyways. To me it's just so nonsensical. I know it's supposed to be the word of God or whatever and that it's not really supposed to be analysed but how could I possibly believe in something so illogical with no real proof. When compared to science religion is nothing. CannedKindness said: 1.1. I don't blame you. I'm in Bible college. But I'll admit I don't always give the effort I should to get all the benefits out of my studies because, since it's schoolwork, I'm often like "Why do I have to write this paper/complete the assignment?" Gholy said: 2.2: I'd probably never have touched the bible if religion wasn't a mandatory class in my university, so it really is that much harder to study it in an academic sense since we're just not at a point in society where people feel comfortable or even vaguely interested in doing so. That's why I'm bringing these questions up. I read it cover-to-cover once but I wouldn't say that I've studied it per-say. Veneficia said: Refer to 2.2 I guess? This isn't really the same response, but it's clear that a few people have indeed chosen to read it.I have 2 bibles in my house for some reason. I read a bit here and there between years. Coolspot said: What exactly did you "study", and was it your own choice to do so?Ive studied it, but I wouldn't be able to quote it word for word. Miya- said: 2.3: Did you enjoy what you studied, or even find it useful at all? Or do you think that they way they taught it was just about as obtuse and dissatisfying as most people tend to think of it as?Went to a Catholic school for 10 years and it was compulsory to read + study it for ReEd (religious education). Haven't touched a bible in years though. BarryManilow said: I kinda' (I'm not even sure if it was the bible) did too when I was back in elementary/middle school... and I don't remember jack-dung-shit. I don't expect you find it terribly relevant.Yeah back when I was a small Manilow. codephat said: 2.4: To what extent do you think human error, then, affects the historical ideas (really, just the context of what they thought and how they were living when they'd written it) presented in the bible? Yeah, I've studied it a lot. Even if I were religious, I'd take the Bible for what it is, a book written by men. Which automatically means it's flawed. Your point is silly, btw. If I didn't find what I write funny, then I wouldn't write it InsaneLeader13 said: 2.5: Just based upon the framing of your sentence, I'm interested in whether they taught it as "the themes are separate from, or influenced their history" or "their themes are a result of how they'd lived in history". Whatever they decided to teach first. To what depth are you asking about? I've done some slightly-deeper-then-surface studying about themes and history in the Bible, and I've done some extremely deep studying on the first 6 books, but it's not enough to be giving lectures or writing reports. I can carry, if not dominate, a conversation with an average person, but I'd be freight-trained in a debate or a conversation on more thematic messages, especially those centered in the New Testament. I am personally reading it from the stance of the latter. So, in regards to depth of study? Any, it seems like plenty (like myself) don't know much, while others know the subject extensively. traed said: 2.6: So, kinda like 2.5, did you have a specific focus on biblical themes (which is what I expect most religious classes do solely), the historical context of it, or both? Somewhat, not to front to back full academic level but I do look deeper than the surface on various parts of the bible. Strange how most don't seem to realize Revelation isn't even cannon and was basically forced to be added to the collection of scriptures. lol, canon... if all the authors of the bible were to gather together to discuss what parts of the Bible were canon and which were trash, I'd love to see the conclusion. Do you think that normal "Christians" should (or even if they would) be concerned with how much of the bible should be considered "canon"? (and that extends to atheists too) |
nep-nepApr 5, 2017 5:44 PM
| I took a theology course for fun during freshman year and a few of our assignments involved studying several excerpts from the Old and New Testament. It was kind of meh really, don't have any intention to read the rest of it. |
| @nep-nep so you claim the results of such a study will be different if we add a disproportionate number of recently deconverted young people? While a sarcastic "you dont say?" may suffice here, there's also no guarantee the results would flip-flip either. A core reason why many people become atheist is because they reject religious claims, which kind of requires having to know the claims in the first place. Despite what theists and apologists may say, reading the bible is an excellent way to make an atheist - this is why atheists score higher on religious knowledge tests. My biggest gripe with bible knowledge is that the people who swear up and down that christianity is correct dont even realize that the bible condones slavery (as i was explaining earlier in the topic) as well as other immoral atrocities. Or they misquote their own book, etc. Or they claim the new testament invalidates the old testament despite their being passages that contradict said claims. Your average christian gets all their belief from the guy at the front instead of the book in their hands, so it's easy to beat the average christian in a religious knowledge quiz. Now when it comes to judaism and islam, in my experience the average jew or muslim has much better religious knowledge. Again this is just my experience so it may be wrong |
| There is absolutely no reason why I should accept "turn your brain off" as a valid excuse to defend a poor show. ~ blatant ad: https://myanimelist.net/blog/Crusader_8 I spend the time to write it, so please read it lol |
nep-nep said: traed said: 2.6: So, kinda like 2.5, did you have a specific focus on biblical themes (which is what I expect most religious classes do solely), the historical context of it, or both? Somewhat, not to front to back full academic level but I do look deeper than the surface on various parts of the bible. Strange how most don't seem to realize Revelation isn't even cannon and was basically forced to be added to the collection of scriptures. lol, canon... if all the authors of the bible were to gather together to discuss what parts of the Bible were canon and which were trash, I'd love to see the conclusion. Do you think that normal "Christians" should (or even if they would) be concerned with how much of the bible should be considered "canon"? (and that extends to atheists too) Hmmm I was focusing on symbolism and comparative religion. Historical I look into some things such as Exodus. I found no physical evidence it happened or that the Israelites were in the Egyptian kingdom at that time. I also have read a bit of the Atenist theory that Judaism came from Atenism but I don't see a lot backing that up. I also read into things like how Christians misinterpreted or redid stories of Judaism such as turning Lucifer into an Angel. Well first off Revelation was supposedly just a vision not events that happened but from what I have heard it's actually symbolic of events that was going on during the time disguised as something else. Why I say it's not cannon is for that reason. It doesnt actually have to do with the story. |
| ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣸⠋⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⡔⠀⢀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⡘⡰⠁⠘⡀⠀⠀⢠⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⣀⠀⠀⡇⠀⡜⠈⠁⠀⢸⡈⢇⠀⠀⢣⠑⠢⢄⣇⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢰⡟⡀⠀⡇⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡇⠈⢆⢰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠀⣧⠀⢿⢠⣤⣤⣬⣥⠀⠁⠀⠀⠛⢀⡒⠀⠀⠀⠘⡆⡆⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢵⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠀⢠⠃⠱⣼⡀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠳⠶⠶⠆⡸⢀⡀⣀⢰⠀⠀⢸ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣀⣀⣀⠄⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⢠⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⣼⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠢⢄⡔⣕⡍⠣⣱⢸⠀⠀⢷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡰⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⡜⡨⢢⡀⠀⠀⠀⠐⣄⠀⠀⣠⠀⠀⠀⠐⢛⠽⠗⠁⠀⠁⠊⠀⡜⠸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢀⠔⣁⡴⠃⠀⡠⡪⠊⣠⣾⣟⣷⡦⠤⣀⡈⠁⠉⢀⣀⡠⢔⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡤⡗⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢀⣠⠴⢑⡨⠊⡀⠤⠚⢉⣴⣾⣿⡿⣾⣿⡇⠀⠹⣻⠛⠉⠉⢀⠠⠺⠀⠀⡀⢄⣴⣾⣧⣞⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠐⠒⣉⠠⠄⡂⠅⠊⠁⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⢠⣷⣮⡍⡠⠔⢉⡇⡠⠋⠁⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ |
| Well I didn't read bible but maybe someday I'll read it BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN I AM RELIGIOUS, I AM A ATHEIST AND NOTHING IS GONNA CHANGE THAT Anyway, I enjoy learning about different religion and their stories, therefore I might read it someday :) |
swirlydragonApr 5, 2017 6:19 PM
Takuan_Soho said: traed said: Strange how most don't seem to realize Revelation isn't even cannon and was basically forced to be added to the collection of scriptures. Revelation is "canon", in both Catholicism and Protestantism. I mean with it's actual meaning. Although that is one interpretation of it. Takuan_Soho said: traed said: I found no physical evidence it happened or that the Israelites were in the Egyptian kingdom at that time. There is no evidence that they weren't either. There was a lot of migration to and from Egypt from Palestine, and there definitely WAS an invasion of the area around the time of Exodus (though whether they were "jews" is debatable). You can't prove a negative. They searched for trails of artefacts and ran DNA tests and all that sort of stuff. There is no record of it by the Egyptians and they would have recorded that sort of thing if it was so drastic. Also funny thing there also isn't any physical evidence of the Kingdom Israel being what it was made out to be. That area was actually under Egyptian control iirc. |
| ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣸⠋⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⡔⠀⢀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⡘⡰⠁⠘⡀⠀⠀⢠⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⣀⠀⠀⡇⠀⡜⠈⠁⠀⢸⡈⢇⠀⠀⢣⠑⠢⢄⣇⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢰⡟⡀⠀⡇⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡇⠈⢆⢰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠀⣧⠀⢿⢠⣤⣤⣬⣥⠀⠁⠀⠀⠛⢀⡒⠀⠀⠀⠘⡆⡆⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢵⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠀⢠⠃⠱⣼⡀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠳⠶⠶⠆⡸⢀⡀⣀⢰⠀⠀⢸ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣀⣀⣀⠄⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⢠⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⣼⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠢⢄⡔⣕⡍⠣⣱⢸⠀⠀⢷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡰⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⡜⡨⢢⡀⠀⠀⠀⠐⣄⠀⠀⣠⠀⠀⠀⠐⢛⠽⠗⠁⠀⠁⠊⠀⡜⠸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢀⠔⣁⡴⠃⠀⡠⡪⠊⣠⣾⣟⣷⡦⠤⣀⡈⠁⠉⢀⣀⡠⢔⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡤⡗⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢀⣠⠴⢑⡨⠊⡀⠤⠚⢉⣴⣾⣿⡿⣾⣿⡇⠀⠹⣻⠛⠉⠉⢀⠠⠺⠀⠀⡀⢄⣴⣾⣧⣞⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠐⠒⣉⠠⠄⡂⠅⠊⠁⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⢠⣷⣮⡍⡠⠔⢉⡇⡠⠋⠁⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ |
It was only added later on. It was not originally part of the bible. Takuan_Soho said: traed said: They searched for trails of artefacts and ran DNA tests and all that sort of stuff. There is no record of it by the Egyptians and they would have recorded that sort of thing if it was so drastic. Also funny thing there also isn't any physical evidence of the Kingdom Israel being what it was made out to be. That area was actually under Egyptian control iirc. No, there is plenty of evidence for King David (they have found some boundary stones) and the States of Israel and Judea. As for "genetic" evidence, first the Jews have been in Egypt since the 4th century BC and their community was quite large, so if there is "no" evidence then it is for the same reason: the Egyptians and Jews never integrated, which is not surprising. Second, yes there is evidence that a large invasion did occur in the area of Israel. Where these people came from is open to debate, but the chronology does support the bible. Now of course the crossing of the red sea is probably fantasy, and I think it far more likely that the invasion was from herding settlements in the mountains that invaded the coast - BUT when you say that there "is no evidence" you are wrong. There is evidence that supports the general account of the bible, it just is not conclusive. For instance we know that the Philistines existed. That pre-dated David, so the bible is correct there. Doesn't mean that there ever was a Samson, or that David killed Goliath, but the battles certainly happened. I didn't say anything about King David. It just wasn't some mighty kingdom or it wasnt in the location of Palestine. The chronology is mostly guessed though. It's a mistranslation of crossing a sea of reeds I heard as one explanation. You're grasping at straws. Im saying they Israelites didnt come from the Egyptian kingdom not some obscure crap that isnt evenn in thee bible. |
| ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣸⠋⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⡔⠀⢀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⡘⡰⠁⠘⡀⠀⠀⢠⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⣀⠀⠀⡇⠀⡜⠈⠁⠀⢸⡈⢇⠀⠀⢣⠑⠢⢄⣇⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢰⡟⡀⠀⡇⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡇⠈⢆⢰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠀⣧⠀⢿⢠⣤⣤⣬⣥⠀⠁⠀⠀⠛⢀⡒⠀⠀⠀⠘⡆⡆⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢵⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠀⢠⠃⠱⣼⡀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠳⠶⠶⠆⡸⢀⡀⣀⢰⠀⠀⢸ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣀⣀⣀⠄⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⢠⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⣼⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠢⢄⡔⣕⡍⠣⣱⢸⠀⠀⢷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡰⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⡜⡨⢢⡀⠀⠀⠀⠐⣄⠀⠀⣠⠀⠀⠀⠐⢛⠽⠗⠁⠀⠁⠊⠀⡜⠸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢀⠔⣁⡴⠃⠀⡠⡪⠊⣠⣾⣟⣷⡦⠤⣀⡈⠁⠉⢀⣀⡠⢔⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡤⡗⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢀⣠⠴⢑⡨⠊⡀⠤⠚⢉⣴⣾⣿⡿⣾⣿⡇⠀⠹⣻⠛⠉⠉⢀⠠⠺⠀⠀⡀⢄⣴⣾⣧⣞⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠐⠒⣉⠠⠄⡂⠅⠊⠁⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⢠⣷⣮⡍⡠⠔⢉⡇⡠⠋⠁⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ |
| @Takuan_Soho You're totally missing the point. It does work as a story ending but it's not supposed to be literal and is just talking about some then current events cryptically and because of that it just seems out of place. Sorry, no...it was under egyptians during the supposed exodus and Israel wasnt like the story. Unless you can show me evidence otherwise. Again ... no.. you tried to imply the Jews came from elsewhere other than egypt but the bible doesnt say that.It's quite clear on what it says. https://www.penn.museum/sites/canaan/Egypt.html http://individual.utoronto.ca/mfkolarcik/jesuit/herzog.html http://www.haaretz.com/grounds-for-disbelief-1.10757 No the bible isnt a history book, it's a story book with some things that did happen and many things that didnt or were recorded inaccurately. Only a religious zealot would take any part of it seriously without evidence. |
| ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣸⠋⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⡔⠀⢀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⡘⡰⠁⠘⡀⠀⠀⢠⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⣀⠀⠀⡇⠀⡜⠈⠁⠀⢸⡈⢇⠀⠀⢣⠑⠢⢄⣇⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢰⡟⡀⠀⡇⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡇⠈⢆⢰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠀⣧⠀⢿⢠⣤⣤⣬⣥⠀⠁⠀⠀⠛⢀⡒⠀⠀⠀⠘⡆⡆⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢵⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠀⢠⠃⠱⣼⡀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠳⠶⠶⠆⡸⢀⡀⣀⢰⠀⠀⢸ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣀⣀⣀⠄⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⢠⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⣼⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠢⢄⡔⣕⡍⠣⣱⢸⠀⠀⢷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡰⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⡜⡨⢢⡀⠀⠀⠀⠐⣄⠀⠀⣠⠀⠀⠀⠐⢛⠽⠗⠁⠀⠁⠊⠀⡜⠸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢀⠔⣁⡴⠃⠀⡠⡪⠊⣠⣾⣟⣷⡦⠤⣀⡈⠁⠉⢀⣀⡠⢔⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡤⡗⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢀⣠⠴⢑⡨⠊⡀⠤⠚⢉⣴⣾⣿⡿⣾⣿⡇⠀⠹⣻⠛⠉⠉⢀⠠⠺⠀⠀⡀⢄⣴⣾⣧⣞⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠐⠒⣉⠠⠄⡂⠅⠊⠁⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⢠⣷⣮⡍⡠⠔⢉⡇⡠⠋⠁⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ |
nep-nep said: InsaneLeader13 said: To what depth are you asking about? I've done some slightly-deeper-then-surface studying about themes and history in the Bible, and I've done some extremely deep studying on the first 6 books, but it's not enough to be giving lectures or writing reports. I can carry, if not dominate, a conversation with an average person, but I'd be freight-trained in a debate or a conversation on more thematic messages, especially those centered in the New Testament. 2.5: Just based upon the framing of your sentence, I'm interested in whether they taught it as "the themes are separate from, or influenced their history" or "their themes are a result of how they'd lived in history". Whatever they decided to teach first. I am personally reading it from the stance of the latter. So, in regards to depth of study? Any, it seems like plenty (like myself) don't know much, while others know the subject extensively. Growing up in a more 'traditional', yet non-denominational, Christian household during my childhood years, the churches we attended typically taught from the bible with the mindset of "the themes are separate from the history, or influence, the history." This seems to be the prevailing school of thought for the typical church, based off of my experiences and the experiences from family and friends. The reason is likely based on the passage "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." found in Hebrews 13:8, (400th anniversary KJV) alongside the closing four verses in Revelations Chapter 22 (verses 18 and 19, to be exact) which can be paraphrased down to "Don't add or subtract anything, lest you be punished." In the context of these passages, the assumption can be made that any event and any situation should have a direct biblical parallel or answer, which inadvertently waters the majority of the book down into either 'dry and boring lists of laws' or stories with a ham-fisted moral akin to what one would teach a young child. While I don't have any solid evidence, (and this would be hard to get any evidence for or against) I'd wager that this hardlined separation between themes and events is a stronger root cause for so many people leaving or ignoring the Bible as a moral reference, historical reference, book of poetry, or anything else. When I became a teenager my family and I made a shift from being a typical 'non-denominational Christian' into Messianic Judaism allowed for a much-needed break in this style of teaching. Before I head any farther, I'll give a brief explanation of Messianic Judaism: Messianic Judaism is centered on the basic concept that the Jesus Christ recorded in the New Testament is the prophesied Son of God, and that salvation is only achieved through Him. However, His arrival didn't annul the laws of the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament), but rather encouraged a re-evaluation of the laws in relation to the times. With this in mind (Note: it took several years for us as a family, and I as an individual, to shift and fully understand this new stance) we eventually picked up the concept of, as you said: "their themes are a result of how they'd lived in history" but also with the added expansion of how such themes can apply to life in the current day and age, and life depending on what era sections of scripture took place in. For instance, a significant portion of the laws espoused in the Torah deal with the construction of the Temple, how the Levites are supposed to perform upkeep on the Temple, and how the sacrifices are supposed to be made at the temple. However, none of these laws can apply to us today, because of the interpretation of the following passages; Exodus 20:24-26, Exodus 27:1-8, Deuteronomy 12:26-28, and numerous other passages, that THIS is the altar of the LORD, and it's not to be replaced with a 'make-at-home' altar, and you're not supposed to sacrifice on it if it has been corrupted. I've also recently taken an interest in studying the KJV Bible in regards to it's structure and flow as poetry, but this is a recreational past time and when I crack open my bible, this usually isn't on my mind. |
"I'd take rampant lesbianism over nuclear armageddon or a supervolcano any day." ~nikiforova |
RedRoseFring said: You are clearly comparing apples to oranges. Even societies that don't have the best of track records recognize that some wrongs are more crippling to functioning than others. How long do you think any society that disallowed divorce would last without the smallest social unit, the family, falling into madness? How long would a society that cannot deal with criminals last? How do you imagine a society with a norm of multiple wives per man would function if they were suddenly forced to adhere to single couples? Who would feed the dispossessed wives and children? How about those that couldn't pay off their debts? Is being killed the better alternative in your mind? It doesn't stop any of those things from being wrong, just because they were permitted so their society wouldn't collapse. That's where wisdom comes in, and dealing with human frailties in a way that doesn't destroy the humans themselves. People were allowed to have slaves, but no one could be forced into slavery beyond 7 years. Did you miss that? Do you need massive brain power to process that not being able to keep a slave forever means that slavery is not a state that people should be in permanently? That it was an allowance to deal with the issue of the indebted and guilty for a society with no luxuries like we have today? Do you think that people who couldn't pay their debts were better off being killed off rather than be a slave for 7 years to do so? That a man who wanted to divorce his wife could not do so, so they both end up killing each other because of pent up hatred? I don't know of any theists that make such a claim as you did, are you making a strawman for yourself? Where did rape come from as well? How did you get from slavery to rape? Okay. Gonna give you a chance to clarify here. So you're saying that human societies needed slavery in order to survive, and that's why god didn't tell his people that slavery is wrong? Making rules and guidelines for slavery doesn't suddenly make slavery okay! Arguing that a civilization needed slavery to avoid collapse doesn't make slavery okay! Again, these "but humans = flawed" arguments you make are dodging the point. Your god is supposedly morally perfect. Yet... Things he did NOT say: 1. slavery is wrong 2. slavery is wrong but it seems you guys need it so I won't stop you 3. slavery is wrong but you guys are imperfect so here are some rules so you don't go nuts Things he DID say: 1. hey you can beat your slave all you want and it's okay as long as the slave doesn't die 2. my chosen people are allowed to enslave other peoples because those peeps aren't my chosen people I'm directly confronting you on this and you can't answer why god lacks the moral ability to tell his people that slavery is clearly wrong. Here's how worthless your arguments are: 1. "but, society!" If god is perfect he should be smart enough to show people a way to live morally without societal collapse. His past interventions show he is capable of this. but even if they didn't, he's supposedly perfect so he should be more than capable. 1a. He doesn't seem to care anyway if a human civilization collapses. tons of societies and civilizations have failed due to famine, natural disaster, disease, conquest, economic collapse, etc. Your god seem to give zero shits. He also supposedly wiped out the human population save for noah and a privileged group, so we have evidence that he cares more about his moral decrees than human lives or human societies. 2. "but, human frailty!" non sequitr. the issue here has nothing to do with whether humans are imperfect, because god supposedly judges humans anyway when they die. the issue is, we have a huuuge club called christianity that claims their god is morally perfect as well as omnipotent, yet this god can't bring himself to decry slavery as immoral. You and I are more moral than this biblical god because we have the common sense to realize slavery is wrong. You and I would call out slavery as an abomination should we witness it, whereas your god held his tongue for whatever excuse you make up. 2a. the bible doesnt make any attempt to esstablish a context of "yeah slavery shouldnt happen but we need slavery in order for current civilization to survive so we should have guidelines instead"... so any argument trying to argue for that context is not proper interpretation of scripture. 3. your attempts to say slavery is okay in certain situations is reprehensible. The fact that you defend slavery in any context publicly must be embarrassing. 3a. Oh yeah I forgot, rape is another thing that god refuses to say is wrong but does make some guidelines about it. Is this another "apples to oranges" issue in your mind? Wait let me guess: murder is definitely something that needs a commandment, but rape needs proper historical context, right? |
| There is absolutely no reason why I should accept "turn your brain off" as a valid excuse to defend a poor show. ~ blatant ad: https://myanimelist.net/blog/Crusader_8 I spend the time to write it, so please read it lol |
nep-nep said: but similar to @LordPlucky 's example of law as a comparison: We can argue at length as to why we think a law is right or not right, whether God might love or hate gays, but do people really understand why the law itself exists, or what issue it was actually meant to address? How can we say that we have successfully applied the American constitution if we don't consider why it was written 300 years ago?... Interestingly enough, the bulk of the NT books (known as the "Epistles", generally written by Paul) cover exactly this concept. Because of the new covenant, many Jewish believers were saying that Gentiles (non-jews, sometimes called "Greeks" regardless of their nationality) had to follow the Mosaic law to the letter. This would mean circumcision, observing sabbath, kosher diet, and many other things. These converts didn't want their foreskins cut off, and ALL of the apostles (including the disciples of Christ, such as Simon Peter) met up to discuss this very thing. The reason why most modern Christians will quote Paul's writings is because while all scripture is profitable for teaching and spiritual growth, the context of Paul's ministry (to the non-Jews) is very applicable to "us". Our government, individualism, and propensity for emphasis on politics and reason make us very similar to the ancient Romans of Paul's day. The Greeks were quite similar and many of the epistles are to Greek churches. There is definitely a role for the discerning and I would add that while many "pop" preachers don't know their way around actual exegesis, the amount of study, scholasticism, and reason that has gone into things like applicability of the OT law to the present-day Christian is staggeringly intense. Some (many) men had an agenda, but many times these were learned men who did peer-reviewed writings and speeches on these things back in the day (and today too). I don't want to get too deep in the homosexuality argument (it's a long subject to type out). However to do the cliffnotes, we have no record of a condoned or praised (or almost any) homosexual marriage anywhere in scripture. It is forbidden in the OT law and was even punished twice pre Mosaic law (Noah's son Ham "Looking upon his nakedness" while Noah was drunk was an idiom for having sex with him, the 2nd was Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction). Jesus had a conservative view on marriage (against divorce except for if one commits "pornea") and was in step with sticking to the written law and not the ones the Pharisees made up. Paul addresses "pornea" in his letters ("Pornea" translating as the generic "sexual immorality" but spelled-out in Levitical law), and when the disciples of Christ and apostles meet to discuss what applies to the gentile believers, pornea is clearly mentioned as forbidden (Acts 15:29). Now an important aside to that is that this addresses the act of homosexual intercourse NOT having homosexual temptations or tendencies. Being attracted to someone is not what's forbidden and will not "send you to hell", because if that were the case everyone who was tempted to steal, murder, or have straight-premarital sex would also be unavoidably condemned to hell. Redemption is found regardless of what your temptations may be, however if we are no longer slaves to sin since we've placed our trust and allegiance in Christ and his saving work through crucifixion, we should strive to no longer indulge in what put him there in the first place. |
 |
| I would, if there was a manga version |
| what |
| Best book ever written! Anyone who disagrees has never read it. |
  |
That's already what I've been saying. Just because slavery was permitted doesn't mean it was good, just like divorce or polygamy or every other example I gave. Just because God made rules for them doesn't mean he thought they were good. Again, it clearly says that God hates divorce, yet he allowed it because the humans couldn't do without it or they'd collapse. God didn't say murder, adultery, dishonouring parents, waylaying the blind, etc were wrong either, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out he disapproved. He commanded against them and regulated them which sends the message in itself. He commanded that no one could be a slave beyond 7 years (and the slaveowner had to give the slaves sufficient money at the end of those years when sending them on their way) , do you need to be a genius to figure out what that means? When every other culture had permanent slavery. Just like he commanded husbands couldn't mistreat their other wives and children and must provide for them. The rules are clear. Anyone who kidnapped someone to sell them as a slave was to be killed. No one could enforce slavery beyond the 7 year limit. The decision to stay with the master was the slave's and they couldn't be forced into it. Neither was any slave to be mistreated. Their children could marry into their master's household and the slaves were to receive "liberally" from all that the master owned those 7 years. As for your responses, they are just as flawed: 1. God is perfect, but humans are not. A perfect system will fail all the time when it is in the hands of imperfect people. Why do you think no political ideology can be practiced perfectly today? Is it because the principles are not stated or that humans suck at enacting them? The problem isn't God's capability, but humanity's inability. After all, even today we are not perfect and worse in many respects. 1a. Well, no duh! What is right comes before human society or lives. God cares more about you doing right than you satisfying your carnal desires. That is too obviously clear. 2. Um, the issue totally has to do with human frailty. If humans weren't frail, there obviously wouldn't be an issue. There would be no punishment for people who are perfect, only those who do wrong receive punishment. And don't be silly. Slavery was banned because of Christianity. Are you unaware of William Wilberforce and his dedication to end it based on God's decree that all men are created equal? It is only ignorance that leads to such erroneous statements as yours. You think Jesus being the perfect moral example and not owning slaves is not a clear enough message? 2a. More ignorance. It doesn't need to be explicit to be apparent. You are supposed to put 2 and 2 together with your own head. 2:"God hates divorce" + 2:"God allows divorce for Israelites" = God hates the practice but allows it for the sake of the Israelite's frailty. Matthew 19:7-10 " They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” 8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality,[d] and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” 10 His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry." Again, Jesus' words make it clear why divorce was allowed despite it not being God's way from the beginning. You know what else wasn't instituted by God in the beginning? You guessed it! Slavery! The disciples then point out that if it were so, it is better not to marry at all! But people obviously need to reproduce, so not letting that would cause their society to collapse because marriage would be gone and so would offspring. That is why I said ignorance is the greatest enemy in such studies. You clearly either didn't read that far or didn't understand. 3. Lol. Such a statement can only come from someone living in the luxury of the first world in the 21st century that was built on slavery and blatantly ignores the manner of slavery in the present age (labour in imprisonment and indebtedness.) If you truly thought so, you would be against imprisonment and debt penalties. 3a. Again, just because God doesn't explicitly say something doesn't mean you have to be a rocket scientist to figure out his stance on it. The fact that death is the penalty of rape should be more than enough of a clue to you. |
RedRoseFringApr 6, 2017 7:37 PM
| "Let Justice Be Done!" My Theme Fight again, fight again for justice! |
LordPlucky said: nep-nep said: but similar to @LordPlucky 's example of law as a comparison: We can argue at length as to why we think a law is right or not right, whether God might love or hate gays, but do people really understand why the law itself exists, or what issue it was actually meant to address? How can we say that we have successfully applied the American constitution if we don't consider why it was written 300 years ago?... Interestingly enough, the bulk of the NT books (known as the "Epistles", generally written by Paul) cover exactly this concept. Because of the new covenant, many Jewish believers were saying that Gentiles (non-jews, sometimes called "Greeks" regardless of their nationality) had to follow the Mosaic law to the letter. This would mean circumcision, observing sabbath, kosher diet, and many other things. These converts didn't want their foreskins cut off, and ALL of the apostles (including the disciples of Christ, such as Simon Peter) met up to discuss this very thing. The reason why most modern Christians will quote Paul's writings is because while all scripture is profitable for teaching and spiritual growth, the context of Paul's ministry (to the non-Jews) is very applicable to "us". Our government, individualism, and propensity for emphasis on politics and reason make us very similar to the ancient Romans of Paul's day. The Greeks were quite similar and many of the epistles are to Greek churches. There is definitely a role for the discerning and I would add that while many "pop" preachers don't know their way around actual exegesis, the amount of study, scholasticism, and reason that has gone into things like applicability of the OT law to the present-day Christian is staggeringly intense. Some (many) men had an agenda, but many times these were learned men who did peer-reviewed writings and speeches on these things back in the day (and today too). I don't want to get too deep in the homosexuality argument (it's a long subject to type out). However to do the cliffnotes, we have no record of a condoned or praised (or almost any) homosexual marriage anywhere in scripture. It is forbidden in the OT law and was even punished twice pre Mosaic law (Noah's son Ham "Looking upon his nakedness" while Noah was drunk was an idiom for having sex with him, the 2nd was Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction). Jesus had a conservative view on marriage (against divorce except for if one commits "pornea") and was in step with sticking to the written law and not the ones the Pharisees made up. Paul addresses "pornea" in his letters ("Pornea" translating as the generic "sexual immorality" but spelled-out in Levitical law), and when the disciples of Christ and apostles meet to discuss what applies to the gentile believers, pornea is clearly mentioned as forbidden (Acts 15:29). Now an important aside to that is that this addresses the act of homosexual intercourse NOT having homosexual temptations or tendencies. Being attracted to someone is not what's forbidden and will not "send you to hell", because if that were the case everyone who was tempted to steal, murder, or have straight-premarital sex would also be unavoidably condemned to hell. Redemption is found regardless of what your temptations may be, however if we are no longer slaves to sin since we've placed our trust and allegiance in Christ and his saving work through crucifixion, we should strive to no longer indulge in what put him there in the first place. I would just like to add that Jesus gives a pretty clear view on his idea of marriage. Matthew 19: 4-6 "And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made[a] them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’[b] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?[c] 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” Jesus clearly states that marriage is to be the union of a man and woman (singular, not multiple), as the two become one flesh. Everything outside of that is clearly not marriage. |
| "Let Justice Be Done!" My Theme Fight again, fight again for justice! |
RedRoseFring said: LordPlucky said: Interestingly enough, the bulk of the NT books (known as the "Epistles", generally written by Paul) cover exactly this concept. Because of the new covenant, many Jewish believers were saying that Gentiles (non-jews, sometimes called "Greeks" regardless of their nationality) had to follow the Mosaic law to the letter. This would mean circumcision, observing sabbath, kosher diet, and many other things. These converts didn't want their foreskins cut off, and ALL of the apostles (including the disciples of Christ, such as Simon Peter) met up to discuss this very thing. The reason why most modern Christians will quote Paul's writings is because while all scripture is profitable for teaching and spiritual growth, the context of Paul's ministry (to the non-Jews) is very applicable to "us". Our government, individualism, and propensity for emphasis on politics and reason make us very similar to the ancient Romans of Paul's day. The Greeks were quite similar and many of the epistles are to Greek churches. There is definitely a role for the discerning and I would add that while many "pop" preachers don't know their way around actual exegesis, the amount of study, scholasticism, and reason that has gone into things like applicability of the OT law to the present-day Christian is staggeringly intense. Some (many) men had an agenda, but many times these were learned men who did peer-reviewed writings and speeches on these things back in the day (and today too). I don't want to get too deep in the homosexuality argument (it's a long subject to type out). However to do the cliffnotes, we have no record of a condoned or praised (or almost any) homosexual marriage anywhere in scripture. It is forbidden in the OT law and was even punished twice pre Mosaic law (Noah's son Ham "Looking upon his nakedness" while Noah was drunk was an idiom for having sex with him, the 2nd was Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction). Jesus had a conservative view on marriage (against divorce except for if one commits "pornea") and was in step with sticking to the written law and not the ones the Pharisees made up. Paul addresses "pornea" in his letters ("Pornea" translating as the generic "sexual immorality" but spelled-out in Levitical law), and when the disciples of Christ and apostles meet to discuss what applies to the gentile believers, pornea is clearly mentioned as forbidden (Acts 15:29). Now an important aside to that is that this addresses the act of homosexual intercourse NOT having homosexual temptations or tendencies. Being attracted to someone is not what's forbidden and will not "send you to hell", because if that were the case everyone who was tempted to steal, murder, or have straight-premarital sex would also be unavoidably condemned to hell. Redemption is found regardless of what your temptations may be, however if we are no longer slaves to sin since we've placed our trust and allegiance in Christ and his saving work through crucifixion, we should strive to no longer indulge in what put him there in the first place. I would just like to add that Jesus gives a pretty clear view on his idea of marriage. Matthew 19: 4-6 "And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made[a] them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’[b] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?[c] 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” Jesus clearly states that marriage is to be the union of a man and woman (singular, not multiple), as the two become one flesh. Everything outside of that is clearly not marriage. Very good point, to which I do agree. It does beg the question about the legitimacy of polygamy as it was practiced very openly pre-Mosaic law, but that also factors into the cultural context of the time, which Jesus was saying "Yes, this may have been permitted, but it wasn't Yahweh's original and intended design." Jesus was most definitely a "conservative" when it came to his theology, always cracks me up when people paint him as some liberal hippie who wanted every one to do whatever they wanted lol |
|
| I attended an All Girls' Catholic school from kindergarten all the way to high school and we had a class dedicated to Christian education (or bible studies or whatever you want to call it) that we were required to take every single year. Studying the bible back then was informative but I can't say I was dedicated to it much. I just remember studying it enough to pass the subject and I know I wasn't genuinely interested in it compared to other really religious people. When I was a kid, my mom also used to always read me and my brother stories from a Children's bible before bed. If anything, I remember those better more than the ones I've learned from school. Despite my lack of "bible knowledge" however, my belief in God never faltered even once. |
 . . . . . ✘ . . . . .DO NOT touch my rice. . . . . . I'm Asian. . . . . . |
| I was raised Christian, so I had to study it more than a little. |
| I never have studied the bible, but have read some of the weird shit in that book, like UFO encounters, (ie Ezekial & "The Wheel") |
| Yep, it was compulsory in my grade school. I was faithful during my younger years (I even considered to enter a seminary) until I went into a science HS and never went back. Anyway, I won't preach Religious people here since that's not what science do. It was fun though when I reminisce the past lol. |
SubaTonic said: madhouse [or pink pineapple?] should adapt it into an r rated anime. maybe cover things other than lil jesus being born and time skip to him dragging a cross.It's a book and I find it tedious. I don't care about it and I'm not interested in reading it, just like any other book I have no interest in. Crusader_8 said: and naoh wasnt exactly a good guy, hell he didnt really have the righteous man tag.@redrosefring being unable to be perfect like god didnt seem to stop god from telling us murder is wrong or that adultery is wrong. Doesnt stop him from saying "dont bear false witness." But we throw this lame and ignorant excuse that when it comes to slavery, it was somehow just too much for god to tell us not to own humans as property? This is not an example of not reading the bible. This is an example of being VERY familiar with what the bible says and doesnt say. God couldnt be bothered to say rape and slavery were wrong but instead made a bunch of convoluted rules. When it's murder, theists say it was necessary for god to lay down his decree. But mysteriously when it comes to rape and slavery, there's a sudden show of mental gymanstics where all these "humans are imperfect so god had to just make sure they did slavery properly" statements come from. Humans are awful in general and murder a lot, but it was within god's power to decree "thou shalt not kill." It's a shame it wasn't within his power to say "thou shalt not own another person as thine own property." Heck, he didnt even TRY. and we're talking about a being who is sooo perfect that he decided the only way to fix humanity was to murder 99% of the population - including unborn children - and start fresh with noah's family. |
| Yes, I have---thought I wanted to pursue theology in College---found other interests... Of course I studied it before college too, just not as critical. |
| "In the end the World really doesn't need a Superman. Just a Brave one" |
Ratohnhaketon said: 3.1: The cherry-picking christian culture, as much as it is made fun of in the media, still remains strong, although I'm sure some Christians have noticed and find it uncomfortable. How many heretically sinful Christians choose to wear *gasp*, MIXED FABRICS? How many eat shellfish? How many know what to do when their oxen falls into their neighbours' PLOT? Disgusting! I likely know more about the Bible than most cultural Christians (aka secularists who sin 24/7 and then say "but muh jesus died on the cross"). I grew up in a Christian home and it was instilled into me at every waking opportunity. It does help to put many misconceptions about Christianity into perspective, however, and it allows me to call BS on both sides of the aisle. It's regrettable that there's a shortage of people who can speak for both sides of the argument, despite how highly education emphasizes this skill. PoruMairu said: 3.2: I'm actually not sure how much the greek translation differs from the original Hebrew text. Interesting though, I wouldn't have expected to find someone with a theology degree on an anime listing site.Currently completing a theology degree ( however i have cut it short to an Assc Degree now because I am an old codger). So I know it reasonably well, in proper context and in the greek language. Trance said: 3.3: Why should any competent commander begin to study, much less understand his enemy? Does he need to be a native to understand how they feel, how they act, how they breath, how they think, and what they hope to accomplish? Or does he gaze upon a land of barbarity, and condemn their humanity for a lack of civilization? Does he burn every village because he believes every man, woman, and child to be no different from the next? Does he give up hope because no matter how hard he tries, the people refuse to accede to his standards of society? Why shouldn't I? Shouldn't one unGodly passage about God suffice to tarnish his Godliness? But still, to entertain your question: Why should I waste my time on a man's, or even a God's, ambiguous vain attempt to pack the universe in one book? If you tell me that through n numbers of mental contortions I can actually make sense of this nonsense, that still will not vindicate these Holy Books of the fact that at their heart, they still demand 'faith'. And that's where reason stops and I become a hypocrite for only accepting God's unjustified claims and not anyone else's. Any contemplative drunkard in any corner of this world can pen an ambiguous book which makes sense after being supplemented by a million contortions, a thousand interpretations, and a hundred other scriptures. Shall we waste our time entertaining the drunkard who's never experienced one moment of cogent thought in his life but claims to have experienced God? Or perhaps Hegel, Kant, Hume, Lacan, and all those philosophers should've ended their books by asserting God and their own prophethood. Surely then, people will have more reason to read philosophy because there's a chance that it might be from God!! You know what's better? Engage in the labor of mankind, of patiently figuring out everything there is in the universe, and not to be too hasty. If there's one way we can ever reach God, it'll be that. If God's wrath may interrupt our diligent labor, we can excuse ourselves with 'Your (God) attempts to reach us were insulting to our intelligence and we always assumed that you knew man's nature well enough to not insult us like that'. I only wonder how many talented individuals, in the history of mankind, who could help mankind progress, who could contribute something substantial, gave in to this toxic thinking of leaping on a contrived possibility of God and wasted their lives away having buried their heads in obvious bullshit disguised as 'truth in ambiguity'. Now, more specifically. Do you believe that ALL Christians believe that the Bible is the literal interpretation of God that came from God? Do you believe that God should be interpreted as omnipotent, according to such a text? Do you think that the authors of the bible do not matter, and for all one could care, they're easily condensed into a single voice? Do you believe that in the Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate, the two speakers for a single second could see as their chess opponent saw, or men of straw? Are the Jesuits, according to your final sentence, fake Christians? How does one begin to claim to know everything when he stops learning so quickly? |
| well if you look at it in a way you see a cat that explains |
 |
nep-nep said: 3.3: Why should any competent commander begin to study, much less understand his enemy? Does he need to be a native to understand how they feel, how they act, how they breath, how they think, and what they hope to accomplish? Or does he gaze upon a land of barbarity, and condemn their humanity for a lack of civilization? Does he burn every village because he believes every man, woman, and child to be no different from the next? Does he give up hope because no matter how hard he tries, the people refuse to accede to his standards of society? Now, more specifically. Do you believe that ALL Christians believe that the Bible is the literal interpretation of God that came from God? Do you believe that God should be interpreted as omnipotent, according to such a text? Do you think that the authors of the bible do not matter, and for all one could care, they're easily condensed into a single voice? Do you believe that in the Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate, the two speakers for a single second could see as their chess opponent saw, or men of straw? Are the Jesuits, according to your final sentence, fake Christians? How does one begin to claim to know everything when he stops learning so quickly? Any competent commander will also know that the enemy he's going to defeat --and that's a given -- is only worth knowing to that extent which allows him to defeat them. He's only concerned with their ways as long as he knows he can use their ways against them. His goal is to conquer, not to understand. What use is understanding ruins to a commander? I don't care what Christians believe. As long as there's that fundamental injunction of 'You must have faith', religion is my enemy, regardless of the form. I'm not going to waste my time on falsehood. You're just being intellectually dishonest when you give an elaborate lie attention but refuse to give the same attention to a simpler one. Why not pay this same attention to every liar in the history of mankind who forged mighty tales about himself or a God no one ever met? No one is claiming to know everything. And you should be skeptical of anyone who does. If I can smell bullshit in the first verse or sentence, the rest of the argument/book will only be a waste of time. How does one learn anything valuable when he keeps getting tangled up in bullshit? |
| I have never been religious. Never really liked going to church and stuff. But when I had a religion we had works and talked about the bible and what's on it, I don't know if that counts. I never really liked doing that tho. |
| Today they say you're crazy, tomorrow they will say you're a genious. |
| I have studied the bible. It was compose of my waifu's love and thus why I am so devoted to her. |
| We studied the Bible a bit here in school. Here in Israel it's secular studies, more of a literary interpretation rather than religious interpretation. It was fun and didn't try to force down religion on us. |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
| More than I would have liked to. I grew up religious, so I spent a lot of time studying the Bible in church. 0/10, would not recommend. |
 |
Takuan_Soho said: Ryagan said: More than I would have liked to. I grew up religious, so I spent a lot of time studying the Bible in church. 0/10, would not recommend. I disagree, as an agnostic, I find it extremely worthwhile to study religious texts. Not just the bible, but the Koran and the Rigveda as well. Anything large groups of people believe in is worth studying for any human. To each his/her own. It definitely helps you better understand other people--I will give you that. For people who were indoctrinated at a young age, such as myself, however, it's hard to find the value because so much of our time was devoted to it involuntarily. But you're right--it's not a bad idea to do it in an attempt to better understand others. |
|
nep-nep said: Could we not safely conclude that people (whether theist or atheist) are religious in their own sense, but still faithfully ignorant? People who are atheist are by definition not religious. I do not regard my personal beliefs as religious; religious beliefs are generally not open to change, whereas mine can change given sufficient evidence and reasoning. That said, I have never considered the thought of reading the bible an activity that yields any practical benefit. It would be more useful for me to read a bullet point summary of its contents if I wish to know of it for educational purposes. |
| There's no inherent right or wrong in this universe, but when we think with emotions rather than logic, we make things so. |
| I've been raised religious and own a pretty decent quality Common English Study Bible, but never read the whole thing, yet. Stuck at Exodus, but I'll pick it up again sometime. I like a lot of bits and pieces from reading different sections and going to church and like to believe in God, but I don't know that I believe fully in the whole Bible, as there's some really weird stuff in there, too. Also, I definitely believe in evolution, so Genesis is kinda hard to hold up as an absolute truth. I'm definitely one of those casual cherry-picker Christians, but I'd rather that than a zealous bigot, personally, and at least I'm semi-self aware about it. I just mostly like the idea that maybe there's some powerful entity out there rooting for us all to get along in love and peace someday or whatever. |
KelsiFinnApr 17, 2017 10:45 PM
 |
Takuan_Soho said: SongstressSL said: People who are atheist are by definition not religious. I would disagree, while they ardently do not believe in a God, I find that they tend to be just as "faithful" in their beliefs as the most ardent theist. Which means they are religious, they just have a differing faith. If a supernatural being appeared before me and reincarnated me into a different world with my memories in tact from this world, I will instantly become his or her believer (therefore no longer an atheist) so as to avoid discomfort in my next life. However, until that happens, I do not have religious beliefs and will not consider my current atheist mindset a religion in lieu of anything to worship or any immutable beliefs. Or, to put it in your words, I do not and will not remain "faithful" to my own beliefs and will switch provided there is sufficient evidence that changing what I believe holds benefit. |
| There's no inherent right or wrong in this universe, but when we think with emotions rather than logic, we make things so. |
Takuan_Soho said: SongstressSL said: If a supernatural being appeared before me and reincarnated me into a different world with my memories in tact from this world, I will instantly become his or her believer But you would not then be a "believer", you would know. So you really can't compare the two. You accept on faith that there is no greater being in this universe. I don't believe there is one either, the difference is that I know that I am merely stating a "belief", not stating a "fact". Look, this is the last time I will try to explain this to you: I do not accept on faith anything in this world. I think scientifically, not religiously; I only take evidence, proof, logic, statistics or calculations into account. The moment better evidence, proof, logic, statistics or calculations come about, I change my belief of what is fact instantly, without resistance, only ascertaining the validity of provided proof, logic, statistics or calculations. Here's an example: I see a teddy bear in front of me. At first, I believe what I see, the electromagnetic wave signals being interpretted by my eyes and sent to my brain indicates there is a teddy bear in front of me. If a camera pointed at the same location (relative, since physics has established that there is no such thing as absolute spatial coordinates), does not detect visual signals indicating existence of above mentioned teddy bear, then I change my belief of "there exists a teddy bear" to "there is no teddy bear" because machines are designed to function with less error than the human senses. If after this, a technical fault is found within the camera, specifically, a fault that interferes with its detection of light waves from the teddy bear's location, I will again shift back to "there exists a teddy bear". Now, replace teddy bear with whatever you like, for instance, the divine. If this still does not clear it up for you, you may have to find someone else to explain my point to you. |
BalsaminaApr 16, 2017 10:52 PM
| There's no inherent right or wrong in this universe, but when we think with emotions rather than logic, we make things so. |
Takuan_Soho said: Ryagan said: More than I would have liked to. I grew up religious, so I spent a lot of time studying the Bible in church. 0/10, would not recommend. I disagree, as an agnostic, I find it extremely worthwhile to study religious texts. Not just the bible, but the Koran and the Rigveda as well. Anything large groups of people believe in is worth studying for any human. That is a troublesome proposition indeed. Imagine people actually reading what's contained in a text and having to think about it. No! It is far easier to not consider it at all and make for yourself an image of what you think it is and dismiss that instead (make it out of straw preferably so you can easily burn it.) It is sad but true that a lot of non-believers have greater knowledge about what is contained in the Bible than the average believer (looks like Luther's revolution isn't as well appreciated as he would have liked), but I find that they overall have poorer understanding. Take the fellow above for example that believes that God making rules about something means that God either likes it or considers it good. That is an erroneous argument that the average Christian we mentioned just prior would not make. So while this fellow knows the verses and instructions, his understanding is lacking. Of course, I find this principle to hold generally, regardless of position: the most ardent detractors of a position tend to be more knowledgeable on the subject matter than the average person who accepts that position. That must be quite the conundrum for you considering that what counts as "proof" in many cases requires faith. Also, I find your statement quite hard to believe, even though I may not go so far as to call it a bald-faced lie. So if someone you meet claims to be a certain age, you don't believe them until you visually inspect their birth certificate and the institute that issued it? Deserve said: A little bit, a pretty nice book actually, old fashioned sure, but a good book, i do often wish it had pictures or atlest significal illustrations (asking manga style maybe too much, many people, just for sake of intrest would have read it then. by the way i am not christian but the book is nice. There are always children's bibles if you want pictures (although not complete.) There's also a manga version of the gospels (Manga Messiah). I have read it myself. |
RedRoseFringApr 17, 2017 8:23 PM
| "Let Justice Be Done!" My Theme Fight again, fight again for justice! |
RedRoseFring said: That must be quite the conundrum for you considering that what counts as "proof" in many cases requires faith. Also, I find your statement quite hard to believe, even though I may not go so far as to call it a bald-faced lie. Look, I am someone who strives to be coldly rational and pragmatic. I am a nihilist and a relativist. I am also versed in the mathematical proofs that founded modern physics, namely the fields of quantum mechanics and general and special relativity. While I do not put faith into these physical theories of world structure, I act with the assumption they are true based on the founding mathematical proofs and the fact that no other theory of world structure has the same level of experimental repeat-ability, therefore leading me to conclude that these theories have the highest possibility of being true versus rivaling theories. The structure of the physical world used to be understood very differently. In the age of classical physics, everything was thought to obey the equations of motion discovered by Newton while electromagnetic phenomenon was governed by the Maxwell equations. If I lived in that age, I, too, would have acted on the assumption that these equations were the explanation to the structure and behavior of the physical world. But if I apply my thinking process, when relativity and quantum mechanics were theorized and then mathematically/experimentally proven, I would have shifted my assumption of world structure and behavior accordingly. RedRoseFring said: So if someone you meet claims to be a certain age, you don't believe them until you visually inspect their birth certificate and the institute that issued it? I've seen plenty of people lie about their age. Yes, I will not believe them 100%. Even if I saw the birth certificate, I still won't believe them 100%, only 99.99% because it is not physically impossible that the birth certificate is counterfeit for whatever reason. I won't put faith into their words, nor in my perception of their youth or lack thereof. There also exists many people who do not look their age anyway. Am I going to ask for a birth certificate if I'm working as a clerk and entering information though? NO. I consider both the theoretical and the practical side. If they say 18, I write down 18, I do not have to believe it, do I? There are no legal repercussions for me either since I did not make their age up, only wrote what they said. If someone who is 18 said they are 20, it is their lie, not mine. I cannot even be expected to be held accountable for failing to detect their lie given the closeness in given and actual age unless it was my duty to have asked for a state issued ID (which technically can also be counterfeited; no law of physics eliminates that possibility). If they look 18 and said they are 50, still possible, it's called plastic surgery. However, I just act based on the possibility with highest probability. |
BalsaminaApr 17, 2017 10:45 PM
| There's no inherent right or wrong in this universe, but when we think with emotions rather than logic, we make things so. |
More topics from this board
» If there's a weeb university, what kind of classes do we need?Cute_Marseille - Oct 27 |
37 |
by xMizu_
»»
3 minutes ago |
|
» Can you sing decently or are you always out of tune?fleurbleue - Oct 23 |
27 |
by SwornCrow
»»
4 minutes ago |
|
» Where do you guys meet people irl?Cneq - Oct 25 |
27 |
by Cneq
»»
6 minutes ago |
|
» Do you smoke sigaretes, or other stuff? ( 1 2 3 )ssvmdh - May 30 |
119 |
by _untitled
»»
17 minutes ago |
|
» Haters in your life - Important LessonAllAlone8 - Oct 27 |
16 |
by Nysse
»»
20 minutes ago |