The Bible is an immoral book

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
and apparently it's OK for Christians to attempt to convert atheists, but not vice-versa. I suppose because there's something in the Bible about converting the heathen and giving everyone that CHristians come in contact with a chance to get to heaven. CHristians go door to door proseletizing -- atheists don't.

You admitted above that the whole point of this thread is to proselytize for atheism. To “help” those who are having doubts.

Knoking on doors is a quite a bit more agressive than posting on an internet forum.

You speak far, far too broadly here. The vast majority of Christians do not actively proselytize, nor is it encouraged by most Christian churches (of which there are many varieties). Most Christians agree with you that it is not OK to go around trying to convert people.

While MOST "Christians do not actively proselytize", NO atheists go door to door.

No true. Even atheist proselytize, they just don't call it that. There is this thing called google, check it out.

Sure sounds like pp couldn't find anything online about atheists going door to door trying to sell atheism -- thus the link-less challenge to check out "this thing called google"

PP also fails to identify what atheists call their proselytizing -- maybe it's publicly saying that they are atheist or writing things like "The Bible is an Immoral book."

I wonder what pp thinks about Christians publicly stating that they are Christian or that the Bible is a moral book?

NP here, but I think the OP point of the post was to argue against that very claim. And she provided some evidence in the form of Bible verses supporting slavery. Some posters pushed back and said she was taking the verses out of context, but failed to provide the context that would make the support of slavery "moral" save for some arguments about the Old Testament law is not replaced by New Testament. That was countered by some words of Jesus that stated the opposite. Then we also have our own American history of slavery and using the Bible to support the institution.

There were a couple posters who made the argument that the Bible is not moral or immoral. I think that's a valid argument and wished they'd posted more. I probably agree with them.

However, given that the Bible is cited often amongst politicians as the moral foundation for our laws it's important that there is push back on that. I think it's just ridiculous to use an ancient book that so clearly supports slavery as any moral foundation to modern law.

Posters repeatedly told you the exact opposite: Old Testament law IS replaced by New Testament law. They said this again and again, and even provided verses from Matthew to support it.

How do you rationalize the quotes from Jesus stating the exact opposite?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
and apparently it's OK for Christians to attempt to convert atheists, but not vice-versa. I suppose because there's something in the Bible about converting the heathen and giving everyone that CHristians come in contact with a chance to get to heaven. CHristians go door to door proseletizing -- atheists don't.

You admitted above that the whole point of this thread is to proselytize for atheism. To “help” those who are having doubts.

Knoking on doors is a quite a bit more agressive than posting on an internet forum.

You speak far, far too broadly here. The vast majority of Christians do not actively proselytize, nor is it encouraged by most Christian churches (of which there are many varieties). Most Christians agree with you that it is not OK to go around trying to convert people.

While MOST "Christians do not actively proselytize", NO atheists go door to door.

No true. Even atheist proselytize, they just don't call it that. There is this thing called google, check it out.

Sure sounds like pp couldn't find anything online about atheists going door to door trying to sell atheism -- thus the link-less challenge to check out "this thing called google"

PP also fails to identify what atheists call their proselytizing -- maybe it's publicly saying that they are atheist or writing things like "The Bible is an Immoral book."

I wonder what pp thinks about Christians publicly stating that they are Christian or that the Bible is a moral book?

NP here, but I think the OP point of the post was to argue against that very claim. And she provided some evidence in the form of Bible verses supporting slavery. Some posters pushed back and said she was taking the verses out of context, but failed to provide the context that would make the support of slavery "moral" save for some arguments about the Old Testament law is not replaced by New Testament. That was countered by some words of Jesus that stated the opposite. Then we also have our own American history of slavery and using the Bible to support the institution.

There were a couple posters who made the argument that the Bible is not moral or immoral. I think that's a valid argument and wished they'd posted more. I probably agree with them.

However, given that the Bible is cited often amongst politicians as the moral foundation for our laws it's important that there is push back on that. I think it's just ridiculous to use an ancient book that so clearly supports slavery as any moral foundation to modern law.

Posters repeatedly told you the exact opposite: Old Testament law IS replaced by New Testament law. They said this again and again, and even provided verses from Matthew to support it.

How do you rationalize the quotes from Jesus stating the exact opposite?

Context. The Pharisees were trying to trap him, as is clear from the surrounding scene-setting, but his wording is actually nuanced. However, I don’t think you’re arguing in good faith, so I’ll stop there and just leave it at that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
and apparently it's OK for Christians to attempt to convert atheists, but not vice-versa. I suppose because there's something in the Bible about converting the heathen and giving everyone that CHristians come in contact with a chance to get to heaven. CHristians go door to door proseletizing -- atheists don't.

You admitted above that the whole point of this thread is to proselytize for atheism. To “help” those who are having doubts.

Knoking on doors is a quite a bit more agressive than posting on an internet forum.

You speak far, far too broadly here. The vast majority of Christians do not actively proselytize, nor is it encouraged by most Christian churches (of which there are many varieties). Most Christians agree with you that it is not OK to go around trying to convert people.

While MOST "Christians do not actively proselytize", NO atheists go door to door.

No true. Even atheist proselytize, they just don't call it that. There is this thing called google, check it out.

Sure sounds like pp couldn't find anything online about atheists going door to door trying to sell atheism -- thus the link-less challenge to check out "this thing called google"

PP also fails to identify what atheists call their proselytizing -- maybe it's publicly saying that they are atheist or writing things like "The Bible is an Immoral book."

I wonder what pp thinks about Christians publicly stating that they are Christian or that the Bible is a moral book?

NP here, but I think the OP point of the post was to argue against that very claim. And she provided some evidence in the form of Bible verses supporting slavery. Some posters pushed back and said she was taking the verses out of context, but failed to provide the context that would make the support of slavery "moral" save for some arguments about the Old Testament law is not replaced by New Testament. That was countered by some words of Jesus that stated the opposite. Then we also have our own American history of slavery and using the Bible to support the institution.

There were a couple posters who made the argument that the Bible is not moral or immoral. I think that's a valid argument and wished they'd posted more. I probably agree with them.

However, given that the Bible is cited often amongst politicians as the moral foundation for our laws it's important that there is push back on that. I think it's just ridiculous to use an ancient book that so clearly supports slavery as any moral foundation to modern law.

Posters repeatedly told you the exact opposite: Old Testament law IS replaced by New Testament law. They said this again and again, and even provided verses from Matthew to support it.

How do you rationalize the quotes from Jesus stating the exact opposite?

Context. The Pharisees were trying to trap him, as is clear from the surrounding scene-setting, but his wording is actually nuanced. However, I don’t think you’re arguing in good faith, so I’ll stop there and just leave it at that.

Could be that pp is not arguing in good faith and is trying to squelch the discussion by accusing others -- and is just leaving it at that for lack of a substantive argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
and apparently it's OK for Christians to attempt to convert atheists, but not vice-versa. I suppose because there's something in the Bible about converting the heathen and giving everyone that CHristians come in contact with a chance to get to heaven. CHristians go door to door proseletizing -- atheists don't.

You admitted above that the whole point of this thread is to proselytize for atheism. To “help” those who are having doubts.

Knoking on doors is a quite a bit more agressive than posting on an internet forum.

You speak far, far too broadly here. The vast majority of Christians do not actively proselytize, nor is it encouraged by most Christian churches (of which there are many varieties). Most Christians agree with you that it is not OK to go around trying to convert people.

While MOST "Christians do not actively proselytize", NO atheists go door to door.

A pp, or a couple of pp’s , said this whole thread is about atheists proselytizing—“helping those who may be struggling with their faith.”

a pro-atheist thread is not door-to-door proselytizing any more than a pro christian thread is door-to-door proselytizing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
and apparently it's OK for Christians to attempt to convert atheists, but not vice-versa. I suppose because there's something in the Bible about converting the heathen and giving everyone that CHristians come in contact with a chance to get to heaven. CHristians go door to door proseletizing -- atheists don't.

You admitted above that the whole point of this thread is to proselytize for atheism. To “help” those who are having doubts.

Knoking on doors is a quite a bit more agressive than posting on an internet forum.

You speak far, far too broadly here. The vast majority of Christians do not actively proselytize, nor is it encouraged by most Christian churches (of which there are many varieties). Most Christians agree with you that it is not OK to go around trying to convert people.

While MOST "Christians do not actively proselytize", NO atheists go door to door.

No true. Even atheist proselytize, they just don't call it that. There is this thing called google, check it out.

Sure sounds like pp couldn't find anything online about atheists going door to door trying to sell atheism -- thus the link-less challenge to check out "this thing called google"

PP also fails to identify what atheists call their proselytizing -- maybe it's publicly saying that they are atheist or writing things like "The Bible is an Immoral book."

I wonder what pp thinks about Christians publicly stating that they are Christian or that the Bible is a moral book?

NP here, but I think the OP point of the post was to argue against that very claim. And she provided some evidence in the form of Bible verses supporting slavery. Some posters pushed back and said she was taking the verses out of context, but failed to provide the context that would make the support of slavery "moral" save for some arguments about the Old Testament law is not replaced by New Testament. That was countered by some words of Jesus that stated the opposite. Then we also have our own American history of slavery and using the Bible to support the institution.

There were a couple posters who made the argument that the Bible is not moral or immoral. I think that's a valid argument and wished they'd posted more. I probably agree with them.

However, given that the Bible is cited often amongst politicians as the moral foundation for our laws it's important that there is push back on that. I think it's just ridiculous to use an ancient book that so clearly supports slavery as any moral foundation to modern law.

Posters repeatedly told you the exact opposite: Old Testament law IS replaced by New Testament law. They said this again and again, and even provided verses from Matthew to support it.

Many posters repeating something again and again doesn't make it accurate -- it just makes it what a lot of people say on a forum thread. Also, a lot of people don't accept things, just because Matthew supports it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
and apparently it's OK for Christians to attempt to convert atheists, but not vice-versa. I suppose because there's something in the Bible about converting the heathen and giving everyone that CHristians come in contact with a chance to get to heaven. CHristians go door to door proseletizing -- atheists don't.

You admitted above that the whole point of this thread is to proselytize for atheism. To “help” those who are having doubts.

Knoking on doors is a quite a bit more agressive than posting on an internet forum.

You speak far, far too broadly here. The vast majority of Christians do not actively proselytize, nor is it encouraged by most Christian churches (of which there are many varieties). Most Christians agree with you that it is not OK to go around trying to convert people.

While MOST "Christians do not actively proselytize", NO atheists go door to door.

No true. Even atheist proselytize, they just don't call it that. There is this thing called google, check it out.

Sure sounds like pp couldn't find anything online about atheists going door to door trying to sell atheism -- thus the link-less challenge to check out "this thing called google"

PP also fails to identify what atheists call their proselytizing -- maybe it's publicly saying that they are atheist or writing things like "The Bible is an Immoral book."

I wonder what pp thinks about Christians publicly stating that they are Christian or that the Bible is a moral book?

NP here, but I think the OP point of the post was to argue against that very claim. And she provided some evidence in the form of Bible verses supporting slavery. Some posters pushed back and said she was taking the verses out of context, but failed to provide the context that would make the support of slavery "moral" save for some arguments about the Old Testament law is not replaced by New Testament. That was countered by some words of Jesus that stated the opposite. Then we also have our own American history of slavery and using the Bible to support the institution.

There were a couple posters who made the argument that the Bible is not moral or immoral. I think that's a valid argument and wished they'd posted more. I probably agree with them.

However, given that the Bible is cited often amongst politicians as the moral foundation for our laws it's important that there is push back on that. I think it's just ridiculous to use an ancient book that so clearly supports slavery as any moral foundation to modern law.

Posters repeatedly told you the exact opposite: Old Testament law IS replaced by New Testament law. They said this again and again, and even provided verses from Matthew to support it.

How do you rationalize the quotes from Jesus stating the exact opposite?

Context. The Pharisees were trying to trap him, as is clear from the surrounding scene-setting, but his wording is actually nuanced. However, I don’t think you’re arguing in good faith, so I’ll stop there and just leave it at that.

Could be that pp is not arguing in good faith and is trying to squelch the discussion by accusing others -- and is just leaving it at that for lack of a substantive argument.

+1 Definitely. If he had evidence it would be presented. He does not and that's why he want to "stop there".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
and apparently it's OK for Christians to attempt to convert atheists, but not vice-versa. I suppose because there's something in the Bible about converting the heathen and giving everyone that CHristians come in contact with a chance to get to heaven. CHristians go door to door proseletizing -- atheists don't.

You admitted above that the whole point of this thread is to proselytize for atheism. To “help” those who are having doubts.

Knoking on doors is a quite a bit more agressive than posting on an internet forum.

You speak far, far too broadly here. The vast majority of Christians do not actively proselytize, nor is it encouraged by most Christian churches (of which there are many varieties). Most Christians agree with you that it is not OK to go around trying to convert people.

While MOST "Christians do not actively proselytize", NO atheists go door to door.

No true. Even atheist proselytize, they just don't call it that. There is this thing called google, check it out.

Sure sounds like pp couldn't find anything online about atheists going door to door trying to sell atheism -- thus the link-less challenge to check out "this thing called google"

PP also fails to identify what atheists call their proselytizing -- maybe it's publicly saying that they are atheist or writing things like "The Bible is an Immoral book."

I wonder what pp thinks about Christians publicly stating that they are Christian or that the Bible is a moral book?

NP here, but I think the OP point of the post was to argue against that very claim. And she provided some evidence in the form of Bible verses supporting slavery. Some posters pushed back and said she was taking the verses out of context, but failed to provide the context that would make the support of slavery "moral" save for some arguments about the Old Testament law is not replaced by New Testament. That was countered by some words of Jesus that stated the opposite. Then we also have our own American history of slavery and using the Bible to support the institution.

There were a couple posters who made the argument that the Bible is not moral or immoral. I think that's a valid argument and wished they'd posted more. I probably agree with them.

However, given that the Bible is cited often amongst politicians as the moral foundation for our laws it's important that there is push back on that. I think it's just ridiculous to use an ancient book that so clearly supports slavery as any moral foundation to modern law.

Posters repeatedly told you the exact opposite: Old Testament law IS replaced by New Testament law. They said this again and again, and even provided verses from Matthew to support it.

Many posters repeating something again and again doesn't make it accurate -- it just makes it what a lot of people say on a forum thread. Also, a lot of people don't accept things, just because Matthew supports it.

It may be that pp is used to conversing with people who accept scriptural support as fact.

Meanwhile, even people who regularly look to scripture to support their ideas, can come up with different, opposing interpretations of the same "truths".

[Anonymous]

you don't even know what you're talking about anymore. you just keep coming up with new ways to say the previous posters don't have a point. And I'd bet you're sockpuppeting too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:you don't even know what you're talking about anymore. you just keep coming up with new ways to say the previous posters don't have a point. And I'd bet you're sockpuppeting too.

Projection?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:you don't even know what you're talking about anymore. you just keep coming up with new ways to say the previous posters don't have a point. And I'd bet you're sockpuppeting too.

+1,000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am the OP, and there are a few posts ascribing things to me I did not make, so let me clear up a few items:

- The title of the thread is "The Bible is an immoral book", and that is the main point I was making, separate from my Atheism.

- I understand that there are many Christians who are not biblical literalists -- that is a GOOD thing, and it enables both Christians and Atheists to agree on that main premise of the thread, that "The Bible is an immoral book".

- It also allow Atheists and Christians to together denounce things like the execrable Franklin Graham who said "As a Christian I believe the Bible which defines homosexuality as sin, something to be repentant of, not something to be flaunted, praised or politicized. The Bible says marriage is between a man & a woman—not two men, not two women." just this week.

- Even non-literalist Christians would admit that fundamentalist Christians are still a significant force in society and speaking out against prejudice and erosion of personal liberties is important.

Happy to clarify or answer any questions beyond the above.

I take it this is another thread about the Hebrew bible, the core of Jewish civilization, with its poetry, its epic narrative, and its intricate legal code (which continued to evolve after the closing of the cannon - as G-d expected and wanted, according to the Jewish tradition) from which Jews are implicitly excluded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am the OP, and there are a few posts ascribing things to me I did not make, so let me clear up a few items:

- The title of the thread is "The Bible is an immoral book", and that is the main point I was making, separate from my Atheism.

- I understand that there are many Christians who are not biblical literalists -- that is a GOOD thing, and it enables both Christians and Atheists to agree on that main premise of the thread, that "The Bible is an immoral book".

- It also allow Atheists and Christians to together denounce things like the execrable Franklin Graham who said "As a Christian I believe the Bible which defines homosexuality as sin, something to be repentant of, not something to be flaunted, praised or politicized. The Bible says marriage is between a man & a woman—not two men, not two women." just this week.

- Even non-literalist Christians would admit that fundamentalist Christians are still a significant force in society and speaking out against prejudice and erosion of personal liberties is important.

Happy to clarify or answer any questions beyond the above.

I take it this is another thread about the Hebrew bible, the core of Jewish civilization, with its poetry, its epic narrative, and its intricate legal code (which continued to evolve after the closing of the cannon - as G-d expected and wanted, according to the Jewish tradition) from which Jews are implicitly excluded.

Please don’t indulge this troll! She has no interest in anything you or anybody else says. She’ll twist it, pretend to misunderstand it, and then claim you don’t have a point. This has been going on long enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am the OP, and there are a few posts ascribing things to me I did not make, so let me clear up a few items:

- The title of the thread is "The Bible is an immoral book", and that is the main point I was making, separate from my Atheism.

- I understand that there are many Christians who are not biblical literalists -- that is a GOOD thing, and it enables both Christians and Atheists to agree on that main premise of the thread, that "The Bible is an immoral book".

- It also allow Atheists and Christians to together denounce things like the execrable Franklin Graham who said "As a Christian I believe the Bible which defines homosexuality as sin, something to be repentant of, not something to be flaunted, praised or politicized. The Bible says marriage is between a man & a woman—not two men, not two women." just this week.

- Even non-literalist Christians would admit that fundamentalist Christians are still a significant force in society and speaking out against prejudice and erosion of personal liberties is important.

Happy to clarify or answer any questions beyond the above.

I take it this is another thread about the Hebrew bible, the core of Jewish civilization, with its poetry, its epic narrative, and its intricate legal code (which continued to evolve after the closing of the cannon - as G-d expected and wanted, according to the Jewish tradition) from which Jews are implicitly excluded.

Please don’t indulge this troll! She has no interest in anything you or anybody else says. She’ll twist it, pretend to misunderstand it, and then claim you don’t have a point. This has been going on long enough.

First, you should google "The Streisand Effect".

Second, I appreciate the PP's response, which sounds like another stating the bible should not be taken literally. I am betting the PP agrees the slavery points (and many others) are highly contradictory to his morals, as they are mine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am the OP, and there are a few posts ascribing things to me I did not make, so let me clear up a few items:

- The title of the thread is "The Bible is an immoral book", and that is the main point I was making, separate from my Atheism.

- I understand that there are many Christians who are not biblical literalists -- that is a GOOD thing, and it enables both Christians and Atheists to agree on that main premise of the thread, that "The Bible is an immoral book".

- It also allow Atheists and Christians to together denounce things like the execrable Franklin Graham who said "As a Christian I believe the Bible which defines homosexuality as sin, something to be repentant of, not something to be flaunted, praised or politicized. The Bible says marriage is between a man & a woman—not two men, not two women." just this week.

- Even non-literalist Christians would admit that fundamentalist Christians are still a significant force in society and speaking out against prejudice and erosion of personal liberties is important.

Happy to clarify or answer any questions beyond the above.

I take it this is another thread about the Hebrew bible, the core of Jewish civilization, with its poetry, its epic narrative, and its intricate legal code (which continued to evolve after the closing of the cannon - as G-d expected and wanted, according to the Jewish tradition) from which Jews are implicitly excluded.

Please don’t indulge this troll! She has no interest in anything you or anybody else says. She’ll twist it, pretend to misunderstand it, and then claim you don’t have a point. This has been going on long enough.

First, you should google "The Streisand Effect".

Second, I appreciate the PP's response, which sounds like another stating the bible should not be taken literally. I am betting the PP agrees the slavery points (and many others) are highly contradictory to his morals, as they are mine.

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/does-the-bible-condone-slavery/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am the OP, and there are a few posts ascribing things to me I did not make, so let me clear up a few items:

- The title of the thread is "The Bible is an immoral book", and that is the main point I was making, separate from my Atheism.

- I understand that there are many Christians who are not biblical literalists -- that is a GOOD thing, and it enables both Christians and Atheists to agree on that main premise of the thread, that "The Bible is an immoral book".

- It also allow Atheists and Christians to together denounce things like the execrable Franklin Graham who said "As a Christian I believe the Bible which defines homosexuality as sin, something to be repentant of, not something to be flaunted, praised or politicized. The Bible says marriage is between a man & a woman—not two men, not two women." just this week.

- Even non-literalist Christians would admit that fundamentalist Christians are still a significant force in society and speaking out against prejudice and erosion of personal liberties is important.

Happy to clarify or answer any questions beyond the above.

I take it this is another thread about the Hebrew bible, the core of Jewish civilization, with its poetry, its epic narrative, and its intricate legal code (which continued to evolve after the closing of the cannon - as G-d expected and wanted, according to the Jewish tradition) from which Jews are implicitly excluded.

Please don’t indulge this troll! She has no interest in anything you or anybody else says. She’ll twist it, pretend to misunderstand it, and then claim you don’t have a point. This has been going on long enough.

First, you should google "The Streisand Effect".

Second, I appreciate the PP's response, which sounds like another stating the bible should not be taken literally. I am betting the PP agrees the slavery points (and many others) are highly contradictory to his morals, as they are mine.

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/does-the-bible-condone-slavery/

Thanks, very good read. And it is comforting to know that religious people have struggled with these passages also.

I'd be interested to know if there are similar articles about the other passages in post #1.