Contradictions in religion (spin-off from the gay marriage 2 thread)

[Chewbacca]

Alright a new thread as requested, if you want to follow the topic look at the last few pages of this thread begining on page 7:

HERE

Originally posted by Faceman: ---and for the patronizing point--- 4. It seems to me that all of you have taken the discussion to a meta-level where it's not about making a point anymore but about who is entitled to make a point and if the point he made was correct. The fun is in the game people! Not in arguing with the referee (or with each other if you lack one)

You make some excellent points Faceman. I totally agree with the one I have quoted. As for the Bible not making contradictions on the important points, I have to disagree. Here are my thoughts as too why

The whole "Thou shall not kill" issue is striking to me. I have read and heard many a justification for killing by people who claim to use the bible as the final authority on moral behavior. It is clear to me that in many cases killing is sanctioned, even endorsed by God. In other cases its is forbidden by the direct rule of God. Mixed messages abound on whether or not violence is sanctioned or condemned as well. I must question the blanket moral authority of a tome that gives such mixed contradictory moral messages.

Many fundamentalist use the beleif in the final moral authority of the bible as a "sword" in attempts to slay non-believers and dissenting believers alike. Revealing the dull edge and poor craftsmanship of the sword serves to clarify what should matter about the bible and what shouldn't with regards to "moral" issues. That is (to me) allowing discerning thinkers to reconcile the contradictions themselves in order find moral clarity from within their own hearts, minds, and expiriences rather than blindly and verbatim from a book.

[Faceman]

As I have stated in my Disclaimer in the previous topic I am not quite firm on that subject BUT

I understand that like many other misinterpreted religous texts the Bible is often taken too literally or badly translated.
In the case of "Thou shall not kill" I think (and many philologists and theologists agree) that it should in fact be "Thou shall not murder". This would exclude executions and killing in wars and makes perfect sense in the historical context.
Ordering "not to kill in any case" would be highly unrealistic in a time where wars were common and punishments were strict.

Let's take a look at another common misinterpretation: The "an eye for an eye" quote. This is actually a limitation due to the common practice of ripping someone's heart of if he has cut you arm (just joking).
So that fights would be settled fast and with equal losses on both sides instead of growing into big wars.
The actual statement therefore is that for an eye you are allowed to at most take an eye.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Faceman: As I have stated in my Disclaimer in the previous topic I am not quite firm on that subject BUT I understand that like many other misinterpreted religous texts the Bible is often taken too literally or badly translated. In the case of "Thou shall not kill" I think (and many philologists and theologists agree) that it should in fact be "Thou shall not murder". This would exclude executions and killing in wars and makes perfect sense in the historical context. Ordering "not to kill in any case" would be highly unrealistic in a time where wars were common and punishments were strict.

Hey, I won't claim to be an expert either, but thats besides the point to an honest discussion of personal veiws IMHO. Just the fact that we have read the book and/or read other peoples writings about the book and think/thought about it qualifies the debate in my opinion. I'm sure someone will disagree but they are entitled to their own opinions.

Anyway my reply is...

But what is war but mass premediatated killing? What is an execution but a pre-meditated killing by government? The Commandment does not say "Thou shall not murder...except".

Here is a definition of the hebrew word for murder "Ratsach" I found Here.

1.to murder, slay, kill a.(Qal) to murder, slay 1.premeditated 2.accidental 3.as avenger 4.slayer (intentional) (participle) b.(Niphal) to be slain c.(Piel) 1.to murder, assassinate 2.murderer, assassin (participle)(subst) d.(Pual) to be killed

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

since we are on the whole "thou shalt not kill/murder" thing, here is my 2C. What about the "great flood", the red sea and the pharos men, and the 1st born sons of egypt?? Lets not forget about David and goliath either. If killing is wrong than WTF is up with all of this god sanctioned bloodshed?? Then there is the whole Jesus is the son of god bit. If I remember correctly there is something in the bible about not commiting adultery. If god got Mary the virgin pregnant and he wasnt married to her he commited adultery, simple as that. Also, please dont give the same tired "Its the old testament" excuse. If the old testament doesnt count then please remove it from the bible because the 2 sets of rules are confuseing.

[Faceman]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: But what is war but mass premediatated killing? What is an execution but a pre-meditated killing by government? The Commandment does not say "Thou shall not murder...except".

Yes but "murder" is a concept which already excludes killing ordered by society.
I think that in most(or even all) laws and commandments in human history thereis the exception of "except if obviously necessary"
!bad comparison coming up!
like a "Don't step on the Grass" sign which can obviously be violated when chasing a criminal.

I think that the Hebrews saw it that way else they would have declared this commandement completely insane as it denied the reality they lived in.
I think it is taken too literal.
If you took it even further you could argue that "Thou shall not kill" stretches out to every living being and therefore would have to abolish consumption of meat or the killing of animals who destroy your crops.
Almost nobody would do that nowadays and I think that back then "Thou shall not kill" was conceived even more leniently and therefore excluded war and major criminals.

[Stratos]

In the standard Swedish translation it says 'Du skall icke dräpa' meaning 'Thou shall not slay'. 'Kill' may be a possible translation but 'slay' seems to be more accurate. The word 'dräpa' also points out that it's probably done in a violent manner as it was the first meaning that showed up on several dictionaries including that of the Swedish Academy, the one who gives away the Nobel Prize in literature.

Make of it what you will.

[Faceman]

Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna: If god got Mary the virgin pregnant and he wasnt married to her he commited adultery, simple as that.

Now this is one I've never heard before but even as a non-scholar I could answer it in several ways.

for example:

God did get Mary pregnant but he did not have intercourse with her (hence the virgin conception). Thus he did not commit adultery which would require sexual engagement. God simply "conjured" Jesus inside her womb if you will.

[Faceman]

and a small cynical remark about God killing people:

It's HIS law and it says: "Thou shall not kill"
it doesn't say: "I shall not kill"

On the more qualified side: As god is omniscient he does not need to be confined by laws. Laws are there to stop people from doing something which may be the wrong decision for them or others in the short or long run. But God knows all the answers so he is free to do whatever he KNOWS (instead of considers) right.

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

God did get Mary pregnant but he did not have intercourse with her (hence the virgin conception). Thus he did not commit adultery which would require sexual engagement. God simply "conjured" Jesus inside her womb if you will.

"conjured" 'eh?? Last time I looked conjuring up a child took a magic wand and a few tadpoles. There is also the DNA problem since a child gets half of its DNA from each parent. Also if god impregnated Mary without her consent then that makes him a rapeist as well. AFAIK she wasnt praying to get pregnant, so there goes the whole consent thing, so I guess I can see whats left.

On the more qualified side: As god is omniscient he does not need to be confined by laws. Laws are there to stop people from doing something which may be the wrong decision for them or others in the short or long run. But God knows all the answers so he is free to do whatever he KNOWS (instead of considers) right.

That sounds like my ex girlfriend!!!!
If that is the way it is realy meant then god is a HUGE hypocrit. Do as I say and not as I do just makes everything one says into a joke.

[ 08-13-2003, 07:54 PM: Message edited by: The Hunter of Jahanna ]

[Faceman]

Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna: quote: God did get Mary pregnant but he did not have intercourse with her (hence the virgin conception). Thus he did not commit adultery which would require sexual engagement. God simply "conjured" Jesus inside her womb if you will.

"conjured" 'eh?? Last time I looked conjuring up a child took a magic wand and a few tadpoles. There is also the DNA problem since a child gets half of its DNA from each parent. Also if god impregnated Mary without her consent then that makes him a rapeist as well. AFAIK she wasnt praying to get pregnant, so there goes the whole consent thing, so I guess I can see whats left.[/QUOTE]Could you explain the DNA thing a little bit more? Are you saying that Jesus is only half-god?
God HAD Mary's consent. He sent the archangel ahead and had him ask her. She replied that "his will be done" and thus was impregnated.

Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna: quote: On the more qualified side: As god is omniscient he does not need to be confined by laws. Laws are there to stop people from doing something which may be the wrong decision for them or others in the short or long run. But God knows all the answers so he is free to do whatever he KNOWS (instead of considers) right. That sounds like my ex girlfriend!!!! If that is the way it is realy meant then god is a HUGE hypocrit. Do as I say and not as I do just makes everything one says into a joke.

You forget that God is not human like I tried to explain so different standards apply.
For example: It would not be wise for a human to try to walk on water because he CAN'T and would probably drown. Jesus however CAN walk on water so there's no problem with that. God is no hypocrite he just happens to be a lot wiser and thus needs no regulations like we humans do.
You wouldn't allow a 5-year old to drive a car yet you probably do it yourself. Does this make you a hypocrite?