A cult?

[`]

On 2005-06-06 10:28:00, GregFL wrote:

"...you post here in order to prothelize. I think that is a mistake."

yeah, because GregFL sure is making you look pretty dumb and the "god" of the bible look pretty bad. but carry on. it is quite satisfying to see the x-tian b.s. lose round after round.

[GregFL]

I don't think Slavery was ever the will of God for men; although he never forbid it (and I don't know why) No where can I find that He ordered it.

Here, in Deuteronomy, he orders them to kill everything in the city but to keep the children and women "as thy own".

What do you think that means?  You think they went willingly with the men that just killed their fathers and husbands?  they were to go in this city, kill all the men, and enslave the women and children, at god's ORDER.

" And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:  But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee."



and I had already posted this ORDER in Deuteronomy for enslaving captured people...

"When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.    
 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. "




This is tiring Buzzkill. You don't see because you have blinded yourself to the words of your own holy book.

[GregFL]

and this, posted above...


"Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, "


Yet, you see nowhere where god Orders slavery, even after posted for you to read.

OF THEM SHALL YE BUY.

Not an order?

 :silly:

[BuzzKill]

Genesis 24:35

"And the LORD hath blessed my master greatly; and he is become great: and he hath given him flocks, and herds, and silver, and gold, and menservants, and maidservants, and camels, and asses."

This isn't, as you suggested,  God saying He would bless Abraham thusly - but rather, Abraham's oldest servant declaring him so blessed. Really, in context, he is kind of braggin about what a rich man Abraham is, to impress Laban with what a good match it would be for his daughter, Rebecca, to marry Abraham's son, Isaac.

Manservants and maidservants were apparently as common as illegal nannies and gardeners are today - and even more accepted, as it wasn't breaking immigration or tax law. It was simply not viewed as an evil in society - and God doesn't demand that it be seen as such.  Maybe there are things about society then, that made slavery more beneficial than evil. I'm just speculating - but maybe for some people it was what kept them alive - somewhat like the welfare system today. Maybe if it had been forbidden, many would have gone without food and shelter. Maybe. Anyway, as I said, for what ever reason, God did not forbid it; and I Trust Him to do what is just at all times, weather or not I understand it; even if, to me, with my limited and flawed human understanding, it seems unjust.  Even as I puzzle over God's acceptance of slavery, I can see that it would certainly be better to be a servant in a Hebrew household, than a Roman - and far better than starving or begging on the streets.

God allowing the keeping of slaves is not the same as ordering it. Saying a man may go free if you put out his eye, may not seem like justice - but this is the only law there has ever been allowing any kind of consideration for the servant at all. And other than the Hebrews in Biblical times - no such consideration has ever been given.

// OF THEM SHALL YE BUY.

Not an order? //

I don't think so. I'd like to look it up and read it in context - but my guess is it is permission, not an order. And, as hard as it seems - Maybe it was more merciful to allow the buying of people over starving them or killing them - which may have been the only other alternatives.

I have always been much more troubled by the order to kill all in the land they were to conquer than by the slavery issue. I don't understand it and have already been over this very early on with Timocela. God, being God, could see the results of all possibilities; and I trust He justly judged what was the better course to take. Maybe, with out that apparent brutality, the world would have become far more evil than it is. For instance - maybe we would all be living under something like Nazi rule otherwise.  You see - I don't know - but I trust that God does. Indeed, I know God does, and so I trust Him.

As far as being a nice guy - Greg, you just can't put God in any such box. Not nice guy, or bad guy, or any kind of guy at all. He is God. He owes us no kind of explanation what so ever. Especially considering our overwhelmingly rebellious nature. He has gone to great lengths to try and help us live rightly and honestly; despite our constant tendency to live wrongly and dishonestly. He has given us the more sure word of Prophecy so we can know that He is in Heaven and that His word is True - And He came to us and explained personally what the meaning of the law,( as men had so greatly misunderstood it - following it to the letter but ignoring the heart of it.) And finely paid the price of our sin, so we could be redeemed and found blameless and be reconciled with Him. This goes far beyond being a nice guy. This is being a patient and merciful God.

You keep wanting to talk about the law which puts me at a disadvantage - as I am not living under the law - and no Christian ever has. As a result, I've not troubled myself with it much. You'd do better debating this subject with a learned Rabbi.  I am doing the best I can with my limited knowledge and study - but its very limited and I am mostly guessing. I really wouldn't want anyone to take my words on these subjects as "Gospel".  

" prothelize ?" No - thats not my aim. Thats not something I do Greg. I make it a point not to bring the subject up, as I don't want to trouble the uninterested with it. But I will debate, discuss and explain as best I can, with anyone who shows an interest. You are very clear that I'm not doing such a good job. I'm sorry for that; and I can only ask you, and any one else reading, not to judge the subject by the lack of this messenger's skill.

[Anonymous]

OF course you don't "think" so.

You don't think.


You fundies are all similar, the bible is the inspired word of god, until it says something bad, then you attribute it to someone else...


yawn.

Of them shall ye buy

is not an order.

LMAO at Buzzkill


backpedal, backpedal, backpedal.


40 pages of it

[Anonymous]

Buzzkill do you think persons today that are poor and starving would fare better as slaves? Why is slavery today wrong, but acceptable in bibical times? It just seems it's a contradiction.

I can't help but wonder if all the people that support the bible will be the real ones to burn in hell. For a large portion of my childhood I sat in fear listening to the preacher yell at the congregation they would burn in hell if they did not do X, Y, Z. I just don't belive a loving God would hurt people no matter what period of history it was.

[Anonymous]

the real problem is how she keeps adjusting her position. Earlier she said the old testament ws the inerent word of god. Now she is saying talk to a rabbi about it. It would be funny if not representative of  xians everywhere.

[Anonymous]

On 2005-06-06 17:04:00, BuzzKill wrote:

" Genesis 24:35


As far as being a nice guy - Greg, you just can't put God in any such box. Not nice guy, or bad guy, or any kind of guy at all. He is God. He owes us no kind of explanation what so ever. Especially considering our overwhelmingly rebellious nature. He has gone to great lengths to try and help us live rightly and honestly;

Wrong wrong and wrong. It is my JOB as a rational thinking human to access the available information and arrive at a belief system that makes sense to me. I owe it to myself.

If roughly half the world worships a god of slavery and murder, and the other half worships a god of murder and slavery, should I just close my eyes and pick the one that I was culturally exposed to?

You may but I don't operate that way. I can access the available information all I want. The god of the bible has not gone to any lengths to make us live "rightously, but instead has encouraged murder, rape, torture, animal sacrifice, carnage,and slavery  among other things.

some people believe in a higher power and reject this old testament presentation  of god. They may even believe Jesus came to represent God and correct a message that had been given out wrong. I can respect that. At least this shows a desire to shine light on representations of goodness and justice.


 those of you bible literalists have a big job explaining away this stuff. In fact, it can only be done if you allow yourself to close your eyes, ears, and dumb yourself down  and resort to making excuses for this god such as "at least this was better than nothing", or "these were his chosen people", etc ad nausem. You hear all types of these dishonest justifications for the text of the old testament.

You have backed yourself into many corners in this thread and you just simply spin out. There is an answer, and that is the old testament was written by a bunch of not too nice men that were justifying their violent nature thru their religion. Anyone who believes this is representative of an omniscient being doesn't understand the term Omniscient, and anyone who can read this crap and believe in this god is kidding himself.

Or you can just say I guess that god can be whatever he wants and doesn't owe us anything or any explanation...he can burn, murder, drown at will. This is pretty much what you have indicated in your last response.

That begs the question...why would anyone worship such a being? How could you feel good about this?  

Don't answer, I can't stand it anymore...

[GregFL]

On 2005-06-06 17:21:00, Anonymous wrote:

"

I can't help but wonder if all the people that support the bible will be the real ones to burn in hell.

There is an atheist ex-preacher named Dan Brown. He once said during a debate when someone for the zillionth time marched out pasqual's wager...(paraphrased)

"what if there is a god and he will only reward those intellectually honest enough to reject god based on no evidence." Maybe he is gonna send all the believers in the evil god of the bible to hell"


hehehe

and to close with a quote from Tom Leykis

"I don't know, and you don't either".

In the final analysis, that is the truest statement made in this entire thread.


http://www.ffrf.org/about/bio_dan.php

[GregFL]

Here is some of Dan Brown's research into the bible....


the Easter Challenge...


http://www.str.com.br/English/Atheos/stone.htm

when you really study this stuff, what other conclusion can a thinking person come to other than the bible is authored by men, not inspired by the supernatural?

[BuzzKill]

Just in case there are some with an interest, I have a few links to post.

I truly have no wish to keep a debat going that everyone has grown werry of - as seems to be the case.

However, there might be readers who would like to see the following links.

I myself am going to refrain from any more comment on these subjects, except to say - as I often have before - anyone who wants to take this off the board and continue the conversation via email is welcome to write.

Explains how the notion of slavery in the New World varies from what was the case in OT and NT times. Might be of interest.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html


A Quote: The same, of course, can be said of Israel. For example, even in wars on foreign soil (e.g., Deut 20.10,10), if a city surrendered, it became a vassal state to Israel, with the population becoming serfs (mas), not slaves (ebed, amah). They would have performed what is called 'corvee' (draft-type, special labor projects, and often on a rotation basis--as Israelites later did as masim under Solomon, 1 Kings 5.27). This was analogous to ANE praxis, in which war captives were not enslaved, but converted into vassal groups: "The nations subjected by the Israelites were considered slaves. They were, however, not slaves in the proper meaning of the term, although they were obliged to pay royal taxes and perform public works." [ABD, s.v. "Slavery, Old Testament"]

Easter controversy:

http://www.5loaves2fishes.org.nz/phpBB2 ... .php?t=835

http://askelm.com/news/n010501.htm

http://www.lamblion.com/articles/doctrinal/CD/CD-03.php



Dialog with a skeptic:

http://home.earthlink.net/%7Egbl111/dialog_1_menu.htm

[Anonymous]

What a load those links are, especially the  one that attempts to justify slavery in biblical times.

 Buzzkill, got any links that say rape in the bible was just consensual sex?

 :lol:

How about any links that say killing little children was okay?

 :lol:  :lol:


Of special comedic value is the link where the author dishonestly makes it look like his article was written in newsweek!

 :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

Buzzkill, that article, "rethinking the ressurection", was NOT written by your author, but instead was an article outlining pretty much what I was talking about, that the ressurection has many conflicting stories and is even in total doubt by many bible scholars.


Buzzkill, two days later and this is the best you could do? Do something constructive..take the easter challenge!


GregFL

[BuzzKill]

The author didn't intend for the reader to think it came from Newsweek Greg. But that news week does exist - I had a copy.
Dave Regan wrote the artical as it appears on the link. I have the magizine it was in as well - and it also uses the Newsweek as an illistration - and thats all it is - an illistration.The point being the subject is of enough public interest that a totally secular magizine would put it on the cover. I can see where you might misunderstand the use of the Newsweek cover - but it is a misunderstanding.

I don't expect you to be impressed Greg - but other people might want to read the articals. Naturally, I think they are of merit, even very intresting - and naturally, you don't.

{Note: I see you meant the other article (I think) and I post it to show there is an understanding of the confusion about the "Easter events" and that there are various theories about it. I personally think the Thursday crucifixion and the two Sabbaths are the explanation that is most likely right.But the more important thing is the very real fact of an empty tomb. On that point all agree.}

But getting back to the subject of this thread:

http://www.howcultswork.com/

A Quote:
 Self Help & Counselling
Cults that use "self help" or counselling or self improvement as their base often target business people and corporations. By doing their courses and seminars they claim you and your staff will become more successful. Business people locked away in hotel rooms are subjected to quasi-religious indoctrination as they play strange games, join in group activities, and share their innermost thoughts with the group. Once you have completed one course you are told you need to do the more advanced course, which naturally costs more than the last. These cults will sometimes request that you do volunteer work and that you help recruit your friends, family and work mates. These groups specialize in creating powerful emotional experiences which are then used to validate your involvement in the cult. The religious overtones are couched in terms which don't sound religious. They usually come to the surface as you near the end of a seminar. Many people have been bankrupted by involvement with these cults.



[ This Message was edited by: BuzzKill on 2005-06-08 17:53 ]

[Anonymous]

On 2005-06-08 17:40:00, BuzzKill wrote:

"The author didn't intend for the reader to think it came from Newsweek Greg. But that news week does exist -



[ This Message was edited by: BuzzKill on 2005-06-08 17:53 ]"

BALONEY.

He put his name right over it. He displayed it promanently. He never referenced it was not his article.

That is one of the most blatant misappropriations of a magazine cover I have ever seen.

This guy is a thief.

[BuzzKill]

I disagree - but if you feel so strongly - why not write and tell them it looks like a misrepresentation? If it looks that way to you, then you must have a point, and as I am confident that wasn't the intent, I am sure they'd like to know.  


I'm not sure I understand if you think the artical on the link is the artical in the Newsweek?
If so, then no - the artical on the link is Not the same as the artical in the newsweek.
It is an artical written by Dave Reagan, published in the Lamp Lighter - illistrated with the magizine cover.
The on line version is the same as the Lamp lighter artical - newsweek illistration and all.
But, if it looks shady to you, it might to others - they should probably note somewhere it is just used as an illistration on the interest and importance of the subject.


[ This Message was edited by: BuzzKill on 2005-06-08 19:27 ]