[Railroader]

Originally Posted by itistoday

Dude, it's only 3rd grade level because that's the level the Bible was written in originally. I mean come on, every paragraph starts with an article. That's the first thing they tell you not to do in Language Arts classes.


You asked him to read several hundred pages of absolutely horrible written crap! Tell me, why can't you just quote the relevant parts for him? Are you saying that the explanation to why the Bible said stoning your children is "OK" takes 4 books to explain? I guess it must, because it must take some really clever reasoning to justify that.

Since you're so lazy, I'll give you this first one for free. BRussell should have known that answer to this one. He was acting ignorant on purpose.

John 8:1-11

1 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

11"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Railroader

No, you didn't. As many people have pointed out here. Notice not even BRussell is backing you on this one?

Yes, I did. Both you and Millennium said the same thing. You both complained about the 'context' and the 'LEGOs'. I addressed both of those 'issues'. See my posts above you.

(Short summary of them: No possible context to justify them, Chuckit has read the entire Bible and concur, and you fail to provide the context that will justify them. The LEGOs have no bearing because they are direct quotes. The Brick Testament displays passages unadulterated passages from the Bible)

Again, your argument is void until you address the posts I made that address your argument.

Originally Posted by Railroader

How would you know? You've never read it. Or are you a liar?

I never read all of it, but I have read parts of it.

Edit: Ah, I see you're finally playing ball. One sec.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Since you're so lazy, I'll give you this first one for free.

You play by a very funny set of rules. In a debate, if someone has damning evidence against you, you must procure evidence that counteracts theirs. You can't ask the person that's arguing against you to procure that evidence for you. You have two choices: lose the debate and walk away, or procure said evidence. You have finally provided what is allegedly evidence that saves you from the 'stone throwing' accusation. Let's see if it's good enough.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

11"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

I fail to see how this condemns the Bible's rule of stoning. All he's doing is calling them hypocrites? Am I correct? And so they walk away (for a reason that still escapes me), and with no accusers left the woman is scott free. However, he does not say anything that condemns the rule, and so it still stands. The only thing I'm getting out of this is that Jesus managed to avoid dirtying his hands.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by itistoday

Yes, I did. Both you and Millennium said the same thing. You both complained about the 'context' and the 'LEGOs'. I addressed both of those 'issues'. See my posts above you.

(Short summary of them: No possible context to justify them, Chuckit has read the entire Bible and concur, and you fail to provide the context that will justify them. The LEGOs have no bearing because they are direct quotes. The Brick Testament displays passages unadulterated passages from the Bible)

Again, your argument is void until you address the posts I made that address your argument.

I never read all of it, but I have read parts of it.

Edit: Ah, I see you're finally playing ball. One sec.

Yup, you're lazy. I wish you'd show some initiative.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Yup, you're lazy. I wish you'd show some initiative.

I don't think it works that way.

Originally Posted by itistoday

You play by a very funny set of rules. In a debate, if someone has damning evidence against you, you must procure evidence that counteracts theirs. You can't ask the person that's arguing against you to procure that evidence for you. You have two choices: lose the debate and walk away, or procure said evidence.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by itistoday

You play by a very funny set of rules. In a debate, if someone has damning evidence against you, you must procure evidence that counteracts theirs. You can't ask the person that's arguing against you to procure that evidence for you. You have two choices: lose the debate and walk away, or procure said evidence. You have finally provided what is allegedly evidence that saves you from the 'stone throwing' accusation. Let's see if it's good enough.

So, is ignorance about said issue a valid debating point?

Originally Posted by itistoday

I fail to see how this condemns the Bible's rule of stoning. All he's doing is calling them hypocrites? Am I correct? And so they walk away (for a reason that still escapes me), and with no accusers left the woman is scott free. However, he does not say anything that condemns the rule, and so it still stands.

No, he's stating no one other than God is in a position to condemn someone to death. she is not scott free. She is given the burden of never sinning again. You try that. Get back to us on it.

The whole text I provided condemns stoning. Does he need to reenact the same situation for every sin for you to understand? Do you need it all spoon fed to you?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by itistoday

I don't think it works that way.

You're lazy. For all the time you've spent debating this silly little lego site you could have been half way through the OT. *

You're lazy.

Do something.


*or perhaps you're a REALLY slow reader. If that's the case than I apologize. If I were you I'd work on that first thing.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Railroader

So, is ignorance about said issue a valid debating point?

What? I've brought up issues with the Bible and have clearly quoted them. Obviously I'm not ignorant of them, I may be ignorant of your views on them, but if every debater was aware of what his opponent was thinking there would be no debates!

Originally Posted by Railroader

No, he's stating no one other than God is in a position to condemn someone to death.

I see two one problems here.

Edit: Ignore the first one, I see, Jesus asked her if anyone had condemned her and he took her word that no one did. What would he do if she said "yes"? By the law of the OT he should have stoned her then.
1) There was someone who was supposedly sin-free, and that was Jesus. Why did he not stone her then?

2) According to the OT, God himself 'spake unto Moses' to 'spake unto his people' various rules. The stoning rule was one of them. God/Moses made no mention of one having to be sin-free to carry out these rules, and obviously none of the people he spoke to were sin free. Thus either God was wasting his time by telling them those rules, or he intended humans to carry his rules out. I'm guessing it was the latter. This means that we have a contradiction within the bible between two very important figures: Moses and Jesus. Moses says that anyone can carry out these rules, and Jesus says that only God (or 'sin-free' humans, and I'm guessing that no one is sin free other than God) can carry out the rules.

Who's right? They're both God speaking, actually the Bible specifically states that God was speaking in Moses' case. This was not so with the case of Jesus.

To be honest, your incredible interpretation seems too far-fetched to me, and I think it's simply that Jesus felt sorry for the woman and/or didn't want to dirty his hands, not really having much to do with God. You certainly haven't quoted any direct evidence.

Originally Posted by Railroader

she is not scott free. She is given the burden of never sinning again.

And I'm sure that she'll be sure not to sin again. God said that her punishment would be death by stones. Thus she must receive this punishment, and apparently Jesus feels that she must receive from a sin-free human or God. So what have you to say to this? Will she be stoned in Hell or something? Or is God fallible and subject to change his rules at random?

Originally Posted by Railroader

The whole text I provided condemns stoning.

Nowhere is stoning condemned there! How can you say that when it doesn't say that anywhere in the quote you provided??? All it shows, in the most extreme interpretation, is that the Bible contradicts itself!

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by itistoday

What? I've brought up issues with the Bible and have clearly quoted them. Obviously I'm not ignorant of them, I may be ignorant of your views on them, but if every debater was aware of what his opponent was thinking there would be no debates!

I see two one problems here.

Edit: Ignore the first one, I see, Jesus asked her if anyone had condemned her and he took her word that no one did.
1) There was someone who was supposedly sin-free, and that was Jesus. Why did he not stone her then?

2) According to the OT, God himself 'spake unto Moses' to 'spake unto his people' various rules. The stoning rule was one of them. God/Moses made no mention of one having to be sin-free to carry out these rules, and obviously none of the people he spoke to were sin free. Thus either God was wasting his time by telling them those rules, or he intended humans to carry his rules out. I'm guessing it was the latter. This means that we have a contradiction within the bible between two very important figures: Moses and Jesus. Moses says that anyone can carry out these rules, and Jesus says that only God (or 'sin-free' humans, and I'm guessing that no one is sin free other than God) can carry out the rules.

Who's right? They're both God speaking, actually the Bible specifically states that God was speaking in Moses' case. This was not so with the case of Jesus.

To be honest, your incredible interpretation seems too far-fetched to me, and I think it's simply that Jesus felt sorry for the woman and/or didn't want to dirty his hands, not really having much to do with God. You certainly haven't quoted any direct evidence.

And I'm sure that she'll be sure not to sin again. God said that her punishment would be death by stones. Thus she must receive this punishment, and apparently Jesus feels that she must receive from a sin-free human or God. So what have you to say to this? Will she be stoned in Hell or something? Or is God fallible and subject to change his rules at random?

Nowhere is stoning condemned there! How can you say that when it doesn't say that anywhere in the quote you provided??? All it shows, in the most extreme interpretation, is that the Bible contradicts itself!

Quit being so lazy. Actually READ the text your are so desperately trying to understand. All of you questions will be answered.

I am not your Bible instructor. You don't even need an instructor. All you need to do is overcome your laziness and actually read a small book. Quit wasting your time reading commentary on the bible and actually read the Bible. How hard of a concept is that to understand?

I was right the first time. Debating this topic with you is a waste of time. You won't even take the time to familiarize yourself with the subject matter.

Good luck trolling for someone else to take your bait.

You aren't interested in intellectual discussions, you just want to debate. I feel foolish for indulging you.

Cheers.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Railroader

You won't even take the time to familiarize yourself with the subject matter.

IMO, I've spent more than enough time familiarizing myself with this subject matter; too much in fact.

Originally Posted by Railroader

Good luck trolling for someone else to take your bait.

A troll will make a provocative statement in order to spark up debate, while providing little to no actual content/evidence himself. I have provided a lot of obvious, blatant, incontrovertible evidence that you fail to address. Your pathetic response is: "Go argue with yourself". If this is all that the religious right has to offer, I'm not impressed.

Originally Posted by Railroader

You aren't interested in intellectual discussions, you just want to debate.

I think I've proven through my lengthy and well thought-out responses to your posts that I am indeed interested in an intellectual discussion. You know your position is weak and so you're deciding to bail out of it. I understand, I just wish you were more up front about it and say something like: "itistoday, I see your point, but I want to believe, so please let me."

Cheers indeed.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Since you're so lazy, I'll give you this first one for free. BRussell should have known that answer to this one. He was acting ignorant on purpose.

John 8:1-11

1 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

11"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

Actually, while the story of John 8:1-11 is a very nice one, it can't be found in early scriptures of John's gospel...

Taliesin

[Big Mac]

There's a tremendously thick layer of willful ignorance in this thread, if only to the extent that many are perfectly willing to blindly believe blatantly biased derivative works and are totally unwilling to spend the nominal time required with the primary texts to verify those claims. Now, if this were a debate about texts not readily available to the public or not available in English, I could more easily accept a reluctance to consult primary sources. But it's rather apparent that those who accept such critiques of the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Bible while steadfastly refusing to refer to the primary texts are willfully ignorant.

As many of you know, I am a Jew. I take Biblical scholarship very seriously. Some of you have made claims about the Hebrew Scriptures without a sufficient understanding of the text. Of course, my understanding of scripture will differ considerably from a Christian's understanding. I'll let you know that from the religious Jews' perspective, every single word and every single commandment in the Torah is valid, just and holy. That does not mean, of course, that everything therein is palatable to every single person, but one's limited personal outlook has no effect on the intrinsic qualities of the text and doctrine.

Many of you take the claims of atheist sites as truth. I have not yet looked at this Brick site, but I looked through a lot of the Skeptics Annotated Bible and found its content to be false and meritless. ChuckIt, in response to your questioning of the laws pertaining to rape and adultery in Deuteronomy 22, you are conflating two separate cases. In the first a betrothed woman consents to sex with another when she could have rejected the advance and thus both are sentenced to death. In the second case, the betrothed woman is raped, and so only the rapist is put to death. There is nothing inequitable or unjust about those laws. Similarly, there are commandments regulating slavery, but Torah-based slavery is actually quite humane. The Torah recognizes that slavery is employed by humanity and that free people may even opt to enslave themselves in order to pay debts they cannot otherwise cover, but Torah provides a number of regulations that safeguard the living conditions of slaves. Once again, simply because slavery is not palatable to most in the modern western world, that outlook (as valid as it is for us in the secular world) does not invalidate G-d's eternal truth. A few months back there was a thread containing many similar accusations against the Hebrew Scriptures, and from my perspective all such accusations fail.

Many negative commandments do appear harsh. The primary reason why such punishments are prescribed for serious violations of Torah is due to the fact that the Jewish people are held to the highest standard on earth. We are commanded to be a holy nation that is meant to serve as a shining example to the other nations. In order to fulfill that mission, considerable acts of evil must be punished severely and wiped away from the nation. A secondary explanation, is that the Hebrew Scriptures are most accurately understood in the context of Judaism, Jewish law and the precedents set forth by the first and second commonwealths of Biblical Israel. The Torah and the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures were given to the Jewish people, meant for the Jewish people and lived by the Jewish people. Obviously there are universal instructions in the Hebrew Scriptures that apply to all of humanity (see the Seven Laws of Noah); yet, most of the Hebrew Scriptures are intended for Am Yisrael.

Those who have no notion of how the commandments were enforced in Biblical Israel cannot properly comprehend their ramifications. Here's a rough analogy in American Jurisprudence: While copyright law has provisions for severe punishments ($50,000 in fines and imprisonment), it would be laughable to claim every single person who technically violates a copyright gets punished that severely. We have legal institutions that enforce those provisions in certain ways that are usually not nearly as severe as the maximum statutory penalty. Now, if you had no knowledge of those legal practices and only knew of the statutory prescribed punishments, would you cavalierly assert every copyright violation is punished to the fullest extent of the law? In reality, the Jewish people were able to live under Torah law without being compelled to employ the death penalty throughout most of the vast period of biblical history. A court that executed a single person in 70 years was referred to as a "bloody court." But unless you know some Jewish history and have a clue as to how the commandments were enforced, you'll have a very inaccurate conception of the Torah.

In any event, it's quite natural for non-Jews (and even many liberal Jews) to not accept the truth of Torah. Denial of truth does not negate truth, and G-d's eternal truth is supreme.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

There's a tremendously thick layer of ignorance in this thread, if only to the extent that many are perfectly willing to blindly believe blatantly biased derivative works and are totally unwilling to spend the nominal time required with the primary texts to verify those claims. Now, if this were a debate about texts not readily available to the public or not available in English, I could more readily accept a reluctance to consult primary sources. But it's rather apparent that those who accept such critiques of the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Bible while steadfastly refusing to refer to the primary texts are willfully ignorant.

As many of you know, I am a Jew. I take Biblical scholarship very seriously. Some of you have made claims about the Hebrew Scriptures without a sufficient understanding of the text. Of course, my understanding of scripture will differ considerably from a Christian's understanding. I'll let you know that from the religious Jews' perspective, every single word and every single commandment in the Torah is valid, just and holy. That does not mean, of course, that everything therein is palatable to every single person, but one's limited personal outlook has no effect on the intrinsic qualities of the text and doctrine.

Many of you take the claims of atheist sites as truth. I have not yet looked at this Brick site, but I looked through a lot of the Skeptics Annotated Bible and found its content to be false and meritless. ChuckIt, in response to your questioning of the laws pertaining to rape and adultery in Deuteronomy 22, you are conflating two separate cases. In the first a betrothed woman consents to sex with another when she could have rejected the advance and thus both are sentenced to death. In the second case, the betrothed woman is raped, and so only the rapist is put to death. There is nothing inequitable or unjust about those laws. Similarly, there are commandments regulating slavery, but Torah-based slavery is actually quite humane. The Torah recognizes that slavery is employed by humanity and that free people may even opt to enslave themselves in order to pay debts they cannot otherwise cover, but Torah provides a number of regulations that safeguard the living conditions of slaves. Once again, simply because slavery is not palatable to most in the modern western world, that outlook (as valid as it is for us in the secular world) does not invalidate G-d's eternal truth. A few months back there was a thread containing many similar accusations against the Hebrew Scriptures, and from my perspective all such accusations fail.

Many negative commandments do appear harsh. The primary reason why such punishments are prescribed for serious violations of Torah is due to the fact that the Jewish people are held to the highest standard on earth. We are commanded to be a holy nation that is meant to serve as a shining example to the other nations. In order to fulfill that mission, considerable acts of evil must be punished severely and wiped away from the nation. A secondary explanation, is that the Hebrew Scriptures are most accurately understood in the context of Judaism, Jewish law and the precedents set forth by the first and second commonwealths of Biblical Israel. One important reason why this is the case is that the Torah and the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures were given to the Jewish people and meant for the Jewish people. Obviously there are universal instructions in the Hebrew Scriptures that apply to all of humanity (see the Seven Laws of Noah). Yet, most of the Hebrew Scriptures are intended for Am Yisrael.

Those who have no notion of how the commandments were enforced in Biblical Israel cannot properly comprehend their ramifications. Here's a rough analogy in American Jurisprudence: While copyright law has provisions for severe punishments ($50,000 in fines and imprisonment), it would be laughable to claim every single person who technically violates a copyright gets punished that severely. We have legal institutions that enforce those provisions in certain ways that are usually not nearly as severe as the maximum statutory penalty, but if you had no knowledge of those legal practices, would you cavalierly assert every copyright violation is punished to the fullest extent of the law?

In any event, it's quite natural for non-Jews (and even many liberal Jews) to not accept Torah as truth. Denial of truth does not negate truth, and G-d's truth is supreme.

Good argument.

Taliesin

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Good argument.

Taliesin

Thank you for the great compliment, Taliesin. Given our respective theological backgrounds, your positive response is particularly meaningful.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Thank you for the great compliment, Taliesin. Given our respective theological backgrounds, your positive response is particularly meaningful.

I don't quite know what you mean with respective theological backgrounds, but you are welcome.

Taliesin

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

There's a tremendously thick layer of willful ignorance in this thread, if only to the extent that many are perfectly willing to blindly believe blatantly biased derivative works and are totally unwilling to spend the nominal time required with the primary texts to verify those claims. Now, if this were a debate about texts not readily available to the public or not available in English, I could more easily accept a reluctance to consult primary sources. But it's rather apparent that those who accept such critiques of the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Bible while steadfastly refusing to refer to the primary texts are willfully ignorant.

As many of you know, I am a Jew. I take Biblical scholarship very seriously. Some of you have made claims about the Hebrew Scriptures without a sufficient understanding of the text. Of course, my understanding of scripture will differ considerably from a Christian's understanding. I'll let you know that from the religious Jews' perspective, every single word and every single commandment in the Torah is valid, just and holy. That does not mean, of course, that everything therein is palatable to every single person, but one's limited personal outlook has no effect on the intrinsic qualities of the text and doctrine.

Many of you take the claims of atheist sites as truth. I have not yet looked at this Brick site, but I looked through a lot of the Skeptics Annotated Bible and found its content to be false and meritless. ChuckIt, in response to your questioning of the laws pertaining to rape and adultery in Deuteronomy 22, you are conflating two separate cases. In the first a betrothed woman consents to sex with another when she could have rejected the advance and thus both are sentenced to death. In the second case, the betrothed woman is raped, and so only the rapist is put to death. There is nothing inequitable or unjust about those laws. Similarly, there are commandments regulating slavery, but Torah-based slavery is actually quite humane. The Torah recognizes that slavery is employed by humanity and that free people may even opt to enslave themselves in order to pay debts they cannot otherwise cover, but Torah provides a number of regulations that safeguard the living conditions of slaves. Once again, simply because slavery is not palatable to most in the modern western world, that outlook (as valid as it is for us in the secular world) does not invalidate G-d's eternal truth. A few months back there was a thread containing many similar accusations against the Hebrew Scriptures, and from my perspective all such accusations fail.

Many negative commandments do appear harsh. The primary reason why such punishments are prescribed for serious violations of Torah is due to the fact that the Jewish people are held to the highest standard on earth. We are commanded to be a holy nation that is meant to serve as a shining example to the other nations. In order to fulfill that mission, considerable acts of evil must be punished severely and wiped away from the nation. A secondary explanation, is that the Hebrew Scriptures are most accurately understood in the context of Judaism, Jewish law and the precedents set forth by the first and second commonwealths of Biblical Israel. The Torah and the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures were given to the Jewish people, meant for the Jewish people and lived by the Jewish people. Obviously there are universal instructions in the Hebrew Scriptures that apply to all of humanity (see the Seven Laws of Noah); yet, most of the Hebrew Scriptures are intended for Am Yisrael.

Those who have no notion of how the commandments were enforced in Biblical Israel cannot properly comprehend their ramifications. Here's a rough analogy in American Jurisprudence: While copyright law has provisions for severe punishments ($50,000 in fines and imprisonment), it would be laughable to claim every single person who technically violates a copyright gets punished that severely. We have legal institutions that enforce those provisions in certain ways that are usually not nearly as severe as the maximum statutory penalty. Now, if you had no knowledge of those legal practices and only knew of the statutory prescribed punishments, would you cavalierly assert every copyright violation is punished to the fullest extent of the law? In reality, the Jewish people were able to live under Torah law without being compelled to employ the death penalty throughout most of the vast period of biblical history. A court that executed a single person in 70 years was referred to as a "bloody court." But unless you know some Jewish history and have a clue as to how the commandments were enforced, you'll have a very inaccurate conception of the Torah.

In any event, it's quite natural for non-Jews (and even many liberal Jews) to not accept the truth of Torah. Denial of truth does not negate truth, and G-d's eternal truth is supreme.

Very well put!!

I have not been around for a little while and only saw this "Brick Testament" thread a couple of times. I clicked the link provided in the first post and realized this is simply one proselytizing their unbelief. Somehow, this is more admirable than one who proselytizes their belief. I visited and viewed a couple of items and immediately found ignorance to textual relevance, ignorance to the culture of the time and just plain ignorance in general.

The thread is mostly painful bickering, but managed to catch a few items;

Example 1; The perfume poored on Jesus' head and Jesus' acceptance of this was not to keep them from selling the perfume and giving the money to the poor. The accusation that this act by the woman was somehow bad form was lodged by one of unbelief and by one who was trying to paint Jesus in an unfavorable, unsightly, and incompassionate manner. Interestingly, echoed by one of unbelief today with the exact same demeanor. Jesus knew full well there would be no selling of expensive perfume for money to give to the poor. The notion was preposterous. Jesus responds in the manner you'd expect given the circumstance.

Example 2; Stoning. Today, the death penalty is carried out by lethal injection and by electric chair. Perhaps if these items had been made available to those in that day, they would've been employed. I suppose we can debate the pros and cons of the death penalty another time. One had asked why the men walked away after Jesus wrote with his finger in the ground. I'd urge you to read the text and consider the culture. For a successful indictment of adultery and fornication, there needed to be witnesses. The charge was a setup, the witnesses knew it, and false witness was worthy of stoning. The men knew it and when they saw the name of the one in the ground and realized they were false witnesses to the event, they left. As well they should have given the circumstance. The gig was up and they knew it.

Example 3; One had suggested that the New Testament supercedes the Old. This is incorrect IMO. Without the Old Covenant, there would've been no new. Christians believe the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed. Jesus Himself acknowledged the credibility of the Old Testament; “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish but to fulfill.”

Example 3; (as noted by Big Mac) Slavery of the time was much different than slavery as we know it. Doctors were slaves, slaves enjoyed quarter with their masters, participated in family celebration, etc...

Regarding Christianity specifically;
One who assumes the Bible supports something "evil" by virtue of the fact that within it you find examples of God working through human nature for Divine purpose, fails to understand the most basic fundamentals of the co-existence between God and man in the Christian doctrine. Jesus' life, death, and resurrection are essential to Christianity all having been facilitated by human nature. A human nature that is sometimes brutal, sometimes beautiful.

It was on the tenets of those "barbarians" of the Old Testament that our more "civil" societies we enjoy today were founded.

There are those who believe and those who do not and both feel it necessary to proselytize their view. This is not the first time the Bible has been bastardized by man and it won't be the last. There is nothing new under the sun.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

I don't quite know what you mean with respective theological backgrounds, but you are welcome. Taliesin

He is a self-proclaimed Jew and you are a self-proclaimed Muslim. Jews and Muslims have had some strife between them historically.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Since you're so lazy, I'll give you this first one for free. BRussell should have known that answer to this one. He was acting ignorant on purpose.

John 8:1-11

1 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

11"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

It's probably one of my (and a lot of others') favorite Jesus stories.

Oddly enough, that story does not appear in the earliest biblical manuscripts. It was added later. Either it isn't really Jesus, or it is from some other tradition or source that no longer exists. For a reference on that, check out this book and "search inside" for "The woman taken in adultery." It's on page 63.

Oh well, it's a great story.

[edit] After some searching, I found this wikipedia entry as well: Pericope Adulteræ. It didn't connect with me that the adulteress woman in question has traditionally been thought of as Mary Magdalene (though she isn't named as such in the story).

Ehrman in that book above raises some other thought questions about the story: If they found the woman in adultery, presumably there was a man involved too. So where is he, and why isn't he being stoned too, as the law required? And what was Jesus writing in the sand with his finger? Apparently, one theory is that he was writing out the sins of those in the crowd, and when they saw that he knew, that's one of the reasons they all left.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

There's a tremendously thick layer of willful ignorance in this thread, if only to the extent that many are perfectly willing to blindly believe blatantly biased derivative works and are totally unwilling to spend the nominal time required with the primary texts to verify those claims.

Firstly, let me extend a warm welcome to you for joining this "Great Debate", Big Mac. Now, let us begin with the destruction of you post.

Sir, I believe I've addressed this first point of yours multiple times now. It has been raised by Millennium, Railroader, loki74, probably Spliffdaddy, and most likely others. It's called the 'context' argument, and I have clearly shown that the Brick Testament is a primary source document. It's as much a primary source document as is the King James Version of the Bible. Both are direct translations of the original Biblical texts. This point is NULL. Stop bringing it up.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

I'll let you know that from the religious Jews' perspective, every single word and every single commandment in the Torah is valid, just and holy.

Excellent, this makes my job all the more easier and it makes it much more difficult for you to hide behind words like 'interpretation'.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Many of you take the claims of atheist sites as truth.

His site contains valid passages from the Bible. You people are really insistent upon this aren't you? It's alright, I have the capability of reminding you of this fact every time you bring it into question.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

I have not yet looked at this Brick site

Woah! Stop a minute! You've entered a thread whose central argument revolves around this site, you accuse me of not having read the 'primary texts' (when I have), and now you tell me that you haven't even *looked* at the Brick site? Who's "willfully ignorant" now?

Originally Posted by Big Mac

ChuckIt, in response to your questioning of the laws pertaining to rape and adultery in Deuteronomy 22, you are conflating two separate cases. In the first a betrothed woman consents to sex with another when she could have rejected the advance and thus both are sentenced to death. In the second case, the betrothed woman is raped, and so only the rapist is put to death. There is nothing inequitable or unjust about those laws.

Let the record show that Big Mac supports the murdering of unfaithful women. Oh, and btw Big Mac, this was only one of the issues brought up in this thread. It would be wise for you to at the very least familiarize yourself with all of the issues I brought up, because you know, that's how debates work. Heck, I'll quote them for you here:

It should be obvious, but I guess not for some. The LEGOs are unimportant. If I were to have read those quotes without the pictures I would have been equally outraged. Had I come to you and said: "Hey, check out this awesome book I found. It advocates racism, sexism, hatred, stoning your children to death, raping women, killing servants, killing people for sexual deviation, and it's also horribly written! You know what else? It was inspired by God himself I tell you!"

You know what you'd say to me? You'd call me a f*cking lunatic. For some reason everyone changes their tune when they're told that the title of the book is "The Bible".

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Similarly, there are commandments regulating slavery, but Torah-based slavery is actually quite humane. The Torah recognizes that slavery is employed by humanity and that free people may even opt to enslave themselves in order to pay debts they cannot otherwise cover, but Torah provides a number of regulations that safeguard the living conditions of slaves. Once again, simply because slavery is not palatable to most in the modern western world, that outlook (as valid as it is for us in the secular world) does not invalidate G-d's eternal truth. A few months back there was a thread containing many similar accusations against the Hebrew Scriptures, and from my perspective all such accusations fail.

Let me refresh your memory for you as to what the Bible says about slaves:

'But if the slave says to you, "I do not want to leave you," because he loves you and your family, and is well off with you'

'then you must take an awl and drive it through the slave's ear and into the door. He will be your servant forever.'

Deuteronomy 15:16-17

'If someone beats his slave and the slave dies at his hands he shall certainly be avenged.
'But should the slave survive for one day or two he will pay no penalty because the slave is his owner's property.'

Exodus 21:20-21

Let the record show that Big Mac supports the abuse and murdering of slaves because they are not human but property.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Many negative commandments do appear harsh.

No kidding?

Originally Posted by Big Mac

The primary reason why such punishments are prescribed for serious violations of Torah is due to the fact that the Jewish people are held to the highest standard on earth. We are commanded to be a holy nation that is meant to serve as a shining example to the other nations. In order to fulfill that mission, considerable acts of evil must be punished severely and wiped away from the nation.

Wow. So the Jewish race is "special"? This reminds me of a similar line of thought.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

A secondary explanation, is that the Hebrew Scriptures are most accurately understood in the context of Judaism, Jewish law and the precedents set forth by the first and second commonwealths of Biblical Israel. The Torah and the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures were given to the Jewish people, meant for the Jewish people and lived by the Jewish people. Obviously there are universal instructions in the Hebrew Scriptures that apply to all of humanity (see the Seven Laws of Noah); yet, most of the Hebrew Scriptures are intended for Am Yisrael.

Let the record show that Big Mac proposes that the Bible mostly applies to the Jews. i.e. God is mainly with the Jews. You seriously are a nutball, you know that?

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Those who have no notion of how the commandments were enforced in Biblical Israel cannot properly comprehend their ramifications. Here's a rough analogy in American Jurisprudence: While copyright law has provisions for severe punishments ($50,000 in fines and imprisonment), it would be laughable to claim every single person who technically violates a copyright gets punished that severely. We have legal institutions that enforce those provisions in certain ways that are usually not nearly as severe as the maximum statutory penalty. Now, if you had no knowledge of those legal practices and only knew of the statutory prescribed punishments, would you cavalierly assert every copyright violation is punished to the fullest extent of the law? In reality, the Jewish people were able to live under Torah law without being compelled to employ the death penalty throughout most of the vast period of biblical history. A court that executed a single person in 70 years was referred to as a "bloody court." But unless you know some Jewish history and have a clue as to how the commandments were enforced, you'll have a very inaccurate conception of the Torah.

I see. For those who don't want to read all of that Big Mac is saying that laws aren't important because you don't have to follow them, and therefore even if Congress enacted a law that demanded you sell your first-born off to slavery, it wouldn't really matter if only a 25% of people actually did that. And people complemented your post! Unbelievable.

I've gotta go now, eBuddy you're next, prepare yourself. Make any edits/revisions to your post now while you can, because when I get back I will destroy your pathetic post as well. Cheers.

[Rumor]

Take the damn website for what it is. Quotes from the Bible with funny pictures.

Itistoday, read the whole book, then comment.

Railroader, you're being baited, know it, yet still respond.

I'm not saying either of you are right or wrong, but you are both being childish about the whole thing.

[Chuckit]

My theory is that Jesus was writing the Deuteronomy passage about how adulterers should be prosecuted, so they saw they were also sinning. The fact that it doesn't say what Jesus was writing actually strikes me as authentic, since a lot of his disciples were probably illiterate.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by itistoday

I personally find it 'quite pathetic' that you denounce logical reasoning and obvious evidence and attempt to hide behind the word 'context' without providing it yourself. Now that's pathetic and shows you've lost. Seriously, can you imagine such a tactic being used in other debates? Say global warming:

Who's the pathetic one?

So far I've been the only person in this entire thread to actually cite biblical evidence for his argument.

Only because you don't know much about the Bible and are making assumptions about it, as a whole, that aren't true across OT and NT. I'm not using biblical evidence to argue for its own validity; I'm using NT citation to provide evidence against outmoded OT quotations that you have been citing as the current Christian gospel.

And on a different line of thought and argumentation is history: historically, OT and NT were written in very radically different times than today.

The funny thing is: I'm agnostic. I'm not Christian and severely doubt the supernatural areas of the Bible. However, I'm also not ignorant. I'll read the Bible, I'll read what biblical scholars have to say, and I'll make my own judgment. Meanwhile, you read a satire without familiarity with the original source and think you have a solid argument (which I doubt is even tangible to you).

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Rumor

Railroader, you're being baited, know it, yet still respond.

I'm not saying either of you are right or wrong, but you are both being childish about the whole thing.

I know, and I feel ashamed of myself for it. A weak moment.

Thank you for pointing it out.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Only because you don't know much about the Bible and are making assumptions about it, as a whole, that aren't true across OT and NT. I'm not using biblical evidence to argue for its own validity; I'm using NT citation to provide evidence against outmoded OT quotations that you have been citing as the current Christian gospel.

And on a different line of thought and argumentation is history: historically, OT and NT were written in very radically different times than today.

The funny thing is: I'm agnostic. I'm not Christian and severely doubt the supernatural areas of the Bible. However, I'm also not ignorant. I'll read the Bible, I'll read what biblical scholars have to say, and I'll make my own judgment. Meanwhile, you read a satire without familiarity with the original source and think you have a solid argument (which I doubt is even tangible to you).

Some sanity and the reason I remain. Well said Stradlater.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Ehrman in that book above raises some other thought questions about the story: If they found the woman in adultery, presumably there was a man involved too.

The lightbulb flickers...

So where is he,

Perhaps among the eldest of them that left first?

and why isn't he being stoned too,

Good question. I suspect this might be why they started walking away.

And what was Jesus writing in the sand with his finger?

Perhaps the name of the guilty man? A friend among those who falsely claimed to have witnessed the event?

Apparently, one theory is that he was writing out the sins of those in the crowd, and when they saw that he knew, that's one of the reasons they all left.

Logic my dear Watson.

[ebuddy]

Well, I've scanned through all my posts to ensure there's nothing to be edited.

It is tomorrow and still no itistoday. You are the Jimmy Swaggart of the unbeliever, I'm interested to hear what message of unbelief you've come to preach here on MacNN. Realizing of course that you'll be one insanely productive Christian one day.

May God's Will be done in your life brother. I love you.

ebuddy

[rambo47]

I always found the Second Book of Kings to be enlightening. After being teased by children about his bald head, Elisha cursed them in the name of God. Something like this:

He went up from there to Bethel. As he was going up by the way, some youths came out of the city and mocked him, and said to him, "Go up, you baldy! Go up, you baldhead!"

He looked behind him and saw them, and cursed them in the name of Yahweh. Two female bears came out of the woods, and mauled forty-two of those youths.

For those of you with an edited Bible that for some reason no longer contains this story http://bible.cc/2_kings/2-24.htm

Silly me, I figured children deserved a little more compassion than that. I guess God felt differently. Just one little example of why I am not a Christian.

[Spliffdaddy]

"Children" didn't necesarily mean juveniles - according to one of the sidenotes...

Nor was this punishment too great for the offence, if it be considered, that their mocking proceeded from a great malignity of mind against God; that they mocked not only a man, and an ancient man, whose very age commanded reverence; and a prophet; but even God himself, and that glorious work of God, the assumption of Elijah into heaven; that they might be guilty of many other heinous crimes, which God and the prophet knew; and were guilty of idolatry, which by God's law deserved death; that the idolatrous parents were punished in their children; and that, if any of these children were more innocent, God might have mercy upon their souls, and then this death was not a misery, but a real blessing to them, that they were taken away from that education which was most likely to expose them not only to temporal, but eternal destruction. In the name - Not from any revengeful passion, but by the motion of God's Spirit, and by God's command and commission. God did this, partly, for the terror and caution of all other idolaters and prophane persons who abounded in that place; partly, to vindicate the honour, and maintain the authority of his prophets; and particularly, of Elisha, now especially, in the beginning of his sacred ministry. Children - This Hebrew word signifies not only young children, but also those who are grown up to maturity, as Gen 32:22, 34:4, 37:30, Ruth 1:5

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by itistoday

Firstly, let me extend a warm welcome to you for joining this "Great Debate", Big Mac. Now, let us begin with the destruction of you post.

If you’re going to talk with such bravado, it would be a good idea to have the goods to back it up. But you're so terribly deluded and pompous there's no possibility of having a civil discourse with you. For future reference, though, you've made yourself look even more foolish by claiming to destroy my post and then proceeding to use only unsubstantiated claims, a purposely outlandish misapprehension of many of my points and juvenile hyperbole. I must say with sincerity, idiottoday, you've played right into my hands with your idiocy. You're out of your league; you should have quit this thread long ago.

I have clearly shown that the Brick Testament is a primary source document. It's as much a primary source document as is the King James Version of the Bible.

And how can you even claim to know this document uses the primary sources when you earlier explicitly admitted to having no desire to read the Hebrew Scriptures? By implication you must only possess an unsubstantiated belief that the material you're relying upon is valid, and that belief must have been formed by claims presented to you. As long as such claims comport with your warped view, it appears you are prepared to grant full credence to all of the things you're told without any independent verification. How very illogical of you.

Excellent, this makes my job all the more easier and it makes it much more difficult for you to hide behind words like 'interpretation'.

Well, I never used the word interpretation, and I never implied that a proper understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures requires interpretation. I do maintain that some passages must not be taken out of context and must be read with at least a modest understanding of Jewish laws and history if one wishes to gain an accurate view of the text. In addition, the fact that you're relying on poor English translations rather than the original Hebrew or legitimate Hebrew translation accounts for some of the defects in your understanding.

Woah! Stop a minute! You've entered a thread whose central argument revolves around this site, you accuse me of not having read the 'primary texts' (when I have), and now you tell me that you haven't even *looked* at the Brick site? Who's "willfully ignorant" now?

Who is the author of this Brick Testament - do you even know? I have not seen a single reference to an author, or to said author's lofty credentials. If I choose to eschew a highly dubious derivative work posted some place on the Internet by someone so unqualified that no one even bothers to mention his or her name, few will stand with you in denouncing me for it. I'll stick with the primary texts, and you can stick with Brick and the distinguished and eminent editorial staff of Wikipedia. We'll see who comes out ahead at the end of the day.

Let the record show that Big Mac supports the murdering of unfaithful women.

When Jews live under Torah law, capital punishment is one of the prescribed remedies for very serious sins. It was rarely carried out, though, and that's not because Jews failed to enforce it properly, as you predictably claim later on. I'll correct you on that account below.

It would be wise for you to at the very least familiarize yourself with all of the issues I brought up, because you know, that's how debates work.

Please provide a reference to this supposed authoritative rule to which you allude that declares participants must address every single claim raised in the course of debate. If I had been in this thread closer to its inception, I likely would have expended the time to thoroughly disabuse you of all of your misconceptions. However, most of the contributors had already beaten your arguments so thoroughly that I felt it was necessary only to address certain neglected points. I wasn't even replying directly to you in my previous post because your nonsensical claims weren’t worth refuting specifically. I was giving you a break, but I suppose you're just a glutton for punishment.

["Had I come to you and said: Hey, check out this awesome book I found. It advocates racism, sexism, hatred, stoning your children to death, raping women, killing servants, killing people for sexual deviation, and it's also horribly written! You know what else? It was inspired by God himself I tell you!"

If you wish to say such things, you’ll simply be betraying your blatant ignorance and intolerance. But since you're the one making the outrageous claims, why not offer some proof of those allegations? Those with juvenile mentalities argue in your fashion, offering a litany of hollow accusations and failing to provide even a paltry amount of evidence in support of their rhetoric. Your posts are full of empty, insipid rhetoric. But not only are your arguments fallacious, your rhetorical style itself is of very low quality. Your words fail on a variety of levels.

You know what you'd say to me? You'd call me a f*cking lunatic.

Yeah, some choice names do come to my mind when I think of you, but lunatic is not one of them. . . I'll let you fill in the blanks.

Let me refresh your memory for you as to what the Bible says about slaves:

'But if the slave says to you, "I do not want to leave you," because he loves you and your family, and is well off with you then you must take an awl and drive it through the slave's ear and into the door. He will be your servant forever.'

Deuteronomy 15:16-17

So what? What are you objecting to, specifically?

'If someone beats his slave and the slave dies at his hands he shall certainly be avenged. 'But should the slave survive for one day or two he will pay no penalty because the slave is his owner's property.'

Exodus 21:20-21

Let the record show that Big Mac supports the abuse and murdering of slaves because they are not human but property.

Slaves are by definition property of their owners as long as they are slaves - if that were not the case it would not be slavery. The commandments do not support the abuse of slaves; they simply say that while they are in slave status they lose some of the rights that are accorded to non-slaves. Secular law in the United States and elsewhere does not accord to children many of the rights accorded to adults - that’s just life. Torah is a guide to life in this imperfect world, and some facets of this life are not as pretty or as pleasant as other facets. I’m sorry if you’re too immature to recognize such truths.

Wow. So the Jewish race is "special"? This reminds me of a similar line of thought.

First of all, there is no Jewish race. That was Hitler’s concept, if you were not aware. And do you recognize how pathetically idiotic you appear when you equate Judaism with Nazism? I never said Jews were superior to any other people. I simply stated the biblical truth that the nation of Israel is charged with a special mission - to bear the yoke of heaven and serve as a model of holiness. You reject the text, so you're simply not going to get it, but anyone who objectively reads the Hebrew Scriptures will have no difficulty recognizing that the nation of Israel’s relationship to G-d is a unique one.

Let the record show that Big Mac proposes that the Bible mostly applies to the Jews. i.e. God is mainly with the Jews. You seriously are a nutball, you know that?

Yes, the Hebrew Scriptures pertains mostly to the Jewish people. There are portions that pertain to other nations and to the whole of humanity in general, but its central focus is the Jewish people. It's just a fact. Of course, I never claimed or implied that "God is mostly with the Jews" - you just fabricated that remark out of whole cloth. If you believe Jews are taught such a thing, you’re not just a moron, you’re officially a Jew-hater. You know, perhaps I need to write on a more simplistic level for you, because you seemingly have great difficulty comprehending elementary concepts.

I see. For those who don't want to read all of that Big Mac is saying that laws aren't important because you don't have to follow them. . .

I never said anything of the sort. I said there are regulations on the application of the death penalty that make it an unusual legal remedy. By repeatedly lying in the manner you have, I suspect you’re crying out for education; I’ll oblige by giving you some more. The Torah authorizes the death penalty for specific crimes, but there is a legal threshold for administering capital punishment in accordance with those passages. And from where did these additional regulations come? The Jewish people not only have the written Torah, we have the Oral Torah (transmitted along with the written Torah at Sinai) that complements the written one. The Oral Torah was put into written record in the text of the Mishna (which, along with the Gemara, forms the Talmud). The oral laws give the specifics necessary to implement many of the commandments.

Although there are rare exceptions, Jewish law requires that there be at least two eye witnesses to a capital crime; futhermore, the individual committing the crime must be given a warning that it’s a capital offense, and the offender must proceed in spite of that admonition. In court, 23 rabbinical judges must preside over the trial (rather than the normal three judge panel), and circumstantial evidence of the crime is not admissible. Only upon conviction under those circumstances is the death penalty employed. Ergo, the death penalty was a very rare occurrence.

That’s why I have said those who read the Torah without any knowledge of the oral Torah that accompanies it will have a skewed understanding of many of its passages. That’s also why I told you the Hebrew Scriptures pertains, in general, to the Jewish people. Certainly I am not ignoring the fact that Christianity uses the Hebrew Scriptures as a holy text preceding its scriptures and that Islam restates much of the Hebrew Scriptures in the Koran. Yet, that does not change the fact that nearly all the laws of the Torah apply exclusively to the Jewish people, and that the Hebrew Scriptures as a whole is primarily focused on the Jewish people. If you weren’t so narrow-minded in your refusal to read the text yourself, you would recognize the truth in my words.

And people complemented your post! Unbelievable.

Yeah, it’s difficult for you to fathom because your perspective is so warped. If you weren't so out to lunch intellectually you'd see this as a great opportunity to reassess your position. The fact is, a considerable majority of the participants in this thread disagreed with you - even those who are sympathetic to the agnostic or atheistic viewpoint. Moreover, both a Christian and a Muslim complimented my post, even though there are many salient points of divergence among our three religions. You see that? Through this thread you accomplished a rather remarkable thing - you brought a Jew, a Christian and a Muslim that much closer together! Too bad for you this did not go the way you intended it to.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

When Jews live under Torah law, capital punishment is one of the proscribed remedies for very serious sins.

Small nitpick, just because I gotta: "Proscribe" means the opposite of "prescribe."

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Small nitpick, just because I gotta: "Proscribe" means the opposite of "prescribe."

Yeah, I use both terms often enough and should have caught that mistake - I was thinking of proscribed acts and prescribed remedies. I'm quite surprised I overlooked it, actually.

[rambo47]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

"Children" didn't necesarily mean juveniles - according to one of the sidenotes...

Nor was this punishment too great for the offence, if it be considered, that their mocking proceeded from a great malignity of mind against God; that they mocked not only a man, and an ancient man, whose very age commanded reverence; and a prophet; but even God himself, and that glorious work of God, the assumption of Elijah into heaven; that they might be guilty of many other heinous crimes, which God and the prophet knew; and were guilty of idolatry, which by God's law deserved death; that the idolatrous parents were punished in their children; and that, if any of these children were more innocent, God might have mercy upon their souls, and then this death was not a misery, but a real blessing to them, that they were taken away from that education which was most likely to expose them not only to temporal, but eternal destruction. In the name - Not from any revengeful passion, but by the motion of God's Spirit, and by God's command and commission. God did this, partly, for the terror and caution of all other idolaters and prophane persons who abounded in that place; partly, to vindicate the honour, and maintain the authority of his prophets; and particularly, of Elisha, now especially, in the beginning of his sacred ministry. Children - This Hebrew word signifies not only young children, but also those who are grown up to maturity, as Gen 32:22, 34:4, 37:30, Ruth 1:5

So it was o.k. to kill them for teasing someone?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by rambo47

So it was o.k. to kill them for teasing someone?

So, when you're proven wrong you go off on a tangent? Is this your usual debate style?

To answer your tangent: Don't mess with a prophet of God.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

The lightbulb flickers...

Perhaps among the eldest of them that left first?

Good question. I suspect this might be why they started walking away.

Perhaps the name of the guilty man? A friend among those who falsely claimed to have witnessed the event?

Logic my dear Watson.

So you're saying that one of the potential stoners was the man who was committing adultery with the woman? That's also an interesting theory. Where does this theory come from?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Railroader

So, when you're proven wrong you go off on a tangent? Is this your usual debate style?

Wasn't the original topic of this thread the fact that the Bible contains some pretty atrocious things? So if he thought that passage was atrocious, isn't it actually on topic?

Originally Posted by Railroader

To answer your tangent: Don't mess with a prophet of God.

Are you serious? That's your moral justification for him killing people for no good reason at all?

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

It is tomorrow and still no itistoday.

Sorry, I said I'd be back and here I am. I had to fly to another state for a day to "proselytize" my unbelief.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I clicked the link provided in the first post and realized this is simply one proselytizing their unbelief. Somehow, this is more admirable than one who proselytizes their belief. I visited and viewed a couple of items and immediately found ignorance to textual relevance, ignorance to the culture of the time and just plain ignorance in general.

Is that what you do when you jump in the middle of the Bible and read a few passages? Do you just say: "This is ignorant!"? Because that's what you're doing.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Jesus knew full well there would be no selling of expensive perfume for money to give to the poor. The notion was preposterous. Jesus responds in the manner you'd expect given the circumstance.

This is the only defense you give to my accusations regarding Jesus's hypocritical behavior, and in this defense you fail to explain why it's not hypocritical. All you say here is: "The notion was preposterous", and you do not explain why. Why was it preposterous?

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Example 2; Stoning. Today, the death penalty is carried out by lethal injection and by electric chair. Perhaps if these items had been made available to those in that day, they would've been employed. I suppose we can debate the pros and cons of the death penalty another time. One had asked why the men walked away after Jesus wrote with his finger in the ground. I'd urge you to read the text and consider the culture. For a successful indictment of adultery and fornication, there needed to be witnesses. The charge was a setup, the witnesses knew it, and false witness was worthy of stoning.

This is interesting, and a different interpretation from the one Railroader explained. He did not mention explicitly that the woman had not actually committed adultery.

Regardless, you seem to be completely missing the point. Completely. In your reply you provide no justification as to why it's justifiable to stone an adulteress to death. That is the issue, not whether or not she had committed the sin. Again, you fail to defend the Bible.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

The men knew it and when they saw the name of the one in the ground and realized they were false witnesses to the event, they left. As well they should have given the circumstance. The gig was up and they knew it.

Though this is off topic, I will address it because it's interesting. The passage Railroader quotes did not mention any sort of a name being written in the ground, how did you come up with this?

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Example 3; One had suggested that the New Testament supercedes the Old. This is incorrect IMO. Without the Old Covenant, there would've been no new. Christians believe the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed. Jesus Himself acknowledged the credibility of the Old Testament; “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish but to fulfill.”

Excellent, you are shooting yourself in the foot and you don't even realize it. That's the whole point of this thread, that the Old Testament contains horribly immoral messages, and with this reply you are only further asserting that they are valid.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Example 3; (as noted by Big Mac) Slavery of the time was much different than slavery as we know it. Doctors were slaves, slaves enjoyed quarter with their masters, participated in family celebration, etc...

Again, you are losing sight of the topic of debate here. The problem is that the Bible condones slavery and even gives instructions on methods of abusing and torturing them. It does not condemn slavery. That is the problem.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Regarding Christianity specifically;
One who assumes the Bible supports something "evil" by virtue of the fact that within it you find examples of God working through human nature for Divine purpose, fails to understand the most basic fundamentals of the co-existence between God and man in the Christian doctrine. Jesus' life, death, and resurrection are essential to Christianity all having been facilitated by human nature. A human nature that is sometimes brutal, sometimes beautiful.

Again, this is not true. The Bible actively advises humans on how to behave. It actively says that misbehaving children should be stoned to death, that cheating wives should be stoned to death, that slaves who love their owners should have their heads nailed to doors, that homosexuals are abominations and are therefor frowned upon by God, and even such ludicrous commandments that people who have had their genitals destroyed are unwelcome in church. The Bible orders humans to behave in such immoral ways. This is a problem.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

It was on the tenets of those "barbarians" of the Old Testament that our more "civil" societies we enjoy today were founded.

Absolutely ridiculous. It is the exact opposite. It is a miracle that despite the pollution of religion that society has managed to survive up to this point. You'll note that it is because of secularism (i.e. scientific reasoning) that we are where we are today.

Alright, I've now a psychotic burger to deal with.

[itistoday]

Wow, Big Mac. Thank you for your massive, decently written bullshit. Most of us here are very familiar with how politicians talk. They speak in verbose, elegant rhetoric while managing to completely side-step the issue. They weave a verbal maze through which their audience has trouble seeing; lost in the sea of bullshit. This is how you write.

I have therefore invented a special system that I will use in responding to your reply. Its purpose is to help the reader of our discourse discern the points you are trying to make, and to therefore see clearly if you were able to make them or not.

This is a "point system". The specific points you are making that apply to the debate at hand and my original accusations will be highlighted in green. Then in my reply I will analyze them and will decide logically whether or not they have any validity to them. Additionally:

• Lies or false statements will be highlighted in red.
• Ad hominem will be highlighted in blue.
• Misleading statements, or statements that stretch the truth will be highlighted in orange.

At the end of my reply I will tally up your total "points earned" and give you your grade. This will make it very easy for the reader to see how completely full of sh*t you are.



Let's get started.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

If you’re going to talk with such bravado, it would be a good idea to have the goods to back it up. But you're so terribly deluded and pompous there's no possibility of having a civil discourse with you. For future reference, though, you've made yourself look even more foolish by claiming to destroy my post and then proceeding to use only unsubstantiated claims, a purposely outlandish misapprehension of many of my points and juvenile hyperbole. I must say with sincerity, idiottoday, you've played right into my hands with your idiocy. You're out of your league; you should have quit this thread long ago.

We'll see who's "out of their league".

Originally Posted by Big Mac

And how can you even claim to know this document uses the primary sources when you earlier explicitly admitted to having no desire to read the Hebrew Scriptures? By implication you must only possess an unsubstantiated belief that the material you're relying upon is valid, and that belief must have been formed by claims presented to you. As long as such claims comport with your warped view, it appears you are prepared to grant full credence to all of the things you're told without any independent verification. How very illogical of you.

I have stated that I have cross-checked many of the quotes on the Brick Testament's site with the King James version of the Bible. Now, if by "Hebrew Scriptures" you mean to say that I must read the original, Hebrew version, I'm sorry, but asking me to learn Hebrew just to read something that has already been accurately translated for me is a little bit outlandish, don't you think?

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Well, I never used the word interpretation, and I never implied that a proper understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures requires interpretation. I do maintain that some passages must not be taken out of context and must be read with at least a modest understanding of Jewish laws and history if one wishes to gain an accurate view of the text. In addition, the fact that you're relying on poor English translations rather than the original Hebrew or legitimate Hebrew translation accounts for some of the defects in your understanding.

Again, I will not learn Hebrew to read the "original Hebrew" version of the Bible that has plenty of accurate English translations. The burden of proof that these translations are inaccurate is on you, as I have checked and verified their authenticity already.

In this section, you accuse me of having an inaccurate understanding, yet do not back this up. Points earned so far: 0.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Who is the author of this Brick Testament - do you even know? I have not seen a single reference to an author, or to said author's lofty credentials. If I choose to eschew a highly dubious derivative work posted some place on the Internet by someone so unqualified that no one even bothers to mention his or her name, few will stand with you in denouncing me for it. I'll stick with the primary texts, and you can stick with Brick and the distinguished and eminent editorial staff of Wikipedia. We'll see who comes out ahead at the end of the day.

Again, in this section you are bringing the validity of the Brick Testament into question. This tells me you have not really explored that site. It's quite simple really, there's an "FAQ" link on every page there, and the answer to "who" made that site is there also. You also imply the misleading suggestion that someone fabricated the content in it; sorry, it was all taken from the Bible. Whoever wrote the Bible is the author of the quotes on that site, and I'm sure you, being a "scholar" of Judaism would know the answer to that.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

When Jews live under Torah law, capital punishment is one of the prescribed remedies for very serious sins. It was rarely carried out, though, and that's not because Jews failed to enforce it properly, as you predictably claim later on. I'll correct you on that account below.

Ooo... sounds like somebody's completely missing the point, well, I'll join you down below as you say to clarify this...

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Please provide a reference to this supposed authoritative rule to which you allude that declares participants must address every single claim raised in the course of debate. If I had been in this thread closer to its inception, I likely would have expended the time to thoroughly disabuse you of all of your misconceptions. However, most of the contributors had already beaten your arguments so thoroughly that I felt it was necessary only to address certain neglected points. I wasn't even replying directly to you in my previous post because your nonsensical claims weren’t worth refuting specifically. I was giving you a break, but I suppose you're just a glutton for punishment.

Hey, all I'm saying is that you don't seem to understand what this entire debate is about. I'm pretty sure there's a rule somewhere about how you're not supposed to be off-topic, so I was just suggesting you familiarize yourself with what the topic was.

Oh, and "most of the contributors" to this thread have plainly lost their arguments. Every single one of them, with the exception of Railroader, made the sole point that the Brick Testament was invalid. I have shown that to be false. As to Railroader, well, he failed to defend the Bible and gave up.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

If you wish to say such things, you’ll simply be betraying your blatant ignorance and intolerance. But since you're the one making the outrageous claims, why not offer some proof of those allegations? Those with juvenile mentalities argue in your fashion, offering a litany of hollow accusations and failing to provide even a paltry amount of evidence in support of their rhetoric. Your posts are full of empty, insipid rhetoric. But not only are your arguments fallacious, your rhetorical style itself is of very low quality. Your words fail on a variety of levels.

It's funny how someone accusing me of having "vapid, empty" rhetoric can make such a vapid and empty post.

Are you wondering why this paragraph is highlighted so much, indicating that it is full of lies and misleading statements? That's because it is. My claims may seem "outrageous" to you, but they are not without evidence. I have multiple times given evidence by quoting passages from the Bible, and the site that I linked to, you know, The Brick Testament, gives the rest of the evidence. I am QUOTING THE BIBLE. The Bible is my evidence. Not good enough for you? Oh, that's right, you want me to learn Hebrew.

Oh, and one more thing, for someone making the false claim that I haven't given any evidence, you definitely have not provided ANY evidence in defense of the Bible in your posts.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

So what? What are you objecting to, specifically?

Please, everyone look at this ridiculous post. How can you ever hope to win this debate by conceding points to me? I'm objecting to the fact that the Bible tells you to nail your slaves face to a door if they want to stay with you. Not specific enough?

Points earned so far: 0 (this should be negative, really)

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Slaves are by definition property of their owners as long as they are slaves - if that were not the case it would not be slavery. The commandments do not support the abuse of slaves; they simply say that while they are in slave status they lose some of the rights that are accorded to non-slaves. Secular law in the United States and elsewhere does not accord to children many of the rights accorded to adults - that’s just life. Torah is a guide to life in this imperfect world, and some facets of this life are not as pretty or as pleasant as other facets. I’m sorry if you’re too immature to recognize such truths.

It does support the abuse of slaves, and in fact gives explicit instructions on how to do so. It also supports slavery indirectly (and probably directly too, I just haven't read enough of it to find evidence of this) by not condemning it.

*sigh* For a Jewish "scholar" you sure don't seem to understand what the Bible is. If, as you've said you do, you take the Bible literally, the Bible contains the direct word of God. This means that God, a supremely intelligent and all knowing being and just entity, supports slavery and the abuse of slaves. Not to mention a whole lot of other atrocities. I see a problem with this, and it seems that you don't. Again, you seem to not know what you're debating about. I'm accusing the Bible of supporting these things, and you seem to agree with me on that. You're losing and you don't even know it, in fact you think you're winning.

That's why you should familiarize yourself with what the debate is about.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

First of all, there is no Jewish race. That was Hitler’s concept, if you were not aware. And do you recognize how pathetically idiotic you appear when you equate Judaism with Nazism? I never said Jews were superior to any other people. I simply stated the biblical truth that the nation of Israel is charged with a special mission - to bear the yoke of heaven and serve as a model of holiness. You reject the text, so you're simply not going to get it, but anyone who objectively reads the Hebrew Scriptures will have no difficulty recognizing that the nation of Israel’s relationship to G-d is a unique one.

There may be no official "Jewish race", but there is a Jewish people, and furthermore Jews definitely do have distinct physical appearances, this is a fact, and as such fits the description of what a 'race' is.

You next say that I'm equating Judaism with Nazism. The reason that's highlighted in red is because that's a lie. It should have been obvious to you that I was equating your statements with the ideas of race superiority that are part of Nazism. You were singling out Jews as a special group of people meant to serve God's purpose; this is clearly in line with Hitler's trail of thought of Aryans being the "chosen race".

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Yes, the Hebrew Scriptures pertains mostly to the Jewish people. There are portions that pertain to other nations and to the whole of humanity in general, but its central focus is the Jewish people. It's just a fact. Of course, I never claimed or implied that "God is mostly with the Jews" - you just fabricated that remark out of whole cloth. If you believe Jews are taught such a thing, you’re not just a moron, you’re officially a Jew-hater. You know, perhaps I need to write on a more simplistic level for you, because you seemingly have great difficulty comprehending elementary concepts.

Note: Some of the highlighting here was a choice between either blue or red, because in some areas they applied equally, but oh well, one can't multi-highlight.

It certainly could be inferred from your statements that you were implying that "God is mostly with the Jews" if God's voice and ideas, the content of the Bible, is mainly for them.

By the way, I have many Jewish friends, all of them seem to be smarter than you though.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

I never said anything of the sort. I said there are regulations on the application of the death penalty that make it an unusual legal remedy. By repeatedly lying in the manner you have, I suspect you’re crying out for education; I’ll oblige by giving you some more. The Torah authorizes the death penalty for specific crimes, but there is a legal threshold for administering capital punishment in accordance with those passages. And from where did these additional regulations come? The Jewish people not only have the written Torah, we have the Oral Torah (transmitted along with the written Torah at Sinai) that complements the written one. The Oral Torah was put into written record in the text of the Mishna (which, along with the Gemara, forms the Talmud). The oral laws give the specifics necessary to implement many of the commandments.

Although there are rare exceptions, Jewish law requires that there be at least two eye witnesses to a capital crime; futhermore, the individual committing the crime must be given a warning that it’s a capital offense, and the offender must proceed in spite of that admonition. In court, 23 rabbinical judges must preside over the trial (rather than the normal three judge panel), and circumstantial evidence of the crime is not admissible. Only upon conviction under those circumstances is the death penalty employed. Ergo, the death penalty was a very rare occurrence.

That’s why I have said those who read the Torah without any knowledge of the oral Torah that accompanies it will have a skewed understanding of many of its passages. That’s also why I told you the Hebrew Scriptures pertains, in general, to the Jewish people. Certainly I am not ignoring the fact that Christianity uses the Hebrew Scriptures as a holy text preceding its scriptures and that Islam restates much of the Hebrew Scriptures in the Koran. Yet, that does not change the fact that nearly all the laws of the Torah apply exclusively to the Jewish people, and that the Hebrew Scriptures as a whole is primarily focused on the Jewish people. If you weren’t so narrow-minded in your refusal to read the text yourself, you would recognize the truth in my words.

Look, all I said, was that if 25% of people actually received this punishment that you were implying it was OK. That's what you are doing here. It doesn't matter that there's a complicated system and that few make it through it. That doesn't make it any less wrong to kill people over issues such as child disobedience or adultery. I have read the text for myself, not all of it, but I have read the parts that declare it alright to kill for various "crimes", and that's all I need. The only way you win this debate is if you show me somewhere in the Bible that says that those sections in the Bible were wrong. Railroader has been the only person in this thread to attempt that, and he failed. I have to give it up to him, at least he understood what the debate is about.

Points earned so far: 0

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Yeah, it’s difficult for you to fathom because your perspective is so warped. If you weren't so out to lunch intellectually you'd see this as a great opportunity to reassess your position. The fact is, a considerable majority of the participants in this thread disagreed with you - even those who are sympathetic to the agnostic or atheistic viewpoint. Moreover, both a Christian and a Muslim complimented my post, even though there are many salient points of divergence among our three religions. You see that? Through this thread you accomplished a rather remarkable thing - you brought a Jew, a Christian and a Muslim that much closer together! Too bad for you this did not go the way you intended it to.

In the words of Mark Twain:

When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
- Mark Twain

When Columbus told the people around him that the world was spherical and not flat, the majority of people also banded together against him. When Copernicus and Galileo stated that the Earth revolved around the Sun, the majority of people also banded together against them. I fail to see your point. Oh, that's because you haven't got one.

Perhaps the reason that we've seen such a diverse group of people being brought "closer together" is because I'm attacking the basis of their beliefs. Makes sense, don'tcha think?


Summary, analysis, and conclusion:


I have gone to great lengths to clearly illustrate that you are full of sh*t and to show that you have no argument. In your incredibly verbose post, you did not make a single legitimate rebuttal of my accusations, in fact you supported them. I'm going to ask that in any future responses you keep in mind what's being debated, and that you shed your political method of discourse and keep your points concise and to the point, addressing the issue at hand and avoid ad hominem.

Edit: Oh, I promised to give your post a grade. I think it's clearly evident that your essay strayed far off-topic and failed to address the question, and thus you earn a well deserved: F.

Cheers.

[Rumor]

If we get more quotes, in another week or so, we can reconstruct the whole Bible.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Wasn't the original topic of this thread the fact that the Bible contains some pretty atrocious things? So if he thought that passage was atrocious, isn't it actually on topic?

It wasn't in the context of his original assertation. If you say something in support of a point you are trying to make and then someone proves you wrong you should simply admit defeat instead of doing a "but but but..."

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Are you serious? That's your moral justification for him killing people for no good reason at all?

Maybe you should read the story of Elisha.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by itistoday

Wow, Big Mac. Thank you for your massive, decently written bullshit. Most of us here are very familiar with how politicians talk. They speak in verbose, elegant rhetoric while managing to completely side-step the issue. They weave a verbal maze through which their audience has trouble seeing; lost in the sea of bullshit. This is how you write.

...SNIP...

Oh, the irony.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Oh, the irony.

As the topic starter, I set what the topic is about. Obvious? Not for Railroader.

[Railroader]

Oh, so you're allowed to:

verbose, elegant rhetoric while managing to completely side-step the issue. They weave a verbal maze through which their audience has trouble seeing; lost in the sea of bullshit

but other people aren't? You're quite a piece of work.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Maybe you should read the story of Elisha.

Just like the rest of the Bible, I have read it. He's walking, some guys make fun of him, he curses them, the guys get abused by two bears. (The rest of Elisha's entire story is irrelevant to this incident. It comes between him becoming prophet and him helping Israel bitch-slap Moab.)

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Oh, so you're allowed to:

but other people aren't? You're quite a piece of work.

See, I was replying to a rather long post, so to fully respond mine had to be long also. Furthermore, unlike Big Mac's post, mine did not contain bullshit, nor did it side-step the issue. That's the: "itistoday difference™". Stop trolling.

[[email protected]]

As a new user I am amazed at what has taken place here. I don't think I've ever seen a thread where such an amazing amount of effort was put simply for the sake of being argumentative. Do you people truly have nothing better to do? Itistoday-- how long did you spend writing that little mural? Did you do so out of a genuine personal concern for resolving the issue? I disagree with the bible as well, but I don't go around crusading my beliefs. If I was to do that I would be no better than the people I am opposing.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by reptile

As a new user I am amazed at what has taken place here. I don't think I've ever seen a thread where such an amazing amount of effort was put simply for the sake of being argumentative. Do you people truly have nothing better to do? Itistoday-- how long did you spend writing that little mural? Did you do so out of a genuine personal concern for resolving the issue? I disagree with the bible as well, but I don't go around crusading my beliefs.

Welcome Sir Reptile. Are you one of those ... whatchamacallit... woah. Did you know that "whatchamacallit" is actually part of Apple's built-in dictionary??? Right, "Lurker" is the word. Where you previously a lurker on this forum? If so, for how long? I'm honored that I could bring you out of hiding if that's the case.

Anyways, to answer your questions: Do I have anything better to do? Yes, I do, I just also find debating on these forums immensely amusing. I seriously get joy out of it, and if I can fit it into my schedule then I will. See, MacNN provides sort of a "public stage" for me that I otherwise would not be able to get without arranging some sort of public speaking thing, and there the audience might try to stone me.

These forums let me express my viewpoints on life to a large number of people that I normally would not be able to reach. Why do public speakers speak? I post on these forums for the same reasons.

How long did it take me to write that post? Umm... I didn't clock myself, but somewhere around 30 minutes or so, I think. See, I've finally found an edge on the religious crowd that they are hard pressed to ignore. I'm using their own poison against them. It's hard to tell a person of faith to stop believing in something when you've no way of proving them wrong, but if you can get them to see that their Bible contains messages of hatred and things that they personally disagree with, well, it makes the job that much easier.

Originally Posted by reptile

If I was to do that I would be no better than the people I am opposing.

I disagree. Do you feel that Martin Luther King was no better than the racists whom he opposed? Obviously not. I think I've established my point.

[Chuckit]

More debate and less blustering please.

[[email protected]]

Originally Posted by itistoday

I disagree. Do you feel that Martin Luther King was no better than the racists whom he opposed? Obviously not. I think I've established my point.

I'm specifically referring to Christians who feel that it is their obligation to proselytize, or to "Go to all the nations and make disciples. Baptize them and teach them my commands." Do you feel that this right?

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by reptile

I'm specifically referring to Christians who feel that it is their obligation to proselytize, or to "Go to all the nations and make disciples. Baptize them and teach them my commands." Do you feel that this right?

I think I understood you the first time. No, I don't feel this is right, but in my opinion, fighting to stop the spread of Christian/Jewish/Islamic-type religions is a good thing. These religions cause too many wars and deaths. They also lead to a disrespect towards science, creative and intelligent thought. But that's a topic for another thread.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by itistoday

See, I've finally found an edge on the religious crowd that they are hard pressed to ignore. I'm using their own poison against them. It's hard to tell a person of faith to stop believing in something when you've no way of proving them wrong, but if you can get them to see that their Bible contains messages of hatred and things that they personally disagree with, well, it makes the job that much easier.

Riiight.

But anyhow, what about the non-religious? I still haven't seen a reply from you.