Skip to main content

True, you and/or Jennifer can give me a cutesy, snappy answer -- to one-up me. But, searching your own heart -- what will convince YOU to believe the Bible and to believe in Jesus Christ?

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

If you consider common sense answers "cutesy or snappy" so be it. Why don't you answer a few questions instead of asking more? BTW, speaking for me and not semi, nothing would make me believe the bible or in your god or jesus.


I wonder why people would believe it.

Bestworking

 

That has been answered many times.

And I will fight against having it taught in schools.

Bestworking

 

So will I  as mandatory class. If it is taught along with other religions, no problem.

 

Those that believe it is the literal, inspired, inerrant word of God, are usually a little nuts.

DarkAngel

 

 I agree, the Bible we have today is not without errors.
...........................................................................................................
 

So, in other words, no.

A. Robustus

 

Do your own study. You're a big boy, Google is very easy to use. I'm not your homework staff.

 

Contrary to what atheist say....................

 

It is certain that there is a God.

 

Religions are not dangerous and automatically deserve respect when based on Gods will.

 

Religious belief in God does not have a  naturalistic evolutionary explanation.

 

Belief in God and adaptive evolution is compatible but not Darwin evolution .

 

Religion is the best friend of science , The religious fund it and are the teachers and scientists that

educate us and make our lives better by the God given knowledge of science..

 

An autonomous secular morality is not possible and such a concept is dangerous; morality presupposes God.

Life is meaningless, purposeless, hopeless, depressing, depraved,  annihilative and leads to an inhabitable society without belief in God.

Atheism is discredited by the 'atheist tyranny of Stalin.'

Darwin evolution  education of children as truth is 'child abuse'.

Originally Posted by lexum:

Contrary to what atheist say....................

It is certain that there is a God.

Religions are not dangerous and automatically deserve respect when based on Gods will.

Religious belief in God does not have a  naturalistic evolutionary explanation.

Belief in God and adaptive evolution is compatible but not Darwin evolution .

Religion is the best friend of science , The religious fund it and are the teachers and scientists that
educate us and make our lives better by the God given knowledge of science..

An autonomous secular morality is not possible and such a concept is dangerous; morality presupposes God.
Life is meaningless, purposeless, hopeless, depressing, depraved,  annihilative and leads to an inhabitable society without belief in God.
Atheism is discredited by the 'atheist tyranny of Stalin.'
Darwin evolution  education of children as truth is 'child abuse'.


While it's wonderful that you feel this way. It is not fact. Neither is it fiction. These are your opinions and beliefs. Surely you cannot expect everyone else to believe the way you believe or to have the same opinions that you do. It will never happen. It isn't the final word just because you say it is.
It is pretty evident that those here claiming the bible contains all Scientific knowledge are seriously ill, and need some help. It is pretty evident stories such as that of Noah's Ark have absolutely no basis in reality. Or Jonah living in a fish for three days. Or Jesus walking on water, or rising again after his death. It is all silly, and anyone claiming it is anything but myth need reeducating.
Originally Posted by b50m:

Do your own study. You're a big boy, Google is very easy to use. I'm not your homework staff.

b,

As far as I remember, when you've asked me questions about what I've posted or claimed, I've addressed your questions directly and not run away from explaining how and why I understand things to be, in an effort to dialogue and educate. In contrast, you've recently made the statement that, in effect, I do not understand the true interpretation and meaning of the initial Biblical passages I added to this list of "dumb stuff in the Bible", but then repeatedly refuse to back it up. Then you tell me to do a study of it for myself. I have an interest in knowing why you think you're right, but it's your claim, I shouldn't have to defend it for you too. You've stated that you "could quite easily, by using the works of scholars who have studied it in detail and the culture of the time and the various languages" explain it to me but then you don't. Do you believe in what you're saying and can back it up, or are you just saying things in the hope no one will call you on it?

 
quote:  Originally Posted by semiannualchick:
I'm sorry you feel that way, my friend.  I have never been defiant about the truth just because someone gave me their truth -- or questioned something just because I didn't like the facts.  I'm all for learning but just to take someones word as fact or truth just doesn't go far with me.  I need more than that.

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Hi Chick, 

You say you need more than what people tell you about the Bible, to believe it.  What would make YOU believe that the Bible is the Written Word of God, is true, and is His message to all mankind?

Many of us have given you reasons why we believe this.  But, what will it take for YOU to believe it?

True, you and/or Jennifer can give me a cutesy, snappy answer -- to one-up me.  But, searching your own heart -- what will convince YOU to believe the Bible and to believe in Jesus Christ?

Bill

___________________________________

 

Putting words in my mouth again, Bill? Where did I mention the Bible? Truth or facts could cover anything.

I for sure don't owe you an explanation for anything & I sure wouldn't give it to one who only wears the hat. You may fool alot of people, but not me.

 
Cutesy, snappy answer's??? Sorta like the pot calling the kettle black, ain't it? 

Originally Posted by b50m:

Oh, it is bash the Bible, no doubt. 

Have I seen things that did not make sense? Yes, that's why I go and investigate what the meaning was intended to be. 

Not hard to do really, or you can just say it's full of contradictions, dumb stuff, and fairy tales. 

It all depends on if you actually believe it to be truth and not fiction. Since atheists call it fiction, arguing about fiction being dumb is just, dumb.

____________________________

No, you are wrong. I honestly did not mean it to be a Bible bash. I'm sure many people, no matter their belief or non-belief, have investigated the scriptures. They would almost have to, to come to the conclusion they have. 

There really is some dumb scriptures in the Bible, especially in the OT. Yes, the meaning could be investigated but that doesn't change how dumb it sounds.

This topic was meant to lighten things up & have fun, not to make fun of anything or anyone's belief.  

Be nice if I could just delete the whole topic. 

Do you believe in what you're saying and can back it up, or are you just saying things in the hope no one will call you on it?

 

Call me on it?  You have already stated before that you know the Bible well. I have stated you probably know it a 1000 times better than I do. So what exactly are you calling me on?

 

I never said that all scriptures had a different explanation  in today's culture different from the past one.

Semi's first example was a good one to use as the meaning of the word fowl was completely different.

 

Your scriptures deal with slavery of men and women and the value they had when sold. And that women were always less valuable than a man.

 

Slavery was part of society at that time, so yes women and men were sold into slavery and yes, they were valued as to how much work you could get out of them.

 

Women were only sold if they the father was destitute, and only to another Hebrew. There were rules governing how she would be treated and she could not be harmed. She might be a servant, a concubine or marry the man.

 

Why you need me to look things up is why I refused to deal with it. If you trying to get me to say it was anything other than slavery, it wasn't.

 

As for the bast a r d child and the tenth generation, that dealt again with the passage of title and land . A child that was born of adultery or in some cases, it meant incest, would not have the right of the family lineage. Family name and land ownership was the most important thing at that time. That is also why widows would marry their husbands brother, as women had no rights to anything.

 

The outcome was  not much different form the Pharohs of Egypt who kept the throne in their own family by having brother and sister marry. Only in Christianity, that kicked you out.

 

So, I apologize for the snippy comment, but really, why did you just not look it up?

 

 

 

Originally Posted by b50m:

 

That wasn't the best title to be sure. But I know you only meant the odd or confusing things. There is a lot.

Offended?  No. AR's little comment was snide, but it's over.

 

___________________________

I see nothing wrong with my title. Dumb could easily cover odd or confusing in my opinion. I didn't see AR's comment as snide, but then I'm not a Christian.

I didn't think you were either? 

It's like saying the works of Leonardo da Vinci are 'dumb' at an artist gallery.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

There well could be people that think his works are dumb. I don't really get the comparison though. We aren't ask to teach our children that he was and forever will be the only one true artist in the world, his works had no flaws, he had no character flaws, our country/the world needs to be governed by his word and so on.

Originally Posted by b50m:

I think I have already covered that five or six times.

 

AR was being snide, his' hope no one catches you on it'?

 

You knew that saying 'dumb' was going to catch the eyes of the religious folks. However, few responded.

 

It's like saying the works of Leonardo da Vinci are 'dumb' at an artist gallery.

__________________________

Yes, you have mentioned it, that's why I was confused over your seeming to be offended over this topic & some of the scriptures given. It's almost as if you're defending the Bible & getting upset at those of us that mentioned "dumb" scriptures.

 

No, I wasn't intending to catch the eye of any particular person with my title. I, myself, was thinking of the really dumb way some scriptures sound & thought to pass it on to see if others thought the same thing. Not as a way to make fun but just to have fun with the way they're put out there. 

 

I have a friend that calls herself a Christian & I think she is sincerely trying to live right. She & I have discussed some of those scriptures & she agrees they do sound dumb. But it doesn't make her any less of a Christian for thinking that.

 

I never expected the "Christians" to respond unless it was to bash the topic because I knew they most likely wouldn't agree or if they did they wouldn't admit it.

 

I've read over the post & I haven't found AR's  "hope no one catches you on it" comment. I'm not saying it's not there, just that I haven't found it. I could possibly be overlooking it.

 

Anyone that doesn't like art could easily say the works of Leonardo da Vinci are "dumb". 

Grandma Moses is arguably the greatest American folk painter of the twentieth century. I love her art but have a friend that hates it. If I ask her, she would probably say her art was dumb.

 

It's right above you semi, on this page.


11 hours ago
 

 

Originally Posted by b50m:

Do your own study. You're a big boy, Google is very easy to use. I'm not your homework staff.

b,

As far as I remember, when you've asked me questions about what I've posted or claimed, I've addressed your questions directly and not run away from explaining how and why I understand things to be, in an effort to dialogue and educate. In contrast, you've recently made the statement that, in effect, I do not understand the true interpretation and meaning of the initial Biblical passages I added to this list of "dumb stuff in the Bible", but then repeatedly refuse to back it up. Then you tell me to do a study of it for myself. I have an interest in knowing why you think you're right, but it's your claim, I shouldn't have to defend it for you too. You've stated that you "could quite easily, by using the works of scholars who have studied it in detail and the culture of the time and the various languages" explain it to me but then you don't. Do you believe in what you're saying and can back it up, or are you just saying things in the hope no one will call you on it?

Originally Posted by b50m:

A. Robustus
 

b,

Do you believe in what you're saying and can back it up, or are you just saying things in the hope no one will call you on it?

_________________________

Ok, I did miss it. maybe I should go back to bed & get up again.

I don't see any of his comment as being snide but we all see things differently. Maybe he truly wants to know if you believe what you're saying.

I can't speak for AR but maybe he will explain to you what he meant.

I never expected the "Christians" to respond unless it was to bash the topic because I knew they most likely wouldn't agree or if they did they wouldn't admit it.


So you only wanted the atheists to talk about the 'dumb' stuff? Put that in the title next time, that way you will get Bill for sure.


As I said early, for atheists to talk about dumb stuff in a book they consdier a fairy tale is dumb.

It would be like discussing the merits of Goldilocks sleeping with three bears. What a s l u t.

Originally Posted by semiannualchick:

Originally Posted by b50m:

A. Robustus
 

b,

Do you believe in what you're saying and can back it up, or are you just saying things in the hope no one will call you on it?

_________________________

Ok, I did miss it. maybe I should go back to bed & get up again.

I don't see any of his comment as being snide but we all see things differently. Maybe he truly wants to know if you believe what you're saying.

I can't speak for AR but maybe he will explain to you what he meant.

 

Why ask if I believed what I was saying? Do you believe what you say? Or are you just making things up?

 

See how that would be offensive. Saying" hope no one will call you on it?" is the same as saying, you made it up.

 

Originally Posted by b50m:
Why ask if I believed what I was saying? Do you believe what you say? Or are you just making things up?

See how that would be offensive. Saying" hope no one will call you on it?" is the same as saying, you made it up.

___________________________

I understand what you're saying but how many times has Bill Gray asked someone for proof in what they're saying? He is basically asking for them to back up their words. I have ask Bill the same thing but he never answers. I don't believe that it's the same as saying you made it up. It could be just another way of saying where did you get your info.

Again, a difference of opinion as how we see things.

 

As I said early, for atheists to talk about dumb stuff in a book they consdier a fairy tale is dumb.

It would be like discussing the merits of Goldilocks sleeping with three bears. What a s l u t.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

So b, since we don't believe we should just leave it all alone? Never speak about it, never point out the flaws in it, leave christians alone to "spread it's word", never object when people want it taught in our schools or used to govern us? Why should we just ignore the bible? All these comparisons to artists and now goldilocks, what are they for? Religion plays a major role in everyone's life, believer and non-believer alike. To even try and "play it down" and ask us to just go away and never mention it again is ridiculous. It's important enough to you for you to take offense at every post made about it. Would you take the same offense when someone said goldilocks is silly?  When christians stop telling the world to read and adhere to the bible we can drop it. And if someone tells us to read and adhere to goldilocks we can point out the flaws in that story too.

Originally Posted by b50m:

I never expected the "Christians" to respond unless it was to bash the topic because I knew they most likely wouldn't agree or if they did they wouldn't admit it.


So you only wanted the atheists to talk about the 'dumb' stuff? Put that in the title next time, that way you will get Bill for sure.


As I said early, for atheists to talk about dumb stuff in a book they consdier a fairy tale is dumb.

It would be like discussing the merits of Goldilocks sleeping with three bears. What a s l u t.

___________________________

Of course I didn't want just the Atheist to respond! If I had, I would have added it to the title. There are unbelievers here just as well as Christians or Atheist. Do you think unbelievers have never read the Bible & have never seen those dumb scriptures?

I wasn't trying to get Bill. We all know how he feels so there was no need for him to reply except to bash the topic & me.

I didn't say I didn't want the Christians to respond, just that I knew they wouldn't agree or if they did they wouldn't admit it.

Goldilocks was one of my son's favorite bedtime stories when he was little. I never thought of him as dumb because he liked the story, even if she was a s l u t.

(I never thought of her that way) 


Atheist discuss the Bible because they see it as unbelievable, & find it amazing that people actually believe in it. I find it unbelievable that there's people attending church on Sunday that consider themselves a Christian & believe their going to Heaven. I frequently discuss that with others.

 


Look, if you look at any other literature written during those same times, you will see not just a reflection of religion/myth/story/history, or whatever other genre of literature you choose, but you will see a reflection of the CULTURE of those times. And you will find all kinds of things in ALL of these other types of literature that we would find to be barbaric in our time.

 

But you must admit, there are an awful lot of good ideas/philosophys/poems/social commentary, or what have you, that make these other types of literature worth reading. One can often derive LESSONS from reading "barbaric" stories. Look at Beowulf, for example. Violent, bloody, degrading to women, and one of the greatest pieces of literature ever written.

 

Because amid all of the violence, there is something to be learned about the human condition that transends time.

 

Well, if you read these so-called dumb things in the Bible, keeping in mind that the Old Testament was written for the Jews of that time, you will see that there is a lot of hidden instruction in these stories, on how to live. And these instructions can apply just as well today as when they were written, if you look at them from a human, and societal perspective, instead of just as stories.

 

And even though we Christians are under a NEW covanent with God, it can profit us to take the lessons we are given in the Old Testament. But that doesn't mean that either the Jews or the Christians need to LITERALLY do all of the things we are told to do in the Old Testament. We are to derive the LESSON, and apply that lesson to TODAY'S culture. So instead of piercing the ear of a slave who does wrong, we apply that lesson to perhaps, an employee, and write up a warning. Because we don't have slaves nowadays, and we don't commit bodily harm to those who mess up at work, but we DO still let a person who works for us know when they messed up and that we will be watching them.  

 

That also explains the so-called contradictions. If you read these verses with the lesson about life that they illustrate, you will see that the "contradictions" are there to teach different things.

 

You remember the old adage, "Absence makes the heart grow fonder"? How about this one: "Out of sight, out of mind"? They contradict each other, don't they? Does that make either of them less true? No. In some cases, one will hold true, in some cases, the other will. It is the same way with the Bible.

 

That is why I have said before, that different people will get different messages from scripture, depending on what lesson it is they need at that time. And the SAME person may derive a different message from the same verses at different times in their lives, depending on which lesson they need at that time.

 

That explains some of the arguing here about what differnt verses mean. And it's OK if we get different messages, as long as we don't think ours is the ONLY message possible.

 

So, when you keep asking us how we can reconcile all of the "dumb stuff" in the Bible, this is how. And this IS THE TRUE ANSWER. And that is why it is so hard to keep coming back to this forum to face the same questions over and over. The TRUTH is, this answer I just gave satisfies me. It may not satisfy YOU, but it is MY answer, it makes sense to me, and I won't likely be changing that answer. But I will confess, I am tired to death of the question.

One interpretation of goldilocks:

 

I’m sure you all know the story of Goldilocks and the three bears: the evil bears come home from their walk and chase off poor, innocent li’l Goldilocks, who just wanted a meal and a cozy place to sleep, right? Well, the name’s Boris Bear, but you can call me Papa Bear. I’m here to tell the truth about “cute little girls” and “big, bad bears.” I’m sick of hearing these same old lies about us!
First of all, I’m not some savage who lives in the woods and feasts on human flesh. I’m on a strict diet of porridge, vegetables, and the occasional fish or two. Second, I’m a lumberjack, and I work my butt off every day so that my wife and kid always have a roof over their head and there’s always food on the table.
I bought us a humble cottage in the woods about two years ago from an elderly raccoon couple. The only reason that they were selling it was because they were having trouble getting up and down the stairs. The house had been maintained well and the atmosphere was peaceful. The air was full with the pleasant taste of pine trees. The house was built directly along the river, so it was a premiere fishing spot as well. So like a bounce-house at a child’s birthday party, I jumped all over it at the first opportunity I got.
Although the home was wonderful, the raccoons left out the details of one major problem: burglary and vandalism happened to be very popular ‘round these parts. Every local I chatted with upon moving here informed me that they all had issues with burglars breaking into their homes, stealing their food and breaking their chairs. Many claimed they had seen the culprit on more than one occasion and they all claimed that it was just one person committing all these acts. I was surprised by all of this, but that surprise sure didn’t last long.
We had our little encounter with the thief around six months ago. It was a brisk spring afternoon, and the ol’ lady and I decided to take Junior out for a stroll. Our neighbors had advised us to lock our windows and doors before leaving, but the stench of porridge we had for lunch was thick inside the house, and we wanted to air it out a bit. As we began to head down the sinuous path, thoughts of What’s the worst that could happen? filled my mind.
The farther down the path we got, the farther these thoughts fled from me. Paranoia quickly started setting in, and I quickly began imagining terrible things, like I wonder what he’s stealing right now?! I soon crumbled under the weight of my imagination, and I urged the missus that we should head back home immediately. We strayed from the trail a bit so we had a bit of a difficult struggle back through the dense net of trees and shrubs.
As we proceeded up the walkway to our home, the very first thing I noticed was the front door, standing wide open. I knew for a fact that I closed that door when we left! I guess I was paranoid for all the right reasons. It looked as though the burglar had struck again.
“Hello?” I boomed as I entered the house.
No response. I looked quickly left, right, and left once again. I was terrified at what I saw. To my right was what remained of the kitchen. Bowls and utensils lay scattered all over the place, and there was a strange, orange, liquid-like substance in a bowl on the counter. It looked like a scientific experiment gone horribly wrong.
The next victim of the assault was the living room. All of our chairs looked as though they had been brutally decapitated. It seemed like we were dealing with the “Iceman” of chairs and kitchens here.
“That does it!!” I shouted as I headed up the stairs. I grabbed my grandpappy’s prized ax off the wall and stomped my way to the second story like a rabid bull. I kicked the door of my bedroom, breaking the hinges and sending it sailing across the room. I was nearly blind with rage when I saw my bed. It had been broken in half. I’m still at a loss for how that happened; my father built that bed of only the sturdiest materials! It was the hardest, sturdiest bed I’ve ever slept on!!
I stormed down the hall to see what other damage had been done. The door to Junior’s room was closed and locked up tight as a prison cell, so I readied my grandpappy’s ax, took a great swing, and lopped the door in two. The bottom half of the door fell into the room and the top half flipped and flailed out the bedroom window.
And there she was. Sleeping ever so soundly was the minute vandal, who stood only about three and a half feet tall with golden hair that was easily twice as long as she was. She had the most content look on her face as she snored loudly with porridge smeared all over her face.
“Wake up!” I shouted as I raised my ax once again.
“Wh—what…?” She stammered. She was perplexed as to what was going on. When she saw the sharp blade raised above her, she squealed and hopped out of the bed. My ax came crashing down on Junior’s bed, splitting it perfectly in two. She hopped out the window and scampered down the road, tripping over her hair into the forest as quickly as her short legs could carry her.

I breathed a few hard breaths of anger and soon my fury turned to sorrow as I started sobbing. She broke my father’s bed, my wife’s kitchen, my son’s chair and most of all, my spirit. I tossed the ax into the center of my son’s bedroom and sat down in sadness, staring at it blankly.
Six months later, Goldilocks (as she’s come to be known in this community) is still at large. As far as we know, she’s done pillaging our town, but she could be back someday. I know that if I ever see her again, I’ll bring her to the witch that lives down the lane in that house made of candy!!
That’s my story, kids. Hopefully you look at Goldilocks and myself in a different light now. This just goes to show that a book should never be judged by its cover!

Originally Posted by O No!:
 You remember the old adage, "Absence makes the heart grow fonder"? How about this one: "Out of sight, out of mind"? They contradict each other, don't they?

 

__________________________

No, not a contradiction. If you love or like someone, you will miss them when they're gone. If you dislike/hate someone, you'll be glad they're out of sight.

Originally Posted by semiannualchick:
Originally Posted by O No!:
 You remember the old adage, "Absence makes the heart grow fonder"? How about this one: "Out of sight, out of mind"? They contradict each other, don't they?

 

__________________________

No, not a contradiction. If you love or like someone, you will miss them when they're gone. If you dislike/hate someone, you'll be glad they're of of sight.

_____________________________________________________________________________

That's what I mean, Semi. One is true for the pesron who truly loves someone, the other is true for the person who only THINKS they love someone. And if a person dates a lot before finding the right one, they will probably find that both are true at different times in their lives, and with different people. Contradictions that are both true.


 

Originally Posted by semiannualchick:

No, not a contradiction. If you love or like someone, you will miss them when they're gone. If you dislike/hate someone, you'll be glad they're of of sight.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Originally Posted by O No!:

That's what I mean, Semi. One is true for the pesron who truly loves someone, the other is true for the person who only THINKS they love someone. And if a person dates a lot before finding the right one, they will probably find that both are true at different times in their lives, and with different people. Contradictions that are both true.

_________________________________

If you'll notice, I said if you dislike/hate someone, you'll be glad they're of of sight. I wouldn't have dated someone I didn't like or hated.

I don't see them as a contradiction. Just a difference of opinion.

Originally Posted by semiannualchick:

 

Originally Posted by semiannualchick:

No, not a contradiction. If you love or like someone, you will miss them when they're gone. If you dislike/hate someone, you'll be glad they're of of sight.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Originally Posted by O No!:

That's what I mean, Semi. One is true for the pesron who truly loves someone, the other is true for the person who only THINKS they love someone. And if a person dates a lot before finding the right one, they will probably find that both are true at different times in their lives, and with different people. Contradictions that are both true.

_________________________________

If you'll notice, I said if you dislike/hate someone, you'll be glad they're of of sight. I wouldn't have dated someone I didn't like or hated.

I don't see them as a contradiction. Just a difference of opinion.

 

___________________________________________________________________________

Before I met my husband, I dated a couple of guys that I really liked at first, but as I got to know them better, I realized they weren't who I thought they were. As a matter of fact, with one of them, realizing I was GLAD one day when he had to cancel our date due to an emergency at his job, was what made me realize I didn't want to date him anymore. Instead I went to the picnic alone and had a much better time. He was out of my sight and out of my mind that day. I didn't hate him at all, but his absence that day, rather than making me grow fonder of him, made it clear to me that he wasn't for me.

 

All these comparisons to artists and now goldilocks, what are they for?

 

One fairy tale to another. You believe the Bible to be a fairy tale.

 

Our government has already specified there cannot be an establishment of religion. As it should be. Not one single Christian, Islamist, Jew, or other follower would disagree because they all would want only their denomination to be it.

 

Talk about the Bible all you want to. But you already know that when you start insulting it, you will get comments.

 

As for me, I will stay out of it for now.

Or here's another way of looking at it. When was the last time you thought of our former resident troll, Opie? Most likely it was quite a while ago. He was not someone any of us particularly liked, and now that he is gone, we don't think of him. Out of sight, out of mind.

 

Now, when was the last time you thought of Veep (before she mad her brief appearance here last week)? Probabaly a lot more often than Opie!! Because we MISS her. Her absence has made us realize her voice of reason and what she contributed to this forum, even more than we did at the time. Absence makes our hearts grow fonder in this case.

 

So both statement are true.

 

One from the Bible: "An eye for an eye", versus "Turn the other cheek". Sounds like quite the contradiction, right?

 

But an eye for an eye was in the Old Testament, and it was instructional for the Jews of that time. It taught them that they needed to set up a system of justice, to deal with any crimes that might be committed. "Turn the other cheek" is in the New Testament, and it doesn't contradict the system of justice from the Old Testament at all. It is rather an instruction to PERSONALLY FORGIVE, those who do us wrong.

 

So, in other words, to apply these lessons to today's culture, if someone breaks into your house, our SOCIETY'S system of justice will punish them. But WE can forgive them in our hearts, taking into account that they may have had a lousy childhood, or have been down on their luck, or whatever. They still go to jail or get probation, or whatever the courts decide, but WE can let go of any anger we have toward that person. WE can wish them well. We can even go visit them in prison and bring them books and cookies, take an active interest in their rehabilitation.

 

If we did, then both "an eye for an eye", and "turn the other cheek" would be true at the very same time.

Talk about the Bible all you want to. But you already know that when you start insulting it, you will get comments.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I have no problem with "comments", why should you? And if you consider the bible to be a fairy tale along the lines of goldilocks what can I say. I wish it was only taken as seriously as goldilocks but unfortunately that is not the case. I still don't see how pointing out contradictions, silly and dumb things, and inconsistancies in the bible should be taken as an "insult", but then again any questioning is called either insults or attacks.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×