Yea if people didnt pick and choose what to follow it probably wouldnt be all that bad, I'll it give a 6/10.

Yeah, the Bible is pretty fucked up. Religion ain't for kids.

I mean it's not as bad as what most of the world really is like in reality.

Most children growing up in Third World countries are probably exposed to more horrific sights than most of the metaphorical and allegorical tales of the Holy Bible.

Most people outside of those countries are far removed from most of the terrible things this world of ours actually contains.

ABlackGuy said:
Yea if people didnt pick and choose what to follow it probably wouldnt be all that bad, I'll it give a 6/10.

Yeah. Human nature is a joke quite honestly, but that's the curse we have to endure.

I read bible books
not really jk

I see she's reached Song of Solomon....

Philomaeus said:
I mean it's not as bad as what most of the world really is like in reality.

Most children growing up in Third World countries are probably exposed to more horrific sights than most of the metaphorical and allegorical tales of the Holy Bible.

Most people outside of those countries are far removed from most of the terrible things this world of ours actually contains.

like that time god decided to wipe out all life on the planet because nobody wanted to listen to him... great metaphor...

XXXFentacion said:
Fun fact: even most literal interpretations of that story do not ever state that the "entire planet" was flooded.

Also there was plenty of forewarning. People were begged to prepare for the inevitable flood but they chose to ignore it, so it wasn't just a haphazard slew of deaths that nobody could have predicted. And yes, it's probably allegorical. If you are going to make enlightened statements on this stuff you should probably know what you are talking about.

If it is incorrect to interpret the bible literally, and you need to do mental gymnastics with it to conform to modern western morals, that is proof right there that it is 100% horse shit.

I rather worship satan.

I mean I take the Bible more as a guide to being a good person and that the stories themselves are just allegories that teach lessons. I think every religion is more or less just that but taught differently. Organized religion and poor teaching of the subject just creates people like these boys who aren't properly adjusted to the real world and end up repressed and ill-equipped.

This Christian site is perfect for biblical debates

French_Fried said:
This Christian site is perfect for biblical debates

Haha, that is just what I was thinking

.... I'm more of the eastern morality. ^^'

Anyways, quite a number of oral traditions and other myths involved a great flooding; for many, it'd seem their whole world is flooding, given their limited worldview. It may be due to the glacial melts, some being violent and massive (eastern Washington state bears many consequential features of such an event)

(Also; Main reason I resent Judeo-Christianity is because of them, wolf persecution became huge.. >:c Beware the shepherd, not the wolf!)

whatyousay? said:
I have read through the NKJV Bible. Twice. I am also in the process of reading the NKV. If you need google for it, here:

Exodus 22:29
Exodus 34:19 <-- This is part of the second set of stone tablets - the final ten commandments - which Moses brought down. You were probably thinking that the first ten Moses brought down were the ten commandments, but (and I am certain you have heard this before) they were part of a much longer list. In fact, it only specifies that there were two tablets for the second list mentioned above - we don't knkw how many tablets were needed originally! Now, you could argue 34:20 then says you can sacrifice a lamb instead of a son, but then I'd say why even risk the confusion? Wasn't god supposed to NOT be the author of confusion?
Numbers 31:40 This one requires a little more context. The followers of Moses were taking vengeance on the Midianites, and god demanded a tribute to him in thanks for his aid. He demanded treasure, livestock, men, women, and children of the captured people, and this quote specifies how many people were given in 'tribute' to him. Sure it may not specifically say "kill" or "sacrifice," but all other tributes and offerings specified in this book proclaim then to be equivalent to sacrifices (e.g the burnt offering).
Sure, Deuteronomy 12:31 is one argument against it - it describes how people who are conquered by the jews sacrificed their children to their gods. In context, however, this is only worded like this to make them seem bad - earlier in this very chapter, god demands that the children (firstborns, etc...) be brought to the places where the other sacrifices and tributes are to be brought. Why would the sacrifices be in the same verses as the children if the children were not equally intended to be served up as tribute to god?

Don’t be a fool.

“Tribute” is not the same as “sacrifice”.
How you can confuse the two different words is mind-boggling.

If you know anything about Jewish history and culture. You would know they found human sacrifice one of the most barbaric practices on the face of the Earth.

Why do you think they mocked Molech worshippers so hard? A god they specifically single out as having infants sacrificed to.

Seems a bit redundant to say human sacrifice is acceptable in their religion, while condemning the practice for others.

The point is it never happened and was in fact singled out as a huge sin.

And anyone who employs common sense and logic can see that. It’s hardly rocket science.

You really need to do some actual proper research before you open your mouth and spew literal lies about a subject you know next to nothing about.

It’s no wonder religions get more of a bad rep with ill-informed people run around with mouths like open sewers.

coolhandluke0923 said:
I mean I take the Bible more as a guide to being a good person and that the stories themselves are just allegories that teach lessons. I think every religion is more or less just that but taught differently. Organized religion and poor teaching of the subject just creates people like these boys who aren't properly adjusted to the real world and end up repressed and ill-equipped.

Incorrect. Singling out organized religion for the woes of ill-teaching is laughably absurd.
Anything- from philosophy to personal beliefs can cause misunderstandings and ill-preparation if not taught correctly, or if the person(s) in question are not mentally sound in the first place.

Don’t bring biased emotion into this. If you’re going to make a critical statement about something huge. You better do so with full intellectual honesty.

Stop with the religious book study here; take it to dmail if you want to discuss.

Why are there biblical debates on a website that's full of yiff and hentai? Seems like the wrong place for that.

Man, this whole comment section is a real boner killer.

coolhandluke0923 said:
I mean I take the Bible more as a guide to being a good person and that the stories themselves are just allegories that teach lessons. I think every religion is more or less just that but taught differently. Organized religion and poor teaching of the subject just creates people like these boys who aren't properly adjusted to the real world and end up repressed and ill-equipped.

You're forgetting the bible was written 2,000 years ago by people who didn't know shit about how the world around them worked. And it "evolved" from two other faiths, who had existed for thousands of years before Christianity came along.

People back in those days were abject morons, and you think they have the insight to write a book that's supposed to be metaphorically interpreted?

What the happ is fuckening

Needless to say I did not expect a Christian flame war on a porn comic

leon_neon said:
If it is incorrect to interpret the bible literally, and you need to do mental gymnastics with it to conform to modern western morals, that is proof right there that it is 100% horse shit.

I rather worship satan.

Its not incorect to interpret the bible literally, but its also best not to take it at face value. Haveing to do mental gymnastics to understand the plain and simple writing, means you failed as a christian, but thinking its flawed because at face value it looks flawed means you've failed to comprehend the meaning and purpose of the bible. The bible is a large compilation of books written by many people, and gone through multiple translations. Writers are prone to human error, which there is quite a bit of.
The point of it is to teach people about god, not to be perfect. Expecting it to be perfect from pen, to paper, to translation after translation is a spoiled mentality that a lot of american atheist have unfortunately.

negamajora said:
You're forgetting the bible was written 2,000 years ago by people who didn't know shit about how the world around them worked. And it "evolved" from two other faiths, who had existed for thousands of years before Christianity came along.

People back in those days were abject morons, and you think they have the insight to write a book that's supposed to be metaphorically interpreted?

That's why I don't follow everything it says in the Bible. Just stuff that makes sense to me. Though "morons" is a little harsh.

whatyousay? said:
How people can't see the story of Abraham and his son as barbaric is something which is mind boggling to me, too - care to explain that one? You seem to be of the view that the Bible (and its God) don't promote child sacrifice, but as we can see in Genesis 22:2, Abraham is clearly required to place his son as a blood sacrifice. Of course he is told at the end of the story that he doesn't need to, but clearly God is deceiving Abraham into nearly sacrificing his son because this almighty being is worried Abraham might love his family more than him (which is absurd in of itself).
Aside from that, I explained how one could easily confuse the two - the children had been written in the same verse that other sacrificial items were mentioned in, and the term "tribute" has been used for sacrifices before. That is not so mind-boggling, frankly.

I wasn't talking about Jewish history and culture, I was talking about the book at the head of their religion, which is very strongly influenced by blood magic and sacrifice to fuel miracles. How is punishment of death or the killing in the name of God during battle any less 'barbaric' than sacrifice? As they are in the name of the same God, are they not the same thing - killing to honour God and his laws? There's plenty of this in the Bible, however (I won't scrub for quotes on that matter, you have enough already).

Simple: it's an easy example. If I were to produce an example of bad, objectively evil leadership (not too far from the beliefs the Jews shunned), it would be the Nazis of WW2. There are, however, many more examples - they are just an easy to understand one. Similarly, it may be the case that the Molech worshippers were simply a contextually easy to understand example to shun.

Yes, it does seem that way, but it must be said because that kind of hypocrisy is what litters the Bible, and that is my point: people think it's a moral guide never having read it, and believers who have misinterpret or ignore what it actually says.

The point is it never happened and was in fact singled out as a huge sin.
[/quote]

Regardless as to whether it actually happened, my point was that the Bible demands child sacrifice. I provided evidence for that, and you have failed to refute all of this evidence.

Anyone who employs common sense would understand that the words on the page of the Bible were written as instruction, and one of these instructions is very clearly the sacrifice of each firstborn child. Along with a slew of other examples, logic thus dictates that the Bible is a morally terrible guide.

Something I know next to nothing about? Did you actually read what I wrote? I have done my research, I have come to a solid conclusion by considering the facts presented, and have made my statements in accordance to these facts. My statements were only in regards to the Bible, so my knowledge of Jewish culture is irrelevant, and I have read through the Bible twice, nearly a third time now.
Also, if what I say are lies, then what does that make thr Bible? A book of lies? A book of fables, even?

Religions get a bad rep because they are themselves illogical and poisonous to the human mind. That particular conversation is off-topic, however, so I'm not going onto that tangent.

I would like to applaud you on completely ignoring the actual argument too, by the way. You seemed to think that I am saying that the Jews were bloodthirsty child-sacrificing savages. I am not. My argument is this:

The Bible demands child sacrifice in the Old Testament by way of the actions God demanded of the Jews, and by way of the original commandments. In the New Testament, Jesus demands that we follow the commandments of God in order to be righteous, thus suggesting that he also demands child sacrifice.

[/quote]

But God opposes child sacrifice a great deal though. Especially in the Old Testament. HE views it as innocent blood being spilled. And about the story of Abraham. It wasn't about him approving child sacrifice or demanding child sacrifice (which wasn't the case). The whole point was to test Abraham's faith in God. HE wasn't about to actually let Abraham kill his son in his name. God even used a ram as a substitute sacrifice. God just wanted to know if he had faith in him. Why do you think abortionists get a bad rep?

coolhandluke0923 said:
That's why I don't follow everything it says in the Bible. Just stuff that makes sense to me. Though "morons" is a little harsh.

They determined whether or not a person had been murdered, or died from natural causes based on which side of the city limits the corpse was discovered on. So yes, calling them morons is a perfectly appropriate description for them.

negamajora said:
They determined whether or not a person had been murdered, or died from natural causes based on which side of the city limits the corpse was discovered on. So yes, calling them morons is a perfectly appropriate description for them.

I don't know how true that is or the context, but if that's how you feel....

ablackguy said:
Yea if people didnt pick and choose what to follow it probably wouldnt be all that bad, I'll it give a 6/10.

The problem is that the church wants to be assholes and they've hidden the other 711 books that are part of it.

There are some really good stuff in those other pages that I have been kept hidden.

I wish more bible debates involved passionate frotting and sweet demon moms.

Is she wanking both of them off, whilst they're kissing each other?

k-snake-o said:
Its not incorect to interpret the bible literally, but its also best not to take it at face value. Haveing to do mental gymnastics to understand the plain and simple writing, means you failed as a christian, but thinking its flawed because at face value it looks flawed means you've failed to comprehend the meaning and purpose of the bible. The bible is a large compilation of books written by many people, and gone through multiple translations. Writers are prone to human error, which there is quite a bit of.
The point of it is to teach people about god, not to be perfect. Expecting it to be perfect from pen, to paper, to translation after translation is a spoiled mentality that a lot of american atheist have unfortunately.

Lol this aged like milk. What the hell was I waffling about???

can't believe this'll be my first... but uh,

user_371613 said:
Don’t be a fool.

“Tribute” is not the same as “sacrifice”.
How you can confuse the two different words is mind-boggling.

If you know anything about Jewish history and culture. You would know they found human sacrifice one of the most barbaric practices on the face of the Earth.

Why do you think they mocked Molech worshippers so hard? A god they specifically single out as having infants sacrificed to.

Seems a bit redundant to say human sacrifice is acceptable in their religion, while condemning the practice for others.

The point is it never happened and was in fact singled out as a huge sin.

And anyone who employs common sense and logic can see that. It’s hardly rocket science.

You really need to do some actual proper research before you open your mouth and spew literal lies about a subject you know next to nothing about.

It’s no wonder religions get more of a bad rep with ill-informed people run around with mouths like open sewers.

coolhandluke0923 said:
But God opposes child sacrifice a great deal though. Especially in the Old Testament. HE views it as innocent blood being spilled. And about the story of Abraham. It wasn't about him approving child sacrifice or demanding child sacrifice (which wasn't the case). The whole point was to test Abraham's faith in God. HE wasn't about to actually let Abraham kill his son in his name. God even used a ram as a substitute sacrifice. God just wanted to know if he had faith in him. Why do you think abortionists get a bad rep?

oh sure. instead God would ask for animal sacrifice. even Christians today cite God as their excuse to eat/abuse them anyway.
it's still blood sacrifice!
as for anything child related, circumcision is going on long and strong to this day.
meanwhile, God ordered Israelites to go to war with other nations. i'd like to count this as a double-whammy of sacrifice in the act of bloodshed upon the nation in question, and blood that the Israelite nation sacrificed of themselves to do it. total wargod.