Bible Verse of the Day

[Greg71]

Greg.....Can you show me where my post made mention of God?

Are you disagreeing that it's hypocritical for the bible to say 'Thou shall not kill', then a bit further into the book, to give a directive to kill your son if he gets drunk?
Can you honestly not see the hypocrisy in that? Yes or no, Greg. No airy fairy answers, no comparing to present day situations. Sure there's plenty of hypocrisy in today's world. But this is the bible we're discussing, not the world of today.
So I ask you again.....in view of the bible commanding us 'Thou shalt not kill, is it or is it not gross hypocrisy for it to then say 'Kill your drunkard son'? Yes or no?

No.

To save waiting for your next post asking me to explain, I'll do it now.
You and I both know it is wrong to kill another person. It's "morally" wrong. Even before the nation of Israel existed, people knew it was wrong to kill. It's just the way it is in this universe, or if you will, God is/was always the same.

I'm assuming you're of non-christian belief, which is your choice.

Unless you have read the bible completely and studied it whether it be from an official course of some kind or through reading material through bible scholars, it would be a stretch to expect you to have a detailed knowledge of it. Would that be a fair statement? I wouldn't expect you to know Elliot Wave analysis either unless you'd studied that.

I'm no bible scholar, but I have some knowledge.

Here's how it works. You have the nation of Israel, a nation seperated from other nations by God, to show his mighty works etc. and to show that he is the living God, not a statue like the surrounding heathen nations worship, like the Egyptians and so on.

They go through the slavery bit in Egypt, then the wilderness, then just before entering the promised land, God hands down the law through Moses (perhaps you've heard of the ten commandments?). Moses comes down from the mountain, "here's the law etc".

A bit later, God causes Moses to write the "law of ordinances", containing some 600+ rulings and judgements. This written law, the law of Moses, included all of the ceremonial stuff like how to dismember a bullock or cow or whatever and sacrifice it on an altar in the temple, or tabernacle as it was then (a portable temple "tent"). These "ceremonial" laws were to atone for sins that may have been committed. You'd bring one of your animals, or a cake, depending on the sin and your financial position, and give it to the priest who would sacrifice a part of it and eat the rest as payment.

So, we have the ten commandments with "thou shalt not kill" and so on. Don't kill, don't steal, don't covet etc. This was known as the "moral" law. Effectively, it's all split into 3 parts, the moral, civil and ceremonial law. These 3 parts were all part of Israel's law as a nation.

The bible is a compilation of many books written by many different authors. The amazing part of it is that it doesn't contradict itself. If it seems to, it is because one of us feeble minded humans has interpreted it incorrectly.

The moral code says that an Israelite is not to kill another Israelite. Yet, the civil law says that if two people are caught in adultery they are to be stoned to death. Yet another apparent contradiction.

I won't draw a parallel to make it easier for you if that is how you prefer it. The civil/ ceremonial law contained 600+ items. All of it combined was designed for how God wanted Israel as a nation to function. If someone did this, then this is the punishment. If they do that, then this is the punishment. It was their law. They didn't have a police force, so the people, as a God-fearing nation, just followed instructions and stoned the perpetrators to death. It was a way to keep the nation consecrated and holy unto God. Acceptable if you will.

The system of government that Israel had is known as a "theocracy", that is God as the head of state. He gave all the rulings in advance, to Moses, who wrote them down. It was God's law.

So, if you are saying that the bible contradicts itself and is full of hypocrisy, you are calling God a hypocrite (although perhaps ignorantly due to lack of exposure to certain information, until now) because he is the one that orchestrated the book to be written, and it is basically about him, unless you haven't realised that as well. Read it sometime, you'll find God mentioned throughout.

Both the ten commandments and the civil/ ceremonial laws for Israel came from God. If you are saying that there's hypocrisy in it because you think one verse that says don't kill contradicts another verse that says to kill, you are assigning the hypocrisy to God, because he is the one that made the laws up.

Don't worry, the Jews caused a perfect, innocent man to be crucified through the very same ignorance, so you're not alone.

 

[2020hindsight]

... God hands down the law through Moses (perhaps you've heard of the ten commandments?). Moses comes down from the mountain, "here's the law etc".

A bit later, God causes Moses to write the "law of ordinances", containing some 600+ rulings and judgements. .. .

is that something like ...
"Your honour, I'd like to refer you to that famous case "J. Christ Versus the Moneylenders Guild, 30AD" ...."

sorry, happy hour comment here Wayne.

"Moneylenders Guild represented on that occasion by Chief Moneylender Turnbull"

 

[Greg71]

Again,

1. Ten Commandments - the moral law, which you could use literally in today's world except for the sabbath one.

2. The Civil Law - If someone does this, this is the judgement etc.

3. The Ceremonial Law - If someone sins, this is how to atone for it (remit the sin)

When the bible characters refer to "the law", sometimes they mean the ten commandments (like in new testament epistles), sometimes they mean the civil/ ceremonial law. It's all "the law".

The ten commandments told them how to behave, the rest of it expanded on that and told them what to do if they didn't.

God bless.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Interpretation ? as numbered as denominations.

 

[Greg71]

Interpretation ? as numbered as denominations.

Exactly. 500+ denominations, all from one bible, yet the bible says, "one faith, one baptism".

 

[Julia]

No.

To save waiting for your next post asking me to explain, I'll do it now.
You and I both know it is wrong to kill another person. It's "morally" wrong. Even before the nation of Israel existed, people knew it was wrong to kill. It's just the way it is in this universe, or if you will, God is/was always the same.

I'm assuming you're of non-christian belief, which is your choice.

Unless you have read the bible completely and studied it whether it be from an official course of some kind or through reading material through bible scholars, it would be a stretch to expect you to have a detailed knowledge of it. Would that be a fair statement? I wouldn't expect you to know Elliot Wave analysis either unless you'd studied that.

I'm no bible scholar, but I have some knowledge.

Here's how it works. You have the nation of Israel, a nation seperated from other nations by God, to show his mighty works etc. and to show that he is the living God, not a statue like the surrounding heathen nations worship, like the Egyptians and so on.

They go through the slavery bit in Egypt, then the wilderness, then just before entering the promised land, God hands down the law through Moses (perhaps you've heard of the ten commandments?). Moses comes down from the mountain, "here's the law etc".

A bit later, God causes Moses to write the "law of ordinances", containing some 600+ rulings and judgements. This written law, the law of Moses, included all of the ceremonial stuff like how to dismember a bullock or cow or whatever and sacrifice it on an altar in the temple, or tabernacle as it was then (a portable temple "tent"). These "ceremonial" laws were to atone for sins that may have been committed. You'd bring one of your animals, or a cake, depending on the sin and your financial position, and give it to the priest who would sacrifice a part of it and eat the rest as payment.

So, we have the ten commandments with "thou shalt not kill" and so on. Don't kill, don't steal, don't covet etc. This was known as the "moral" law. Effectively, it's all split into 3 parts, the moral, civil and ceremonial law. These 3 parts were all part of Israel's law as a nation.

The bible is a compilation of many books written by many different authors. The amazing part of it is that it doesn't contradict itself. If it seems to, it is because one of us feeble minded humans has interpreted it incorrectly.

The moral code says that an Israelite is not to kill another Israelite. Yet, the civil law says that if two people are caught in adultery they are to be stoned to death. Yet another apparent contradiction.

I won't draw a parallel to make it easier for you if that is how you prefer it. The civil/ ceremonial law contained 600+ items. All of it combined was designed for how God wanted Israel as a nation to function. If someone did this, then this is the punishment. If they do that, then this is the punishment. It was their law. They didn't have a police force, so the people, as a God-fearing nation, just followed instructions and stoned the perpetrators to death. It was a way to keep the nation consecrated and holy unto God. Acceptable if you will.

The system of government that Israel had is known as a "theocracy", that is God as the head of state. He gave all the rulings in advance, to Moses, who wrote them down. It was God's law.

So, if you are saying that the bible contradicts itself and is full of hypocrisy, you are calling God a hypocrite (although perhaps ignorantly due to lack of exposure to certain information, until now) because he is the one that orchestrated the book to be written, and it is basically about him, unless you haven't realised that as well. Read it sometime, you'll find God mentioned throughout.

Both the ten commandments and the civil/ ceremonial laws for Israel came from God. If you are saying that there's hypocrisy in it because you think one verse that says don't kill contradicts another verse that says to kill, you are assigning the hypocrisy to God, because he is the one that made the laws up.

Don't worry, the Jews caused a perfect, innocent man to be crucified through the very same ignorance, so you're not alone.

Greg, I'm sure you feel you were explaining your apparently contradictory response to Bunyip's simple question clearly. Perhaps I'm very stupid and lacking in comprehension but I'm now more confused than ever.

Just one question: how do you know all this? Isn't what you say just the regurgitation of someone's interpretation of the collection of stories from various human beings which constitutes the Bible?

I remember an instance some years ago when - in an attempt to aid me in my understanding of schizophrenia - a psychiatrist introduced me to one of the hospital's long term patients. He was a good looking bloke in his late 30's, pleasant and well mannered, happy to talk. Very articulate. He spent half an hour describing how he was Christ, the Son of God, and all the reasons supporting this belief. Had I been a creature from Mars, e.g. with no prior understanding of religion, the Bible and associated beliefs, I would have completely believed him.

Some people will find this relevant to the topic. Others won't.

 

[bunyip]

Greg.... For the record....I was raised as a Christian and I attended Sunday school and church every week from an early age. After leaving school I enrolled in bible study classes and studied the bible at some length. Although some of it is getting a bit hazy now, I still have a pretty reasonable knowledge of what the bible contains.

You're quoting all this biblical stuff as if it's proven fact. I suggest to you that there's no proof whatsoever of the existence of God. And if you think otherwise, then perhaps you can furnish us with your proof.
I think you're assuming a hell of a lot by saying 'God did this or God did that. What you've done is read something and then accept it as being true, however unlikely it may be.
You made me smile with your claim that the bible doesn't contradict itself, and if it seems to, it's because one of us feeble minded humans has interpreted it incorrectly. It's actually quite amusing that you make such a claim. Nevertheless, you are of course entitled to your views, which only go to prove that we don't all see things the same way.

The bible is held up by Christians as being a set of rules for decent living...a sort of road map, if you like, to guide us through the journey of life and to help us safely negotiate all the trials and tribulations and hiccups along the way.
And yet it glorifies and encourages various unsavoury behaviours, violence and murder among them. Great set of rules! Great road map....just what we need for clean and decent living!

Greg, you've gone to some trouble in giving us your views, and you've done so in a courteous manner. Also you've been quite honest with me in saying that you don't see any hypocrisy in what the bible says. I admit that instead of such a forthright answer, I was expecting that you'd beat around the bush without really answering the question.
Thanks for taking the time to post.

 

[wayneL]

I have this theory (hatched somewhere on this board) that the Manna that the Israelites were into was in fact, mushrooms; and perhaps some of them were hallucinogenic toadstools.

Would explain a lot... burning bushes etc.
I must admit to have seen burning bushes once on a trip to Bali.

 

[Greg71]

Sorry if i get a bit "evangelistic". Maybe I'm operating on a lower level of thought. If my bank balance is a reflection of my intelligence, this may be the case. I think I need to start smoking pot or something.

 

[Julia]

Sorry if i get a bit "evangelistic". Maybe I'm operating on a lower level of thought. If my bank balance is a reflection of my intelligence, this may be the case. I think I need to start smoking pot or something.

Greg, I don't think you were being evangelistic. Seemed to me you were making your best effort to genuinely explain why you believe what you do.
It's just a really hard ask to expect those of us who don't accept the absolute veracity of the Bible to regard it in the same light as you do.

All the best
Julia

 

[Greg71]

I have this theory (hatched somewhere on this board) that the Manna that the Israelites were into was in fact, mushrooms; and perhaps some of them were hallucinogenic toadstools.

Would explain a lot... burning bushes etc.
I must admit to have seen burning bushes once on a trip to Bali.

Maybe they were magic mushies, but maybe getting them all on it was God's way of opening their consciousness to the realm of the spirit. Who knows. We can only theorize to a point, until we just either take it as happening as it says it did or going insane.

All I know is that one day I'll die. Like Lotto, you've got to have a ticket to have any chance of winning. Does that make sense? Lotto/ believe...

 

[wayneL]

Maybe they were magic mushies, but maybe getting them all on it was God's way of opening their consciousness to the realm of the spirit. Who knows. We can only theorize to a point, until we just either take it as happening as it says it did or going insane.

All I know is that one day I'll die. Like Lotto, you've got to have a ticket to have any chance of winning. Does that make sense? Lotto/ believe...

Not an unreasonable theory. Many use ayahuasca and other hallucinogens explicitly for that purpose.

 

[Sean K]

Not an unreasonable theory. Many use ayahuasca and other hallucinogens explicitly for that purpose.

Yes, the plants are supposed to open you up to another reality.

But even the Shamans may interpret the experiences you have with ayahuasca differently. One ayahuasca experience I had with a 'master', where I saw lots of cats interpreted this to mean my spirit had descended from the feline world. I told this to another and he said that I was simply seeing more deeply into the alternate reality in the Chavin tradition....whatever that means... (felines are very important to them)

Seems to be a lot of interpretation required in any mystical/religious experience.

I wouldn't be surprised if many 'religious' experiences have been hallucinations, or schitzophrenic experiences. This has been written about in a book called, 'Profits, Cults, and Madmen', (I think - forgot the authors names) by a couple of evolutionary phychiatrists. Interesting reading if you find a copy.

 

[Greg71]

You know the movie "The Secret", there's this guy James Ray. He's the one that explains the big genie. He's big on shamans and all that, he's been made a member of various tribes and so on.

In an audio I downloaded from somewhere, he tells of an experience he had with one tribe, where they mix two plant extracts that gives a pretty wild experience. He thought he was literally going to die when he first did it. It's got something to do with the pineal gland, which is used only at birth and just before death. Was interesting listening. When he asked them how they knew which plants to use, they told him that the plants told them. Cool.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Yes, the plants are supposed to open you up to another reality.

But even the Shamans may interpret the experiences you have with ayahuasca differently. One ayahuasca experience I had with a 'master', where I saw lots of cats interpreted this to mean my spirit had descended from the feline world. I told this to another and he said that I was simply seeing more deeply into the alternate reality in the Chavin tradition....whatever that means... (felines are very important to them)

Seems to be a lot of interpretation required in any mystical/religious experience.

I wouldn't be surprised if many 'religious' experiences have been hallucinations, or schitzophrenic experiences. This has been written about in a book called, 'Profits, Cults, and Madmen', (I think - forgot the authors names) by a couple of evolutionary phychiatrists. Interesting reading if you find a copy.

Be careful in South America mate.

The campesinos have a habit of taking godbothering fairly literally.

You should watch out for the three nail trick.

gg

 

[dhukka]

I wouldn't be surprised if many 'religious' experiences have been hallucinations, or schitzophrenic experiences. This has been written about in a book called, 'Profits, Cults, and Madmen', (I think - forgot the authors names) by a couple of evolutionary phychiatrists. Interesting reading if you find a copy.

Another excellent book on this topic and probably one of the first was written in the early 19th century by William James called: The Varieties of Religous Experience. You can read it for free here.

 

[bunyip]

Maybe they were magic mushies, but maybe getting them all on it was God's way of opening their consciousness to the realm of the spirit. Who knows. We can only theorize to a point, until we just either take it as happening as it says it did or going insane.

All I know is that one day I'll die. Like Lotto, you've got to have a ticket to have any chance of winning. Does that make sense? Lotto/ believe...

Greg, I have a problem with 'take it as happening as it says it did, or go insane.'.

I don't accept anything at face value. I used to do so as a kid, just like any kid does, but as I grew up and developed the ability to think for myself, I found myself increasingly questioning the claims that were being made about God. And the more I questioned the claims, the less they stacked up as having any proof, or even any probability. In day to day life I saw many examples of where the claims being made about God were simply not true.

People like myself, Julia, Wayne and others, as intelligent, thinking people, are just not prepared to accept claims that are highly improbable and have no proven basis of fact.
Look, I'd love to believe in God. I'd love to embrace the Christian view that we can have an invincible champion called God on our side. Someone who can help us face our worst enemies without fear, knowing that we'll always come out OK, someone who will never forsake us, someone who will always honour the 'ask, and you will receive' promise. Someone who will ensure that we have an absolutely wonderful life if we believe in him totally. If I had evidence that God exists and is everything Christians claim him to be, then believe me, I'd be his greatest fan. I mean, who wouldn't want a mate like that? I certainly would. We all would. It's a wonderful thought, so wonderful in fact, that many people grasp it in both hands and lock on to it so tightly that they start to imagine it's true. And when the evidence suggests otherwise, they simply shut out any realities they find unpalatable, and just go on believing what they want to believe.

Well sorry, but I can't be like that.

 

[Sean K]

Another excellent book on this topic and probably one of the first was written in the early 19th century by William James called: The Varieties of Religous Experience. You can read it for free here.

Cheers, will check it out.

Um, did I spell prophet as profit back there? LOL Must be the Uruguayan air.

The author was Stevens and it's actually called Prophets Cults and Madness and is at Amazon here.

 

[wayneL]

Cheers, will check it out.

Um, did I spell prophet as profit back there? LOL Must be the Uruguayan air.

The author was Stevens and it's actually called Prophets Cults and Madness and is at Amazon here.

I here thay surve a descent stake doun their.

 

[2020hindsight]

From The Book of Genesis..... of the Bible for Catlovers

Adam and Eve said, "Lord, when we were in the garden, you walked with us every day. Now we do not see you any more. We are lonesome here, and it is difficult for us to remember how much you love us."

God answered, "I will create a companion for you who will stay with you and who will be a reflection of my love for you, so that you will love me even when you cannot see me. Regardless of how selfish or childish or unlovable you may be, this new companion will accept you as you are and will love you as I do, in spite of yourselves."

And God created a new animal to be a companion for Adam and Eve. It was a good animal and God was pleased. And the new animal was pleased to be with Adam and Eve and wagged his tail.

And Adam said, "Lord, I have already named all the animals in the Kingdom and I cannot think of a name for this new animal."

And God replied, " I have created this new animal to be a reflection of my love for you, even his name will be a reflection of my own name. You shall call him DOG."
And Dog lived with Adam and Eve and was a companion to them and loved them. And they were comforted. And God was pleased. And Dog was content and wagged his tail.

After a while, it came to pass that an angel came to the Lord and said, "Lord, Adam and Eve have become filled with pride. They strut and preen like peacocks; believe they are worthy of adoration. Dog has indeed taught them that they are loved, but perhaps too well."

And God said, "I shall create for them a companion who will stay with them and who will see them as they are. This companion will remind them of their limitations and they will know that they are not always worthy of adoration."

And God created CAT to be a companion to Adam and Eve. And Cat would not obey them. And when Adam and Eve gazed into Cat's eyes, they were reminded that they were not the supreme beings. And Adam and Eve learned humility and they were greatly improved. And God was pleased and Dog was happy.

And Cat didn't give a **** one way or the other.