I do better all the time.
You don’t show up in those threads.
As far as hocus-pocus goes, every other thread you’re trying to make up a new god and tell everybody what it’s like, so I’m not sure what you mean.
the baby is the golden rule…
Then just keep that one speech and throw out the rest of the book.
I don’t think the bible is sacred…but people that throw out books can be a problem
Are you implying that all books are sacred?
Books are printed words on paper. Words are written by humans of various ability, moral integrity and attitude. Some books are worthwhile and beautiful; some books are crap; some books are entertaining; some books are timely and informative; some books are full of factual error; some books are inflammatory propaganda; some books are self-promotion; some books are spiritual inspiration; some books are dirty. I read them or not, throw them away or keep them, each according to its merit.
If I’m not allowed to throw away books I dislike, then they become tyrants.
Is the bible sacred?
No. It’s got bad stuff in it.
It has good stuff, too. Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.
What baby?
That one.
Fine: save the baby and throw out the dirty water.
You’re bad to do that.
Why? Is it sacred?
It is an error to not accept that what we have could just be so, requiring that some way Larger Existence needs be responsible for our lessor existence, and that the larger Existence can just be, throwing away this golden template after only one usage, suddenly no longer requiring a LARGER for the Larger to come from. This error is called “begging the question” by posing an even larger question pretending to be an answer.
There isn’t much worse than the religious who dishonestly state things as if they are truth and fact, given that ‘faith’ is an honest word, but worse there is, indeed, when such as what they state from page one of the Bible is outright wrong, for man was not made as is, immutable, a few thousand years ago, but evolved, from one tree of life, with the species having not been made separately, plus Earth is not the center of All, as fixed, nor is the sky a dome, and more.
I don’t state that there is no ‘God’ for sure, as that would be dishonest, but rather say that that it’s not established and so I don’t have anything to work with. ‘Faith’ doesn’t provide anything, as its definition honestly indicates.
And parents declare: “Because I said so”.
Kings, priests, etc, etc. Small tribes, inbreeding, killing, running amok with only ego to direct , no future thought of the many. Adult children that cared only for their own.
A child does not become an adult overnight, a species does not become mature or evolved in just a few generations. They were little kids, we are not yet teens. We have a ways to go before the many outgrow the need for a strong handed parental figure.
Do you want all the religious people in the world to think that their God is horrible , or wrong then start breaking the 10 commandments? If God is wrong then the do and do nots must be wrong as well. If there is no reward for living by the word of God, why not kill your neighbor? Death is dead and who cares?
If you think that a few million believers won’t go nuts, you would be wrong. Not all would, many would not, but over a million will be broken.
The originators of gods and religion had to use fear to control and bring together masses to eventually live in relative peace. A sweet , kind gentle loving happy God would not get respect. It would be held in disdain and disgust. Study anthropology and sociology along with historical texts and stories.
If you look at biblical followers today, most are far from orthodox.
Civil laws. Do you think we can do without civil laws? Most Civil laws stem from religious laws/commandments. If you declare suddenly to all , give proof that the bible is false then you declare civil laws false… You and those you know might not have issue but, enough will.
Sacred means
oxforddictionaries.com/us/de … ner/sacred
Would you rip people’s minds apart by taking something so deeply imbedded in them? If so why?
Who are ‘the many’? If not you, then what made you exceptional, one of ‘the few’ ? And how do you know that ‘the many’ are naturally stupider than you? Maybe they just need better nutrition, health and education, and more personal freedom to grow up.
No, just the ones with horrible gods.
Do you actually believe they don’t break any commandments? Do you believe that no society had laws before they heard of Jahveh/Allah ?
No. Every god is a character in some nation’s story. Some are nastier than others; some are more blood-thirsty, more xenophobic, homophobic, misogynistic, vengeful. Laws, on the other hand, exist outside those stories, and have existed in every society; legal codes have been written down by every civilization for over 5000 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ancient_legal_codes The ten commandments are an outline; once the Jews were settled, they, too, made up a far more complex and comprehensive code. … which Christians largely ignore, because Peter and his successors said those laws were outmoded. Laws change all the time.
Two reasons. Most people don’t want to, because it would be stupid to wipe out potential allies. And the other people in the village would either kill you or ostracize you, because it would be stupid to keep a psychopath in their midst.
Seriously - Is fear of God the only thing that keeps you from killing your neighbours?
They’re already nuts. They never stopped slaughtering one another for a single one of the 2000 years since Jesus. The crime and war statistics from before to after Constantine are exactly the same. Violent men got one more excuse to kill and abuse people weaker than themselves, that’s all.
Didn’t work.
Then why do the Christians claim to have exactly that?
Actually, much of the Israeli law was based on the code of Hammurabi - a civil code from a much earlier civilization.
Come to think of it, how could the Egyptian and Japanese and Indian empires have been built? They hadn’t heard of the bible?
I rip nobody’s mind. I take nothing away. I don’t even talk to deeply religious people about religion, except on forums, where they have the option of participating or not. Even then, I never start the threads. I merely express my opinions in harmless, powerless type.
But I would prefer a sane, secular government, equal marriage and factual education in the public schools.
Simple things please simple minds.
Neither of those phrases appear in either book and are contradicted by several things that do appear in those books.
It’s okay you can throw out the water, this particular baby has been shown not to exist.
There might be some other sort of baby, but it ain’t in this particular bath.
And confuse very stupid minds.
You don’t have to tell me you are confused. We all know that.
If you can’t make sense, sling mud. Works for politicians and preachers.
Hey, maybe that’s where the drinking-cheer originated. “Here’s mud in your eye”: something to confuse the issue.
Sorry for delay , this week has been hellish at work and home, lengthy replies ain’t in me right now.
The original Bible is written in Hebrew.
"The Hebrew language is not a precise mathematical language. It is alive. It desires to be known. It dares you to chase after it, pursue it and immerse yourself within it. So do not take it lightly. Spend time with it. Get to know it. It is complex and mysterious and deserves your time.”
Author Unknown
Chapter 42 … “Dao De Jing” by Lao Zi
“The Dao produces the One
The One turns into the Two
The Two give rise to the Three
The Three bring forth the myriad of things
The myriad of things contain Yin and Yang as vital forces,
Which achieve harmony through their interactions.”
Notice the parallels between Lao Zi’s words and the Book of Genesis … the story of Adam, Eve and the Serpent … the ‘Three’. Witness the Christian belief … we are born with ‘Original Sin’ … we are born with the ‘Serpent’ within.
‘Living’ words are complex and mysterious … they deserve our time?
It’s a book, a saga by Jews for Jews but the rest of us couldn’t mind our own business.
Paul did not think so.
duplicate
The entire New Testament is a different book, with different audience, from the OT.
Of course, Saul of Tarsus had no business butting his up-tight correspondence into either one. Neither did mushroom John of Revelation fame.
The editors in Nicea included both, because by 325 AD, they had a popular following.
People who keep saying how you have to study and appreciate The Bible might do better - that is, accomplish more; have a more positive influence - if they took the books apart again and referred to each original volume. The Book of Samuel is a better read than Deuteronomy, for instance, and of course, just about everything exciting in the OT happens in Genesis, while Psalms are just that - some okay poetry, lots of repetition. (How many times does a god really need to be told how much greater he is than his puny creations?)
You could discuss each book on its own merits, in its own historical context, and decided which babies are worth rescuing, instead of trying to turn all that bath-water holy.
It doesn’t matter what Paul thought. Once he had his epiphany on the road to Damascus, he, in effect, turned from OT into NT, as mentioned by H, a decidedly different context.
To reiterate, the OT was created by Jews for Jews and NO OTHER and it remains one of the great ironies of history that it didn’t stay that way. The Jews didn’t invite anyone else to the party but the party crashers came anyways thanks to an almost open door policy from Paul. As a Jew, Paul, by influence, was the greatest anti-Jew who ever lived.