Great Bible verses!

[Silcc69]

Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Kill Witches
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

Kill Homosexuals
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Kill Fortunetellers
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Death for Hitting Dad
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

Death for Cursing Parents
1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

Death for Adultery
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

Death for Fornication
A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

Death to Followers of Other Religions
Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

Kill Nonbelievers
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Kill False Prophets
If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night
But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

Kill Followers of Other Religions.
1)If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

2) Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)

Death for Blasphemy
One day a man who had an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father got into a fight with one of the Israelite men. During the fight, this son of an Israelite woman blasphemed the LORD's name. So the man was brought to Moses for judgment. His mother's name was Shelomith. She was the daughter of Dibri of the tribe of Dan. They put the man in custody until the LORD's will in the matter should become clear. Then the LORD said to Moses, "Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and tell all those who heard him to lay their hands on his head. Then let the entire community stone him to death. Say to the people of Israel: Those who blaspheme God will suffer the consequences of their guilt and be punished. Anyone who blasphemes the LORD's name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel. Any Israelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the LORD's name will surely die. (Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT)

Kill False Prophets
1) Suppose there are prophets among you, or those who have dreams about the future, and they promise you signs or miracles, and the predicted signs or miracles take place. If the prophets then say, 'Come, let us worship the gods of foreign nations,' do not listen to them. The LORD your God is testing you to see if you love him with all your heart and soul. Serve only the LORD your God and fear him alone. Obey his commands, listen to his voice, and cling to him. The false prophets or dreamers who try to lead you astray must be put to death, for they encourage rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of slavery in the land of Egypt. Since they try to keep you from following the LORD your God, you must execute them to remove the evil from among you. (Deuteronomy 13:1-5 NLT)

2) But any prophet who claims to give a message from another god or who falsely claims to speak for me must die.' You may wonder, 'How will we know whether the prophecy is from the LORD or not?' If the prophet predicts something in the LORD's name and it does not happen, the LORD did not give the message. That prophet has spoken on his own and need not be feared. (Deuteronomy 18:20-22 NLT)

Infidels and Gays Should Die
So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other's bodies. Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever. Amen. That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved. When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, fighting, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They are forever inventing new ways of sinning and are disobedient to their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, and are heartless and unforgiving. They are fully aware of God's death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway. And, worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too. (Romans 1:24-32 NLT)

Kill Anyone who Approaches the Tabernacle
For the LORD had said to Moses, 'Exempt the tribe of Levi from the census; do not include them when you count the rest of the Israelites. You must put the Levites in charge of the Tabernacle of the Covenant, along with its furnishings and equipment. They must carry the Tabernacle and its equipment as you travel, and they must care for it and camp around it. Whenever the Tabernacle is moved, the Levites will take it down and set it up again. Anyone else who goes too near the Tabernacle will be executed.' (Numbers 1:48-51 NLT)

Kill People for Working on the Sabbath
The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)

You can find more verses here.


http://www.evilbible.com/

[danthepoetman]

A whole lot of things one can die for...

[Stavros]

One of the men who murdered the British soldier, Lee Rigby in London provided a list of 'quotes' from the Quran to justify his action, proving, like the verses from the Bible above that anyone can cherry pick their way through a set of religious texts to justify anything they want -having first conveniently stripped the quotes of all context, and thus, of real meaning. I used to know a Muslim who justified his drinking whisky on the grounds that whisky was not explicitly forbidden in the Quran. And so on.

[danthepoetman]

One of the men who murdered the British soldier, Lee Rigby in London provided a list of 'quotes' from the Quran to justify his action, proving, like the verses from the Bible above that anyone can cherry pick their way through a set of religious texts to justify anything they want -having first conveniently stripped the quotes of all context, and thus, of real meaning. I used to know a Muslim who justified his drinking whisky on the grounds that whisky was not explicitly forbidden in the Quran. And so on.
How I understand this last Muslim! :)

[Ben in LA]

Show this to a "Christian" so that they'd shut up once and for all about what "God requires" and "what the bible says".

This is going on my Tumblr page.

[Silcc69]

Show this to a "Christian" so that they'd shut up once and for all about what "God requires" and "what the bible says".

This is going on my Tumblr page.

Oh they will ignore it or make up some excuse.

[yodajazz]

Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Kill Witches
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

Kill Homosexuals
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Kill Fortunetellers
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Death for Hitting Dad
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

Death for Cursing Parents
1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

Death for Adultery
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

Death for Fornication
A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

Death to Followers of Other Religions
Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

Kill Nonbelievers
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Kill False Prophets
If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night
But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

Kill Followers of Other Religions.
1)If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

2) Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)

Death for Blasphemy
One day a man who had an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father got into a fight with one of the Israelite men. During the fight, this son of an Israelite woman blasphemed the LORD's name. So the man was brought to Moses for judgment. His mother's name was Shelomith. She was the daughter of Dibri of the tribe of Dan. They put the man in custody until the LORD's will in the matter should become clear. Then the LORD said to Moses, "Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and tell all those who heard him to lay their hands on his head. Then let the entire community stone him to death. Say to the people of Israel: Those who blaspheme God will suffer the consequences of their guilt and be punished. Anyone who blasphemes the LORD's name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel. Any Israelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the LORD's name will surely die. (Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT)

Kill False Prophets
1) Suppose there are prophets among you, or those who have dreams about the future, and they promise you signs or miracles, and the predicted signs or miracles take place. If the prophets then say, 'Come, let us worship the gods of foreign nations,' do not listen to them. The LORD your God is testing you to see if you love him with all your heart and soul. Serve only the LORD your God and fear him alone. Obey his commands, listen to his voice, and cling to him. The false prophets or dreamers who try to lead you astray must be put to death, for they encourage rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of slavery in the land of Egypt. Since they try to keep you from following the LORD your God, you must execute them to remove the evil from among you. (Deuteronomy 13:1-5 NLT)

2) But any prophet who claims to give a message from another god or who falsely claims to speak for me must die.' You may wonder, 'How will we know whether the prophecy is from the LORD or not?' If the prophet predicts something in the LORD's name and it does not happen, the LORD did not give the message. That prophet has spoken on his own and need not be feared. (Deuteronomy 18:20-22 NLT)

Infidels and Gays Should Die
So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other's bodies. Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever. Amen. That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved. When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, fighting, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They are forever inventing new ways of sinning and are disobedient to their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, and are heartless and unforgiving. They are fully aware of God's death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway. And, worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too. (Romans 1:24-32 NLT)

Kill Anyone who Approaches the Tabernacle
For the LORD had said to Moses, 'Exempt the tribe of Levi from the census; do not include them when you count the rest of the Israelites. You must put the Levites in charge of the Tabernacle of the Covenant, along with its furnishings and equipment. They must carry the Tabernacle and its equipment as you travel, and they must care for it and camp around it. Whenever the Tabernacle is moved, the Levites will take it down and set it up again. Anyone else who goes too near the Tabernacle will be executed.' (Numbers 1:48-51 NLT)

Kill People for Working on the Sabbath
The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)

You can find more verses here.


http://www.evilbible.com/


These are most all rules. Rules change over time and context. But Principles don't change. Love is a principle, one of many. But of course 'love' is also expressed in infinite ways. Theologically, most Christian thinkers would say that Christ brought something that transcended those Leviticus rules. The Prophet Muhammad, believed that Christians, Muslims, and Jews, worship the same God. That is a principle. Islam seems to have lots and lots of rules, to me. So their issue is, what rules of living really express the Prophet's principles. The Muslims I have a problem with, I see as those that get so lost in the rules, that their behavior is is direct opposite the principles espoused by the Prophet. The old Testament Bible is mostly about human stories, and some history. The stories are there to express principles. There is great value in understanding that contemporary life, is still dealing with the same issues. An example, of that would be the concept of 'haters' that so many young people talk about today. The story of Joseph is all about that as his jealous brothers, sold him into slavery, telling their father he was dead. When one starts to see life in principles, religion becomes less about worshiping a man, and more about how to live. And so it is!

[sukumvit boy]

Ah ,the "good book"! Violence and ignorance go hand in hand way back in human history , including superstition and the delusional thinking of religion.
Fortunately ,we have become a lot less violent. In fact , we are witnessing a dramatic
reduction of violence ,including to women and animals in the last 400 years and since the 1950's.
Most people today cannot even imagine a mind set where torture to people and animals was considered common 'sport'.' Cat burning' was common in the 16th century and Samuel Pepys ,in his diary in the 1640's , just happens to witness a drawn-and -quartering in the public square ,on his way to a friends house.
check out "The Better Angels Of Our Nature" , Steven Pinker, new book.
The Better Angels of Our Nature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature)

[Stavros]

Violence and ignorance go hand in hand way back in human history , including superstition and the delusional thinking of religion.


But you will agree I hope, that love and fellowship also go way back in human history and that what you call 'superstition and the delusional thinking of religion' was the set of beliefs people had about why we are here, what we should do to live a good life, and what will happen when we die, none of which need be dismissed as 'delusional' as they are also parts of science. In fact, is it even right to separate science from religion? Those cave paintings of the ancient people are science as well as art. The science of biology existed in some form in Ancient Egypt. The Pyramids are scientific instruments designed to match the passage of the sun across the sky, as well as monuments to he vanity of the rich and powerful of their day.

[trish]

But you will agree I hope, that love and fellowship also go way back in human history...
Agreed. Love and hope are as old as hate, violence and ignorance.


...what you call 'superstition and the delusional thinking of religion' was the set of beliefs people had about why we are here, what we should do to live a good life...
Agreed. Many religions endeavor to instruct us on our purpose within the cosmic scheme of things, and on how to lead a good and rewarding life. But this doesn’t mean their recommendations are always advisable nor does it mean their recommendations are not based on superstition and delusion. Moreover, some of those recommendations are violent and based on hatred and ignorance.


... and what will happen when we die, none of which need be dismissed as 'delusional' as they are also parts of science. In fact, is it even right to separate science from religion? Those cave paintings of the ancient people are science as well as art. The science of biology existed in some form in Ancient Egypt. The Pyramids are scientific instruments designed to match the passage of the sun across the sky, as well as monuments to he vanity of the rich and powerful of their day.
Yes. It is in fact right to separate science from religion. This doesn’t mean scientist can look upon the world with wonder, or be motivated in her work by the elation that accompanies such work. Nor does it mean a scientist cannot to the thrill of discovery and the awesome aspect of the cosmos to motivate his students. The architecture of Stonehenge is designed to track solstices, equinoxes and other annual celestial events. It was probably built in part for astrological purposes and in part for the purposes of agronomy. One might have simply designed instruments to track these events rather than lithographic architecture. One might have been inspired by the astronomy itself rather than astrology. Just as astronomy can be separated from architecture, astrology and agronomy (though the latter two many always depend on astronomical knowledge), science can be separated from religion and art.

[broncofan]

I agree that religion does bring with it a communal spirit and comfort for those who are members of the church or synagogue or mosque. It also has elements that at their extremes are harmful. People who closely follow religious doctrine can engage in dogmatic thinking, can be impervious to that doctrine's refutation, and possess an unyielding belief in their own moral superiority.

The answer for a believer can never be that the text is wrong. So, they engage in these mind-bending exercises of re-interpretation to avoid saying they are being commanded to do something immoral. They say it's not to be taken literally, or it's not our doctrine, or that piece has outlived its usefulness. But the problem is that if it's the word of God it should be timeless.

So people who are devout cannot really admit that some of what is said is unreasonable and immoral. They cannot adapt their views to evolving community standards because they feel stuck with the word of God, an unchanging, inexplicable set of commandments that frequently conflict with what we have learned since that doctrine was set down.

[broncofan]

But you will agree I hope, that love and fellowship also go way back in human history and that what you call 'superstition and the delusional thinking of religion' was the set of beliefs people had about why we are here, what we should do to live a good life, and what will happen when we die, none of which need be dismissed as 'delusional' as they are also parts of science.
The questions are within the domains of science. But if a scientist works on a theory his entire life and at the end of his life finds out it has been refuted, what would be the honorable thing for him/her to do? They should look at the new evidence and admit that it contradicts what they have been saying and thereby changes their conclusions.

The origin of religious doctrine does not permit a believer to do that. The existence of that doctrine presumes that everything there is to be known about why we are here and how we should go about living a good life is known. A scientist who did that would be dismissed as arrogant and dogmatic. New facts can always come to light, and when they do, wouldn't it be nice to be able to say that you did the best with the information you had but are blessed to learn from experience?

[yodajazz]

The questions are within the domains of science. But if a scientist works on a theory his entire life and at the end of his life finds out it has been refuted, what would be the honorable thing for him/her to do? They should look at the new evidence and admit that it contradicts what they have been saying and thereby changes their conclusions.

The origin of religious doctrine does not permit a believer to do that. The existence of that doctrine presumes that everything there is to be known about why we are here and how we should go about living a good life is known. A scientist who did that would be dismissed as arrogant and dogmatic. New facts can always come to light, and when they do, wouldn't it be nice to be able to say that you did the best with the information you had but are blessed to learn from experience?

Not sure of how you define doctrine. Some of it is just about believing in a certain Biblical state of fact, like Jesus rose from the tomb on the third day. There are people that feel that anyone who does not believe that is doomed. However as I see it, the best interpretation are guidelines of how to live fairly and humanely. Often times a Bible story, is really about illustrating principles, not something to be taken literally for all times. Here's one story as an example: Israel was at war with a certain tribe. "God" instructed a leader, to tel them that when they won the battle, to not leave a living thing, nor take any spoils. Some did not listen, and when the battle was over the Israelites began to quarrel among themselves over the remains. The moral of the story had to do with following authority, and understand that there are deeper reasons, behind things we are told to do. My point is those instructions from God were not meant as rule in every war and battle. There are some people who might read that story and believe that it was meant to be literal, for all times. That is the wrong interpretation. Likewise, others hear that same story,and say. "God was wrong". A person cannot judge what was 'right' for that particular circumstance. Did the Israelites have the capacity to manage prisoners of war, at that specific time? That's just one of many unknowns about the particular environment of the story. We have the choice to understand, what ever the particular lesson is. If someone discover a book about a human society, that was lost 2,000 years ago, and just discovered today, it would help us understand more about the issues we currently face. The same is true, for the Bible. There invaluable lessons that humanity still hasn't learned.

[trish]

If someone discover a book about a human society, that was lost 2,000 years ago, and just discovered today, it would help us understand more about the issues we currently face. The same is true, for the Bible. There invaluable lessons that humanity still hasn't learned.Any lesson maintaining that we obey authority to the letter of the law, even if we don't understand it's "deeper" reasons, or even if the authority is very likely a fiction is not an invaluable lesson, but rather is a lesson that devalues human intellectual engagement.

What we can learn from such a book is how people lived, what they thought, the stories they took to heart, the paths they took, We learn about and modify ourselves when we examine how we relate to those histories. But giving any interpretation of any ancient text authority over our moral beliefs and behavior is beyond the pale.

[Stavros]

Agreed. Many religions endeavor to instruct us on our purpose within the cosmic scheme of things, and on how to lead a good and rewarding life. But this doesn’t mean their recommendations are always advisable nor does it mean their recommendations are not based on superstition and delusion. Moreover, some of those recommendations are violent and based on hatred and ignorance.

Yes. It is in fact right to separate science from religion. This doesn’t mean scientist can look upon the world with wonder, or be motivated in her work by the elation that accompanies such work. Nor does it mean a scientist cannot to the thrill of discovery and the awesome aspect of the cosmos to motivate his students.

I think the problem with critics of religion, and they exist within and without them, is the belief that we are dealing not just with 'systems' but 'closed systems' whereas religions as I understand them by origin are not really systems at all, and only survive if they are adapted over time.

If you take the Greek myths, the oral poems The Iliad and the Odyssey and the plays of Sophocles, Aeschylus and Euripides in particular, you have an expression of belief that is both scientific and artistic: for example in Antigone there is a contrast between obedience to public law and fidelity to personal belief, with burial rituals the key point of competition -Antigone believes a decent burial is superior to obedience to the law -a theme which in its variants can be found across history where religion clashes with politics creating martyrs, prisoners or conscience and so on. In Antigone's case there is also the health/science of what to do with dead bodies, burial in some cases, cremation in others (mostly Asian I think although I did once see an Amazonian tribe in a documentary cremating their dead).

The Greek Myths represent human society attempting to explain both average events and what today we would call 'extreme weather events' which were not uncommon in ancient times: it is now believed a volcanic eruption on mainland Greece created the Tsunami which destroyed the Minoan civilisation on Crete and probably Atlantis too. The powers of the Gods are said to determine human behaviour and nature continues to overwhelm humans as we have seen in Asia in the last 10 years or so; or in New Orleans (even if more precautionary action could have prevented the worst effects of the Hurricane on that city).

I do not think either the expression of Jesus or Mohammed amounted to a system, let alone a closed one, yet that is how early reactions attempted to preserve the messages, which relate to life on earth in the here and now and the hereafter. Jesus developed over time, and presumably would have continued to had he not been crucified; Mohammed initially received a revelation of the 'one God' but did so in a region where monotheism was already in competition with polytheism and it is one of the great arguments of history as to why the Arabs converted to Islam rather than to Christianity or Judaism, given that all three communities lived amongst each other at the time.

The creation of the 'Christian church' by Paul can be seen as a diversion from the core of Jesus's ministry, just as attempts to create a single systematic view of Islam have either failed, or in the case of the 18th century ideology of Mohammed ibn Abdul Wahab, have created a political monstrosity that not only departs from basic Islam but which repudiates its history as having any value. The result is a 'closed system' which in practical terms has attempted, quite successfully so far, to rub out of Arabia all trace of Jewish and Christian realities, and to deny that any other interpretation of Islam is valid.

And yet for religions to survive these new interpretations of ancient texts will always happen, even if the idolators claim they have rescued Islam or Christianity from the 'imperfections' accrued over time. Alternative interpretations of religions do exist, but seem to exist at a local level, possibly also at an individual level and so are not as well known as the more dramatic examples which perhaps because they engage with political acts attract more followers, but there have been reformers in modern Islam whose views were wholly different from the Saudi and Salafi views, and there are also Christians whose pacifism is closer to the message of Christ than the disgraceful betrayal of it by George W Bush and Tony Blair.

At some point, science replaced religion as an explanation of why we are here and what our future holds, and in science there are the same attempts to create definitive explanations of reality which are then overturned or 're-interpeted' by the Galileos, the Copenicus, Newton, Einstein of the ages.

It is wrong to claim religious belief is merely 'superstition' as at its core a lot of superstitious belief is either true or was believed to be true at the time. It is only 'superstitious mumb-jumbo' in retrospect. Many scientifics theories which were once respectable, such as concepts of 'race' have been shown to be rubbish, science is not exempt from the rules that criticise religion, and as the controversy over Climate Change science shows, even well educated contemporaries of ours can insist that what is there is not what is being explained.

[trish]

First let me apologize for all the careless errors in my first post which render it almost unreadable.

I think we agree that most “closed” systems of thought are easily shown to be untenable, or eventually become untenable as civilizations evolve past them. Today’s living Judeo, Christian and Islamic communities survive and are influential because they themselves have been open to influence and reinterpretation.

I agree too that it is wrong to claim religious belief is merely superstitious. However, some beliefs still strong among modern practitioners of the Judeo, Christian and Islamic traditions are superstitious. Belief in an actual God. Belief in a soul. Belief in an afterlife. Belief in a literal Heaven and a literal Hell. Belief in eternal punishment. These highly mutable, ambiguous, religio-metaphysical concepts, however once widely believed or still believed, never had and could never have the standing of a testable hypothesis like that of the phlogiston theory of combustion which is today regarded as rubbish.

I can agree with the spirit of the passage...

At some point, science replaced religion as an explanation of why we are here and what our future holds, and in science there are the same attempts to create definitive explanations of reality which are then overturned or 're-interpeted' by the Galileos, the Copenicus, Newton, Einstein of the ages.

...but I have reservations about some of the wording. I’m not at all sure that science can ever answer the “whys” that stir religious and philosophical curiosity. But some of those “whys” have been pushed back by scientific advances to other “whys.” I’m also uneasy with the claim that scientists attempt to create definitive explanations. True, it would be nice to come up with, say, the definitive explanation of how single celled life got its start on this planet; but we all know that human understanding is never definitive, never absolute, never without error bars, always restricted by a domain of application and always in danger of conflict with some new discovery.

[Stavros]

Trish -a fair point at the end, I probably expect too much of science than scientists would accept. And also on the 'why' questions.

What puzzles me is why people do not believe in the soul, or the mind- do you really think like danthepoetman that we are just machines? What then, is thought? 'Merely' instinct? How do you explain poetry?

I think the problem Beethoven had was not length -concerts went on for hours even in Mozart's day -it was that his contemporaries thought his music was incomprehensible noise.

[broncofan]

What puzzles me is why people do not believe in the soul, or the mind- do you really think like danthepoetman that we are just machines? What then, is thought? 'Merely' instinct? How do you explain poetry?

I read a chapter or two of a book by a neuroscientist named Stanislas Dehaene called Reading on the Brain. One of things he discussed was the enormous amount of neural real estate that is taken up simply by the act of reading words on a page. He performed brain scans on illiterate and literate people and found significant structural changes in the brain based on the learned ability to read. He also found evidence that the ability to read displaces other abilities, such as spatial reasoning.

Maybe as a species we required a greater ability to reason than other organisms, and greater brain plasticity to adjust to novel circumstances. As society became more modernized and we required less rigorous use of our spatial ability we have found alternate uses for our extra neural capacity. Perhaps the ability to appreciate literature or poetry was never selected for but was a collateral consequence of having significant brain plasticity and good executive function. Once we developed the ability to read and transmit ideas, something that became valuable in the last several thousand years, we could then appreciate the novelty of uncommon combinations of words that appeal to some sense of aesthetic.

I'm not sure we need a soul to appreciate poetry but it is an activity whose utility is not easy to explain unless you believe it arose collateral to something else.

[trish]

Trish -a fair point at the end, I probably expect too much of science than scientists would accept. And also on the 'why' questions.

What puzzles me is why people do not believe in the soul, or the mind- do you really think like danthepoetman that we are just machines? What then, is thought? 'Merely' instinct? How do you explain poetry?

I think the problem Beethoven had was not length -concerts went on for hours even in Mozart's day -it was that his contemporaries thought his music was incomprehensible noise.

Can there be machines that think? I’m inclined to answer, “Yes, for we ourselves instantiate the claim.” One must, I think, be careful to point out that we are neither digital like a Turing machine nor isolated like Searle’s Chinese room. It would appear that we are hybrid, electro-chemical neural nets intiimately connected to the world. This is intented, however, as a description, not an explanation. Because we are hybid, we may be every bit as complex as the world in which we are situated, a point some AI experts (e.g. Herbert Simon) have contested. Though your mind might survive being uploaded to a functionally isomorphic structure, it requires a physical system to manifest itself, just like a fist cannnot exist without a hand. When the brain ceases to function the mind vanishes. When the hand is destroyed, the fist doesn’t go to Heaven. Mind is physical phenomenon supported by physical structure. Thoughts are able to initiate electro-chemical signals to our muscles “instructing” them to contract or relax. Conversely, electrical signals applied to various structures in the brain can initiate specific thoughts and sensations.

I don’t know what a person’s soul is supposed to be. A specific platonic ideal corresponding to a specific person’s mind? A mind dies, but the plationic ideal lives on in the world of ideals forever? Can a platonic ideal be sinful? Would it be subject to eternal punishment? I don’t know any use for the notion of an eternal soul. So I tend to stay away from it. Does it explain poetry? If so, how does that explanation work?


...
Maybe as a species we required a greater ability to reason than other organisms, and greater brain plasticity to adjust to novel circumstances. As society became more modernized and we required less rigorous use of our spatial ability we have found alternate uses for our extra neural capacity. Perhaps the ability to appreciate literature or poetry was never selected for but was a collateral consequence of having significant brain plasticity and good executive function. Once we developed the ability to read and transmit ideas, something that became valuable in the last several thousand years, we could then appreciate the novelty of uncommon combinations of words that appeal to some sense of aesthetic.

I'm not sure we need a soul to appreciate poetry but it is an activity whose utility is not easy to explain unless you believe it arose collateral to something else.

Turing machines are a creation of Alan Turing. They are idealized automatons. They were invented to circumscribe the notion of an algorithmic procedure. Every mathematical algorithm can be performed by an appropriately designed Turing machine. Conversely every Turning machine describes a mathematical algorithm. So there are potentially infinitely many Turing machines; one for each possible algorithm. Turing, however, made a wonderful discovery. He designed one Turning machine (called a universal Turing machine) that can be programmed to do whatever any other Turing machine can do; i.e. a universal machine can be programmed to execute any algorthm whatsoever. It’s as if there’s a threshold of complexity beyond which a Turing machine becomes a general, programmable computer.

I’ll go out on a limb here and speculate that there are also a universal, hybrid, electro-chemical neural nets: that before the evolution of Sapiens, animal brains were ordinary hybrid, electro-chemical neural nets analogous to ordinary Turing machines; but with humans brain complexity rose past the threshold of specificity. We became universal, capable of being programmed by our environment; i.e. capable of general learning. But this is speculation; not science. I currently have no idea how to make the proposal more specific or testable. So maybe I’m not out on a limb after all.

[broncofan]

What you are saying makes a great deal of sense to me Trish, though I don't know enough about neurology to make any analogies. Even if various regions of the brain have fairly specific functions, the ability of the brain to re-wire itself so that regions of the brain interact with one another creates the possibility of new, emergent properties that arise from these interactions.

This might require a certain threshold both of plasticity and overall capacity. One thing in the book indicates to me that though our ability to learn is much more general than that of other organisms it is not entirely general: that is the fact that a complex activity like reading already begins to crowd out other functions. Maybe complex functions of the brain begin competing with one another placing an upper limit on how many such functions we can develop at a given point in time because they are both drawing on some of the same functions. Could someone be a great surveyor and fastidious fact-checker at the same time? Reading crowded out spatial activity because it is itself a spatially oriented activity, but one requiring more acuity for arrangements of symbols than we would see in nature.

So, it could be that we have a more general learning ability, but that there are natural constraints, such as the speed and ability or our brain to form new connections, the number of permutations resulting from the interactions of specialized brain regions, and total capacity.

Another interesting thing I read about reading is that when we read something that is descriptive we activate regions of the brain that would be involved in experiencing whatever it is we read about. So, a very vivid description of a flower, or of a taste may activate the part of our brain that would ordinarily process that experience. It could be that we have evolved certain behaviors that make us seek out novelty and even require some novelty in our environments, and that some of us read for pleasure because we stimulate these same pathways when we are not able to experience them first hand. So, if for instance someone is in prison, or is relatively sedentary, they are able to satisfy this human requirement to seek out novelty by reading because their brain isn't able to tell the difference between experiences conjured by vivid writing and actual experience.

[trish]

I have no acquaintance with neurology either. I’m mostly drawing upon some past familiarity with automata theory to which the MacCulloch and Pitts theory of neural nets belongs. Artificially constructed neural nets are especially good at learning. They do this by changing the “weights” or firing frequencies of various circuits (which is kinda like rewiring themselves). They are used in all sorts of technology where pattern recognition is essential. Artificial neural nets are synchronized; i.e. all the neurons have the same cycling time and fire or not fire together. The human brain has a structure similar to these eponymous neural nets, but organic neurons have no fixed cycle period and are not synchronized. That’s what makes them hybrid (both analog and digital). Artificial nets are computationally equivalent to Turing machines and will only yield computable output. Hybrid nets can sometimes yield non-computable output. Animal brains literally do rewire themselves, growing new connections and weeding old ones.

Memory and time are always limiting factors in real-world computation. Each of us has something like ten billion neurons and we still find long division difficult to do in our heads. On the other hand we can do all the “calculations” required to get under a fly ball and catch it in real time. Our resources are allocated to where evolution found them most useful and our pleasures are often found nearby.

And that’s about everything I know about neural nets :)

[broncofan]

Memory and time are always limiting factors in real-world computation. Each of us has something like ten billion neurons and we still find long division difficult to do in our heads. On the other hand we can do all the “calculations” required to get under a fly ball and catch it in real time. Our resources are allocated to where evolution found them most useful and our pleasures are often found nearby.

Not really related to the thread but I can second that thought about how easily we can make all sorts of intuitive calculations but how we find our limits very quickly when we try to make it explicit. I used to calculate pot odds in poker, which was somewhat taxing, and failed to take into account a lot of relevant information. I found that when I maintained my general awareness and took into account more relevant factors with less precision I won more often. It's like I evolved for the specific purpose of playing hold'em poker:).

[trish]

It's like I evolved for the specific purpose of playing hold'em poker:smile:. More likely evolution made sure you had the mental skills required to be a fair judge of character, make a shrewd bargain, recognize a liar for his tells and charm the ladies. All the things you need to play Texas hold'em and more. Like I said, our pleasures are found nearby.

[Stavros]

I read a chapter or two of a book by a neuroscientist named Stanislas Dehaene called Reading on the Brain. One of things he discussed was the enormous amount of neural real estate that is taken up simply by the act of reading words on a page. He performed brain scans on illiterate and literate people and found significant structural changes in the brain based on the learned ability to read. He also found evidence that the ability to read displaces other abilities, such as spatial reasoning.

Maybe as a species we required a greater ability to reason than other organisms, and greater brain plasticity to adjust to novel circumstances. As society became more modernized and we required less rigorous use of our spatial ability we have found alternate uses for our extra neural capacity. Perhaps the ability to appreciate literature or poetry was never selected for but was a collateral consequence of having significant brain plasticity and good executive function. Once we developed the ability to read and transmit ideas, something that became valuable in the last several thousand years, we could then appreciate the novelty of uncommon combinations of words that appeal to some sense of aesthetic.

I'm not sure we need a soul to appreciate poetry but it is an activity whose utility is not easy to explain unless you believe it arose collateral to something else.

Although I understand the logic of what you describe, it still does not answer the question, and seems to me so chilled a description of humans as to be inhuman. I would put to you and Trish the same question -if we are machines and even if we have adapted to the modern world in which we live, why do some people prefer Beethoven to Black Sabbath? How can you account for the diversity of taste if we are all, in essence, the same? I am not allowing for cultural differences in music between, say, Arabic and Chinese music and 'western pop', but say within one cultural environment. The mechanics doesn't make sense.

[Stavros]

When the brain ceases to function the mind vanishes.

I don’t know what a person’s soul is supposed to be. A specific platonic ideal corresponding to a specific person’s mind? A mind dies, but the plationic ideal lives on in the world of ideals forever? Can a platonic ideal be sinful? Would it be subject to eternal punishment? I don’t know any use for the notion of an eternal soul. So I tend to stay away from it. Does it explain poetry? If so, how does that explanation work?



I suspect reincarnation is not something you believe in; yet scientifically you cannot prove that the soul or the 'spirit' does not live on after the death of the body even though billions do believe it. I once had a discussion with a neurologist whose response to the question was simply 'we do not know' which is one reason he was opposed to capital punishment on the grounds that there might not be any such thing as instant death -be it by hanging or electrocution, and he was an atheist.

I think people who believe their soul lives on need to believe it to comfort themselves, whether or not it means they believe in 'heaven' as a place like a garden in summer, or a condition or eternal peace. Hell is a different matter and merely a reflection of the world we live in, where your worst behavioural traits are repeated because you cannot/refuse to change, with no hope of redemption (Dante), the point being you 'can change' in this life to avoid the notional hell and these days without becoming a Roman Catholic (grazie!) although it may be why people convert to faiths, to give meaning and structure to changes they feel they need to make to their lives.

[trish]

Although I understand the logic of what you describe, it still does not answer the question, and seems to me so chilled a description of humans as to be inhuman.

I think this speaks to the poverty of our popular conception of a “machine.” All natural systems are machines of one sort or another. A molecule, a single living cell, a plant, an animal, an ecosytem, a galaxy, a pulsar etc. All are open systems which function without exception in accord with natural law. In comparison the machines so far designed and constructed by human beings are simple, cold and impoverished; yet it is the machines we build that the term calls to the popular mind.


I would put to you and Trish the same question -if we are machines and even if we have adapted to the modern world in which we live, why do some people prefer Beethoven to Black Sabbath? How can you account for the diversity of taste if we are all, in essence, the same? I am not allowing for cultural differences in music between, say, Arabic and Chinese music and 'western pop', but say within one cultural environment. The mechanics doesn't make sense.

Our experience with machines built by humans is that they are all mass produced and hence identical in every detail. When a single such machine is prepared with an initial state it’s behavior is predictable and always the same. Turn the crank on the Jack in the Box and it will play pop goes the weasle and when the song comes to “pop”__ out pops Jack. Push him back in, close the lid, wind again and the same thing will happen every time.

This is not a necessary feature of more complex machines: for two reasons. One, complex machines can be chaotically sensitive to initial conditions and the environment. Two, complex machines can be chaotically sensitive to their own internal initial states. Our very own solar system is chaotic in both senses. If we could push the planets and moons around into new positions, start it up and follow its progress for awhile and then do the experiment again, pushing the planets back as close as possible to the initial conditions of the original experiment, start it up and follow its progress, eventually the second run will diverge from the first. Twins growing up in the same family will develop their own personalities and distinguishing traits. I don’t know how souls can explain this, but chaotic sensitivity to the environment easily accounts for the divergence in the courses of their lives.



I suspect reincarnation is not something you believe in; yet scientifically you cannot prove that the soul or the 'spirit' does not live on after the death of the body even though billions do believe it. I once had a discussion with a neurologist whose response to the question was simply 'we do not know' which is one reason he was opposed to capital punishment on the grounds that there might not be any such thing as instant death -be it by hanging or electrocution, and he was an atheist.

I cannot even prove electrons exist. But the standard theory of elementary particles (which entails the existence of electrons) is able to quantitatively account for and predict the behaviors a plethora of natural phenomena which cannot be accounted for by any other set of hypothesis. Hence I’m inclined to agree that electrons exist.

What can the concept of soul do for us? Does the existence of an eternal soul account for how we survive after death? Does it think? How does it think? Is it in a different state when thinking one thought and in another state when thinking another? Does it proceed from state to state with time? How are those states realized? Does the soul have parts? How does the soul transition from one state to another? Why isn’t it a machine? If it turns out that souls are just machines subject without exception to (perhaps newly discovered) natural law and it allows us to account for observable natural phenomena hitherto unaccounted for, then by all means I might be inclined to assent to that souls exist.

But this is not the case. The concept of a soul is presented to us something outside the realm of nature, not subject to her mundane laws. It is an amorphous transcendent thing. It is supernatural. Not of this world. This conception of a soul practically defines out of existence. So how can I possibly assent to its probable existence without some extraordinary evidence?


I think people who believe their soul lives on need to believe it to comfort themselves, whether or not it means they believe in 'heaven' as a place like a garden in summer, or a condition or eternal peace. Hell is a different matter and merely a reflection of the world we live in, where your worst behavioural traits are repeated because you cannot/refuse to change, with no hope of redemption (Dante), the point being you 'can change' in this life to avoid the notional hell and these days without becoming a Roman Catholic (grazie!) although it may be why people convert to faiths, to give meaning and structure to changes they feel they need to make to their lives.

The conventional notions of Heaven and Hell always struck me as insane. We are finite beings. Our sins can only cause a finite amount of damage. Why does God demand eternal punishment for our finitely puny transgressions? What’s the worst thing I can do? Kill a bunch of people whose souls will live on forever anyway? But wait. That’s not the worst thing I can do. I can persuade someone to become an atheist. That will damn their soul forever. I CAN do infinite damage! But wait again. I can only do infinite damage because of God’s stupid rule that sins unrepented before physical death deserved infinite punishment.

But yes, I agree that many people continue to believe in souls because they cannot conceive of nor face their future non-existence. I imagine it will feel exactly the way it felt before my mother and father conceived me :)

(This has been a fun conversation so far. Unfortunately, after today and perhaps tomorrow, I'll be away from these boards for about a fortnight. If I no longer reply to questions during that period, please don't take offense).

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=trish;1433044]
I think this speaks to the poverty of our popular conception of a “machine.” All natural systems are machines of one sort or another. A molecule, a single living cell, a plant, an animal, an ecosytem, a galaxy, a pulsar etc. All are open systems which function without exception in accord with natural law. In comparison the machines so far designed and constructed by human beings are simple, cold and impoverished; yet it is the machines we build that the term calls to the popular mind.

-A fair point, but are you talking really about machines? Can a galaxy be a machine? Are galaxies systems? Organisms?

Our experience with machines built by humans is that they are all mass produced and hence identical in every detail. When a single such machine is prepared with an initial state it’s behavior is predictable and always the same. Turn the crank on the Jack in the Box and it will play pop goes the weasle and when the song comes to “pop”__ out pops Jack. Push him back in, close the lid, wind again and the same thing will happen every time.

This is not a necessary feature of more complex machines: for two reasons. One, complex machines can be chaotically sensitive to initial conditions and the environment. Two, complex machines can be chaotically sensitive to their own internal initial states. Our very own solar system is chaotic in both senses.

-'Chaotically sensitive' seems to me an oxymoron, it may be meaningless.
-Is the solar system 'chaotic' or 'unpredictable'? Is it even unpredictable if science argues that when certain conditions apply it is inevitable that a star will collapse in on itself, burn to a crisp, explode, etc? But I assume the gases on Venus, Jupiter and Saturn are blowing around chaotically.

Twins growing up in the same family will develop their own personalities and distinguishing traits. I don’t know how souls can explain this, but chaotic sensitivity to the environment easily accounts for the divergence in the courses of their lives.

-Don't understand 'chaotic sensitivity to the environment'.


What can the concept of soul do for us? Does the existence of an eternal soul account for how we survive after death? Does it think? How does it think? Is it in a different state when thinking one thought and in another state when thinking another? Does it proceed from state to state with time? How are those states realized? Does the soul have parts? How does the soul transition from one state to another? Why isn’t it a machine? If it turns out that souls are just machines subject without exception to (perhaps newly discovered) natural law and it allows us to account for observable natural phenomena hitherto unaccounted for, then by all means I might be inclined to assent to that souls exist.

-the soul can be likened to consciousness; so you don't need a corporeal existence to exist. What after all is consciousness for Hegel? It is something eternal that searches, yearns for its absolute realisation. Not so different from Nirvana perhaps?

But this is not the case. The concept of a soul is presented to us something outside the realm of nature, not subject to her mundane laws. It is an amorphous transcendent thing. It is supernatural. Not of this world. This conception of a soul practically defines out of existence. So how can I possibly assent to its probable existence without some extraordinary evidence?

-But that is because you deny you have a soul!

The conventional notions of Heaven and Hell always struck me as insane. We are finite beings. Our sins can only cause a finite amount of damage. Why does God demand eternal punishment for our finitely puny transgressions? What’s the worst thing I can do? Kill a bunch of people whose souls will live on forever anyway? But wait. That’s not the worst thing I can do. I can persuade someone to become an atheist. That will damn their soul forever. I CAN do infinite damage! But wait again. I can only do infinite damage because of God’s stupid rule that sins unrepented before physical death deserved infinite punishment.

-Cf Dante: his Comedy is a narrative of a journey that has already happened; Dante is not concerned with an Inferno after death as he is in presenting a vision of sin for the here and now -the sinners in Inferno cannot be released because they do not accept that they sinned in the first place, they are therefore doomed to repeat their mistakes, as Dante sees them -and many people would argue that most, but not all of the sins in Inferno are indeed sins. People aspire to change, to stop shoving needles in their arm, to stop drinking their families income away, to tell truths instead of lies, not rob their own church funds, or the state. For Dante, faith is an enabling tool which offers believers a means of changing their negative life for a positive one. It doesn't mean Hell actually exists, it is a prescription for the here and now. But it can have deeper meaning if you believe after death everything will be better, for who would want to die and then find they are still addicted to heroin?

But yes, I agree that many people continue to believe in souls because they cannot conceive of nor face their future non-existence. I imagine it will feel exactly the way it felt before my mother and father conceived me :)

(This has been a fun conversation so far. Unfortunately, after today and perhaps tomorrow, I'll be away from these boards for about a fortnight. If I no longer reply to questions during that period, please don't take offense).

-Enjoy your trip and Happy New Year!

[trish]

-A fair point, but are you talking really about machines? Can a galaxy be a machine? Are galaxies systems? Organisms? A molecule, a living cell, a plant, an animal, a galaxy are physical systems which transition through a discrete set or a continuum of states without exception in a manner consistent with the laws of nature. If they are open systems these transitions are dependent upon the interactions between the system and its environment. Whether we call such things machines or not isn’t that important to me as long as we can agree on the description.


-'Chaotically sensitive' seems to me an oxymoron, it may be meaningless.
-Is the solar system 'chaotic' or 'unpredictable'? Is it even unpredictable if science argues that when certain conditions apply it is inevitable that a star will collapse in on itself, burn to a crisp, explode, etc? But I assume the gases on Venus, Jupiter and Saturn are blowing around chaotically.
Chaotic dynamic systems have a precise mathematical definition which is rather technical (one can consult Alessandra Celletti’s Stability and Chaos in Celestial Mechanics). But the precise definition (imo) is not necessary for our discussion. The solar system can be shown to be both unpredicable and chaotic. The essential point for our discussion is that any two nearly identical copies of our solar system will evolve along exponentially divergent paths. It is not at all surprising that two twins might develop different tastes in literature. In fact what we find surprising is that sometimes twins, separated at birth and brought up in different families sometimes demonstrate behavorial similarities. Dynamic systems can display diversity and similarity. Neither diversity of tastes nor similarity of tastes among human beings presents a serious problem for the view that humans are open systems.


-the soul can be likened to consciousness; so you don't need a corporeal existence to exist. What after all is consciousness for Hegel? It is something eternal that searches, yearns for its absolute realisation. Not so different from Nirvana perhaps?Consciousness is to the brain as a ripple is to water. When the supporting corporeal substrate is vaporized, the phenomena manifested by the substrate no longer exists.


But this is not the case. The concept of a soul is presented to us something outside the realm of nature, not subject to her mundane laws. It is an amorphous transcendent thing. It is supernatural. Not of this world. This conception of a soul practically defines out of existence. So how can I possibly assent to its probable existence without some extraordinary evidence?

-But that is because you deny you have a soul!
More precisely, I deny we at present have any extraodinary evidence for the existence of an eternal soul.


-Cf Dante: his Comedy is a narrative of a journey that has already happened; Dante is not concerned with an Inferno after death as he is in presenting a vision of sin for the here and now -the sinners in Inferno cannot be released because they do not accept that they sinned in the first place, they are therefore doomed to repeat their mistakes, as Dante sees them -and many people would argue that most, but not all of the sins in Inferno are indeed sins. People aspire to change, to stop shoving needles in their arm, to stop drinking their families income away, to tell truths instead of lies, not rob their own church funds, or the state. For Dante, faith is an enabling tool which offers believers a means of changing their negative life for a positive one. It doesn't mean Hell actually exists, it is a prescription for the here and now. But it can have deeper meaning if you believe after death everything will be better, for who would want to die and then find they are still addicted to heroin? This reminds me of Neitzsche’s prescription for living: the eternal return. If you believe you have to relive every humiliation and every exhilaration over and over again infinitely often, then you might be inspired to live an exhilarating life as a Neitzchean overman.
Personally I find it equally inspiring to think we only one chance to get it right and then it’s over.
These are just three prescriptions for belief. Their recommendations have the following form: if you believe, then your life will go better, or be more comfortable, or you will be a better person etc. But which prescription is recommended on the basis that it is a true belief?


Happy New Year!And you as well.

[yodajazz]

Any lesson maintaining that we obey authority to the letter of the law, even if we don't understand it's "deeper" reasons, or even if the authority is very likely a fiction is not an invaluable lesson, but rather is a lesson that devalues human intellectual engagement.

What we can learn from such a book is how people lived, what they thought, the stories they took to heart, the paths they took, We learn about and modify ourselves when we examine how we relate to those histories. But giving any interpretation of any ancient text authority over our moral beliefs and behavior is beyond the pale.

Actually, human advancement, are dependent on people following rules. Measurements are a major example. The vast majority of the people agree on a concept such as defining themselves a nation, as an example. The individual agrees to sublimate their actions, to a higher authority. a mundane example would be observing speed limits. Even though most might drive a little over the limit, the greater society accepts them as reasonable. Ancient texts set the standards for principles of living. Certain rules changed over time. Look at slavery for example. The Bible did not forbid slavery. But it set forth principles of treating people humanely. Many centuries later, religious people were at the center of the struggle to end slavery. The principles eventually changed the rules. Some people look at the fact the slavery was not banned, and thus judge the Bible as morally useless. However when the text was written 2-3k years ago, slavery was a moral alternative to killing prisoners of war, among other things. In the story of Joseph, he was sold in to slavery, later thrown into prison, but eventually rose to become the second or third most powerful person in the most powerful nation in the world at that time. This not the same as 'modern American slavery'.

I think there may be some confusion over "sexual rules" and more general moral principles. The concept that a 'God' created all people out of one, is one unifying principle that goes against war and general hatred. Mankind is still working on these issues. Some of the principles found in ancient text are still at the heart of the struggle to evolve human consciousness.

[martin48]

More deep stuff - simple machines can be chaotic (e.g., the compound pendulum), in that their state is non-deterministic; though more likely states exist (strange attractors). What really is at issue "Are living organisms merely machines, in the same way my computer is or a steam engine, or a simple thermostat - the last making decisions in accordance with its environment)?" So now we need to define "life" before we can proceed. Tricky one - we can say what attributes a living creature needs to have and the boundaries are always fuzzy. NASA tried to define life - bless them! Edward Trifonov (a biologist at the University of Haifa, Israel) found over 150 definitions. His conclusion was "Life is simply self-reproduction with variations".

Consciousness - generally agreed that consciousness involves some sort of self-awareness. It also involves sensing the environment and reacting to it. More than that, it gets even fuzzier than defining Life.

If we can't agree on definitions, then it becomes impossible to argue meaningfully. But that wont stop us.

We have evidence in terms of our observations of the world that there are non-living things and living things, we also have experience of self-awareness or conscious thought (and we believe that others share this experience.). At present, we can offer solid, widely-agreed definitions, let alone theories. Maybe we have will.

But what evidence do we have of a soul - that somehow survives our death - none. It is a belief, based on faith only.

And a Happy New Year too.






A molecule, a living cell, a plant, an animal, a galaxy are physical systems which transition through a discrete set or a continuum of states without exception in a manner consistent with the laws of nature. If they are open systems these transitions are dependent upon the interactions between the system and its environment. Whether we call such things machines or not isn’t that important to me as long as we can agree on the description.



Chaotic dynamic systems have a precise mathematical definition which is rather technical (one can consult Alessandra Celletti’s Stability and Chaos in Celestial Mechanics). But the precise definition (imo) is not necessary for our discussion. The solar system can be shown to be both unpredicable and chaotic. The essential point for our discussion is that any two nearly identical copies of our solar system will evolve along exponentially divergent paths. It is not at all surprising that two twins might develop different tastes in literature. In fact what we find surprising is that sometimes twins, separated at birth and brought up in different families sometimes demonstrate behavorial similarities. Dynamic systems can display diversity and similarity. Neither diversity of tastes nor similarity of tastes among human beings presents a serious problem for the view that humans are open systems.

Consciousness is to the brain as a ripple is to water. When the supporting corporeal substrate is vaporized, the phenomena manifested by the substrate no longer exists.

More precisely, I deny we at present have any extraodinary evidence for the existence of an eternal soul.

This reminds me of Neitzsche’s prescription for living: the eternal return. If you believe you have to relive every humiliation and every exhilaration over and over again infinitely often, then you might be inspired to live an exhilarating life as a Neitzchean overman.
Personally I find it equally inspiring to think we only one chance to get it right and then it’s over.
These are just three prescriptions for belief. Their recommendations have the following form: if you believe, then your life will go better, or be more comfortable, or you will be a better person etc. But which prescription is recommended on the basis that it is a true belief?

And you as well.

[Stavros]

But what evidence do we have of a soul - that somehow survives our death - none. It is a belief, based on faith only.

And a Happy New Year too.

I agree with most of your post, but if I return to the concept of the soul it is not just about faith, although your point is fair. What is art, however your define it in terms of media -written, visual, musical- an expression of? Isn't it the abstract becoming plastic that gives substance to the soul? What is 'soul music'?

I wish you a soulful new year.

[yodajazz]

More deep stuff - simple machines can be chaotic (e.g., the compound pendulum), in that their state is non-deterministic; though more likely states exist (strange attractors). What really is at issue "Are living organisms merely machines, in the same way my computer is or a steam engine, or a simple thermostat - the last making decisions in accordance with its environment)?" So now we need to define "life" before we can proceed. Tricky one - we can say what attributes a living creature needs to have and the boundaries are always fuzzy. NASA tried to define life - bless them! Edward Trifonov (a biologist at the University of Haifa, Israel) found over 150 definitions. His conclusion was "Life is simply self-reproduction with variations".

Consciousness - generally agreed that consciousness involves some sort of self-awareness. It also involves sensing the environment and reacting to it. More than that, it gets even fuzzier than defining Life.

If we can't agree on definitions, then it becomes impossible to argue meaningfully. But that wont stop us.

We have evidence in terms of our observations of the world that there are non-living things and living things, we also have experience of self-awareness or conscious thought (and we believe that others share this experience.). At present, we can offer solid, widely-agreed definitions, let alone theories. Maybe we have will.

But what evidence do we have of a soul - that somehow survives our death - none. It is a belief, based on faith only.

And a Happy New Year too.

Many things have meaning beyond the literal meaning. I say that, what we do in this life, lives on past our bodies. For example, treating someone kindly, produces an effect in the person, so that that are more like to treat someone else kindly, and the same with negative. But it's not a direct measurable 1 to 1 thing. I would say it's more like a wave. To this extent I would say the Bible's view of life is more accurate than someone, who thinks that they could rob or kill someone, and everything will be ok if they are not caught. Or on a larger scale, someone who thinks the US could support a brutal dictator, and everything will be ok, because he is friendly to the US. Remember the Bible was here thousands of years before sciences such a psychology, sociology, and numerous modern sciences. Once you get past specific rules in the Bible, and other books, you can find principles that are still invaluable. The concept of Forgiveness is a powerful tool to mental health even today. Science today has shown a relationship to long term illnesses and certain persistent mental states. So my point is that the most important thing is not whether your soul lives on past your body, but to understand that what you do in this life, lives on in the consciousness of future society, even though your name may be forgotten.

[Stavros]

The concept of Forgiveness is a powerful tool to mental health even today. Science today has shown a relationship to long term illnesses and certain persistent mental states. So my point is that the most important thing is not whether your soul lives on past your body, but to understand that what you do in this life, lives on in the consciousness of future society, even though your name may be forgotten.

Beautifully put; concise, clear and compelling.

[trish]

Many things have meaning beyond the literal meaning. I say that, what we do in this life, lives on past our bodies. For example, treating someone kindly, produces an effect in the person, so that that are more like to treat someone else kindly, and the same with negative. But it's not a direct measurable 1 to 1 thing. I would say it's more like a wave. To this extent I would say the Bible's view of life is more accurate than someone, who thinks that they could rob or kill someone, and everything will be ok if they are not caught. Or on a larger scale, someone who thinks the US could support a brutal dictator, and everything will be ok, because he is friendly to the US. Remember the Bible was here thousands of years before sciences such a psychology, sociology, and numerous modern sciences. Once you get past specific rules in the Bible, and other books, you can find principles that are still invaluable.

But only if you cherry pick those rules, for there are examples in the Bible where cruelty is rewarded and destruction is applauded. Why recommend the Bible as the place to go for moral authority when there are so many other more civilized texts? Analogously, one can find snippets of physical intuition in Aristotle, but I wouldn’t put on a list of recommended reading for beginning physics students.


The concept of Forgiveness is a powerful tool to mental health even today. Science today has shown a relationship to long term illnesses and certain persistent mental states. So my point is that the most important thing is not whether your soul lives on past your body, but to understand that what you do in this life, lives on in the consciousness of future society, even though your name may be forgotten.
abc
Nicely done. The soul is irrelevant. The effect of one’s deeds propagate outward through the world and downward through the generations (albeit not necessarily in their consciousness).

[martin48]

"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

Psalms 137:9

Nice one!

[Stavros]

8 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

[martin48]

OK - it's mixed in terms of quality

[Ben in LA]

God's Twelve Biggest Dick Moves in the Old Testament. Yet another reason why I hate those jackholes who cherry-pick the Bible to fit their agenda.

http://io9.com/gods-12-biggest-dick-moves-in-the-old-testament-1522970429

[Dino Velvet]

I saw Book Of Mormon yesterday. Very funny production. You can see how they go after many religions and religion in general. So happy for Elder Buttfuckingnaked finding the Lord but Cunningham shoulda killed him bringing in new religious law also becoming Warlord Cunningham AKA Warlord Cartman.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_xEIMnBmxR_E/SkBX_clnO1I/AAAAAAAAAJ8/0lg056ZDtrk/s320/1013press_cartman_and_otters.jpg

[yodajazz]

God's Twelve Biggest Dick Moves in the Old Testament. Yet another reason why I hate those jackholes who cherry-pick the Bible to fit their agenda.

http://io9.com/gods-12-biggest-dick-moves-in-the-old-testament-1522970429

I like reading all the comments on articles like this, too. Basically, those OT stories were about teaching lessons. My favorite comment, ending by saying those were some tough times. Lots of people died by disease, some were killed by animals, etc. They had to deal with the basic question, people are still grappling with: Why do bad things happen to people, especially if 'God' is considered good? One answer is to look at nature, or life itself on planet earth. it's a self perpetuating system, feeding off itself.

But let's look at one story for an example; Job. Job was a good man. But an argument was raised, by Satan in the story, that Job was good only because he was successful. Anyone can love or obey God, when good things are flowing their way. The lesson of the story is that bad things can happen to good people, but they will still have the faith to follow God's laws, not curse God and die, like Satan predicted. God was able to restore good things to Job, because he did not give up. This is still very relevant today. Bad things can happen to the best of us, but the good ones will hold on, and things usually get much better. This is really following "God's laws", more so than believing in the God concept, itself. What good is believing in God, if you end up cursing him and dying when things get tough?

[trish]

I thought the lesson was: the death of your wife and children doesn't really matter, as long as your own health and wealth are restored in the end.

[yodajazz]

No one said. it didn't matter. But the reality of life is we all will have loved ones who die. How do we respond to life when this happens? I had a friend in real life, whose mother passed. He felt down, and started neglecting himself, and used it as an excuse to indulge in some things with negative consequences. He died within a three year peroid of his mother's death. I feel the greatest way to honor someone, is to take care of yourself, so that you can keep their memory alive, by direct testimony and by example. I know that he believed in God. He sang Gospel, for one thing. But he is no longer here to lift up his voice. If my friend had taken Job's lesson to heart, he could have done more good in this world. Many great things have been done in this world, by people as a tribute to lost loved ones. The Taj Mahal, is one example. How you handle life's difficulties, is not the same as a simple belief in God. The "Word of God" also teaches this.

[trish]

No one said. It didn't matterReally? It didn't seem to matter much to God or Satan. Their lives were sacrificed merely to teach Satan a lesson. Color me heathen, but it's not honoring your wife and children to worship the dude who gave the go ahead to have them murdered on a bet, even if he is a god. I don't think Job has anything to do with maintaining your dignity and self respect in grief. Job continued to believe in the goodness of The Lord in spite of all the things The Lord allowed Satan to do to him. The lesson is either Job was gullible, or God did a good thing killing Job's children to win a bet with Satan.

[buttslinger]

The Devil is MUCH closer to God than we are!! All that fuckin Adam had to do was stay away from God's tree and he couldn't even follow one stupid rule! Jesus didn't talk to the PEOPLE immediately before his Enlightenment, he talked to Satan!! The Devil likes everybody, but to be honest, the road to God is a one way street. Toward Him. If you don't make the effort to meet God, the deal is off.

Jesus, what would make Trish happy, betting a steak dinner on Job?

The Sunday School Religion might like you gullible, but the real God wants you dead. (Philosophically speaking)

I'm working on my Bible verse. The guy from the Gore sight is going to find it for me, I hope, he won't write back.

Am I saying God doesn't care if babies die in their crib and we kill people and watch porn? YES!!

Am I saying Jesus doesn't love us? He's dead, it's right their in the Book.

But if God can get the Devil to shut up for even two centuries we'll be much nicer to each other during his vacation.

This post is meant as a novelty item only. Any references to real people living or imagined is purely coincidental.

[trish]

Jesus, what would make Trish happy, betting a steak dinner on Job?Actually we aren't told what the stakes of the bet were, leastwise I don't remember them. Perhaps nothing but the satisfaction of winning if you won. The lives of the wife and children weren't the stakes, they were just pieces in the game.

[dderek123]

The temptations of donkey dicks and horse cum

19"Yet she multiplied her harlotries, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the harlot in the land of Egypt. 20"She lusted after their paramours, whose flesh is like the flesh of donkeys and whose issue is like the issue of horses. 21"Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians handled your bosom because of the breasts of your youth.

http://biblehub.com/ezekiel/23-20.htm

[barney fife]

why is this even on this site?

[trish]

The forum is called Politics and Religion.

[yodajazz]

Really? It didn't seem to matter much to God or Satan. Their lives were sacrificed merely to teach Satan a lesson. Color me heathen, but it's not honoring your wife and children to worship the dude who gave the go ahead to have them murdered on a bet, even if he is a god. I don't think Job has anything to do with maintaining your dignity and self respect in grief. Job continued to believe in the goodness of The Lord in spite of all the things The Lord allowed Satan to do to him. The lesson is either Job was gullible, or God did a good thing killing Job's children to win a bet with Satan.

No the story is not to teach Satan a lesson, but to teach mankind about the complexities of life. Apparently lots of people still don't understand. Later in the the story three friends go to job and discuss the reasons why the bad things happened to him. They say he must have sinned, to bring on these bad things, but he does not agree with them. A fourth person says that Job is accusing God to exonerate himself, but he is not correct either. In the end Job talks directly with God, and eventually he is blessed with double of what he had before. Satan is not not mentioned at all after the first part of the story, so the story is definitely not about teaching Satan a lesson. Even today, many people who follow the philosophy I do, believe like Job's three friends; that is we attract bad things to us, by our thoughts and actions. However the story of Job, say that life is deeper than that. For example, some people, even famous preachers, see natural disasters as God's curse for our sins. However, the lessons learned from natural disasters, has led to better safety precautions, so that mankind is more prosperous than ever.

In doing research on this story, I just found out that Job's wife did not die in the story! I thought she had. Also, Job is spoken of in the Koran, so elements of his story have endured through ages. Thanks for your repsponses.

[buttslinger]

Thanks for knocking Trish off her Heathen High Horse, Yoda. I would have, but I recently decided I need to bone up on my Ezekial.......

[trish]

So God allowed Satan to kill Job's children in order to teach us a lesson. And they talk about the high cost of tuition in today's institutions of learning.

[martin48]

Satan's not that bad. Let's look at the record.

God takes away Adam and Eve's eternal life, thus commiting the first murder, and holds their descendants responsible and visiting Adam and Eve's punishment down on their children et al.

God destroys all life on Earth in a great flood, except for a drunk (Noah) and his family, for failing to worship him.

God's tenth plague upon the Israelites was the unjustified murder of all firstborn sons in Egypt.

Before sending the plagues to Egypt, God "hardened Pharaoh's heart" so that he wouldn't let the Israelites go, so he could have an excuse to visit horrible plagues upon them, like boils, killing cattle and murdering all firstborn sons. (Exodus 4:21)

God orders the Levites to kill their "every man and his neighbour" for worshipping another god. This cost 3,000 lives. (Exodus 32:27)

God sends a plague to the Israelites, apparently feeling that mass-butchery wasn't enough of a punishment. (Exodus 32:35)

God kills Onan for refusing to impregnate his late brother's (whom God also slew) wife and instead "spilling his seed on the ground." (Genesis 38:8-10)

God kills the entire populations of Soddom and Gammorah for practicing certain sexual techniques. (BE WARNED, DEAR READER)

God gives all Philistines hemorrhoids in their pubic areas. (1 Samuel 5:9)

God kills over 50,000 people for looking at an ark. (1 Samuel 6:19)

God kills 70,000 people because King David decided to have a census. (1 Chronicles 21:7-14)

God approves of slavery, and instructs owners to beat their slaves. (Proverbs 29:19)


Satan gave knowledge to humanity by giving Eve the fruit from the tree of knowledge. Because of Satan, humanity gained knowledge of good and evil. Since we couldn't have possessed knowledge of good and evil before eating the fruit, Adam and Eve couldn't have known that eating the fruit was evil, so it seems a little harsh to punish them as severely as God did. Satan gave humans the true capacity for moral judgment, unlike God, who simply expected everyone to mindlessly obey his orders.

There is no biblical record of Satan engaging in the murder of torture of any human, unlike God, who is guilty (and proud of it) of committing genocide.

So let's hear it for Satan!!

[Ben in LA]

^^I'm sharing this on my Tumblr page lol

[Stavros]

Satan's not that bad. Let's look at the record.

God takes away Adam and Eve's eternal life, thus commiting the first murder, and holds their descendants responsible and visiting Adam and Eve's punishment down on their children et al.

God destroys all life on Earth in a great flood, except for a drunk (Noah) and his family, for failing to worship him.

God's tenth plague upon the Israelites was the unjustified murder of all firstborn sons in Egypt.

Before sending the plagues to Egypt, God "hardened Pharaoh's heart" so that he wouldn't let the Israelites go, so he could have an excuse to visit horrible plagues upon them, like boils, killing cattle and murdering all firstborn sons. (Exodus 4:21)

God orders the Levites to kill their "every man and his neighbour" for worshipping another god. This cost 3,000 lives. (Exodus 32:27)

God sends a plague to the Israelites, apparently feeling that mass-butchery wasn't enough of a punishment. (Exodus 32:35)

God kills Onan for refusing to impregnate his late brother's (whom God also slew) wife and instead "spilling his seed on the ground." (Genesis 38:8-10)

God kills the entire populations of Soddom and Gammorah for practicing certain sexual techniques. (BE WARNED, DEAR READER)

God gives all Philistines hemorrhoids in their pubic areas. (1 Samuel 5:9)

God kills over 50,000 people for looking at an ark. (1 Samuel 6:19)

God kills 70,000 people because King David decided to have a census. (1 Chronicles 21:7-14)

God approves of slavery, and instructs owners to beat their slaves. (Proverbs 29:19)


Satan gave knowledge to humanity by giving Eve the fruit from the tree of knowledge. Because of Satan, humanity gained knowledge of good and evil. Since we couldn't have possessed knowledge of good and evil before eating the fruit, Adam and Eve couldn't have known that eating the fruit was evil, so it seems a little harsh to punish them as severely as God did. Satan gave humans the true capacity for moral judgment, unlike God, who simply expected everyone to mindlessly obey his orders.

There is no biblical record of Satan engaging in the murder of torture of any human, unlike God, who is guilty (and proud of it) of committing genocide.

So let's hear it for Satan!!

Really Martin, your inability to check your sources and your almost complete lack of intellectual imagination surprises me. The various lists that you provide do not take into consideration the use of allegory in biblical narratives, and also ought to bear in mind that the knowledge of 'the world' that is in the biblical narratives is rather obviously limited to what we now call 'the Middle East' so it is absurd to say God destroys 'all life on earth' in the flood when it might only be true that a lot of people died in a flood which might have been a major river like the Tigris or Euphrates bursting its banks, or a tsunami or some other event which, to the people at the time, appeared to be a major catastrophe and became a legend in that community, and you know what happens to legends over time.

In an age when people defined much of their behaviour in relation to 'the Gods' or 'almighty God', it is not at all surprising or ridiculous that people would believe God was punishing them for sinful behaviour as they did believe in sin and therefore felt guilty when they sinned, as many people do today.

In the matter of Adam and Eve, Satan played no part, as Satan is not mentioned in Genesis. Eve is persuaded to eat the fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil by a serpent which is standing upright, as it is only after disobeying God that the Serpent is condemned to slither on its belly on the ground and 'eat dust'. Moreover, a subtle aspect of the Genesis story that often eludes people (who don't care anyway) is that there are two special trees in the Garden of Eden -the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil; and the Tree of Life. The 'knowledge' that is revealed to Eve when she eats the fruit of the tree is self-awareness; it is therefore limited. This is an important point because the existence of The Tree of Life has become, not just in Judeao-Christian theology but in other cultures, symbolic of the repository of absolute power to which no human has access, though it has become part of culture through books, poems, films, paintings and so on.

As to the purpose of the Adam and Eve story, it is not literal at all. It is set in the context of a rule-based society in which people break the rules. In a society where God is the ultimate judge, breaking God's rules is viewed as 'original sin' from which so much human woe is derived, precisely because Adam and Eve became aware of their own power, distinct from God. Indeed, this mere idea, of humans being in some way autonomous, or independent of God is absolutely crucial to an understanding of relgion, as it informs us that being religious is about fidelity to God.

God thus transforms the human condition from being one of living without work or woe in an earthly paradise to one in which, expelled from Eden men are condemned to a life of hard work, and women to menstruation and painful childbirth. It is as if humans, toiling under these pressures said to themselves: 'what have we done to deserve this?'. Original sin was the answer. It is an attempt by early, literate human society to explain the human condition, it may not suit your needs today but it was a key part of social order c1500BCE.

[buttslinger]

God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
Abe says, "Man, you must be puttin' me on"
God say, "No." Abe say, "What ?"
God say, "You can do what you want Abe, but
The next time you see me comin' you better run"
Well Abe says, "Where do you want this killin' done ?"
God says. "Out on Highway 61"

"Highway 61" - Satan Purchases Another Soul - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7BJKMg_RgI)

[trish]

I would’ve thought the allegorical nature of the tales were as evident to Martin as to anyone else, given they are all stories of depicting the acts of an imaginary being and are aimed toward the goal of teaching us moral lessons.

But what morals do they teach? That generations of your enemy's children should be punished for the transgressions of their ancestors? True, our children and grandchildren will pay for our short sightedness in dealing with our global environment. But that’s not the lesson of Adam and Eve’s expulsion from the Garden. They didn’t mismanage their resources. They didn’t war with their neighbors. Their expulsion wasn’t entailed by their actions; it was a sentence placed upon them and their children and their children’s children ad nauseum by a mighty and just god. The tale, which after all was written down and propagated by priests, teaches us that it's just to mete out punishments to people who disobey their priests.

The same criticism applies to other “allegories” as well. Sure, not everyone was killed in the flood. Not even everyone in the Middle East at the time. Floods happen. Sometimes they are a result of human mismanagement. Unmaintained flood walls, misplaced reservoirs, building on the flood plain etc. But that’s not what the story of the flood teaches. It would have us believe those people deserved to die. Why? For not showing Jehovah (again a story written down and propagated by priests) sufficient respect. What kind of sick allegory would teach that such a sentence was just? Perhaps one that aimed to establish the political power of a priesthood over a bronze age people.

(As always, enjoying the discussion. If after today I don’t reply for a couple of weeks it’s not because I lost interest, but ‘cause I’ll likely be out of touch for awhile.)

[martin48]

I'm rather proud of my "lack of intellectual imagination". I only quote from the Bible, if I take what it says literally then I'm behaving no worse (and no better) than many Christians. But if I should "interpret" in some undefined way, then I assume there are many uncharted and undefined ways of doing this. I could interpret it all as complete tosh.

So "God thus transforms the human condition from being one of living without work or woe in an earthly paradise to one in which, expelled from Eden men are condemned to a life of hard work, and women to menstruation and painful childbirth. " I thank him - nice one!

Oh, by "c1500BCE", do you believe that the World was created on October 23, 4004 BCE (just after 9 am)? What happened in the first 2,500 years? I'm confused.

Martin



Really Martin, your inability to check your sources and your almost complete lack of intellectual imagination surprises me. The various lists that you provide do not take into consideration the use of allegory in biblical narratives, and also ought to bear in mind that the knowledge of 'the world' that is in the biblical narratives is rather obviously limited to what we now call 'the Middle East' so it is absurd to say God destroys 'all life on earth' in the flood when it might only be true that a lot of people died in a flood which might have been a major river like the Tigris or Euphrates bursting its banks, or a tsunami or some other event which, to the people at the time, appeared to be a major catastrophe and became a legend in that community, and you know what happens to legends over time.

In an age when people defined much of their behaviour in relation to 'the Gods' or 'almighty God', it is not at all surprising or ridiculous that people would believe God was punishing them for sinful behaviour as they did believe in sin and therefore felt guilty when they sinned, as many people do today.

In the matter of Adam and Eve, Satan played no part, as Satan is not mentioned in Genesis. Eve is persuaded to eat the fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil by a serpent which is standing upright, as it is only after disobeying God that the Serpent is condemned to slither on its belly on the ground and 'eat dust'. Moreover, a subtle aspect of the Genesis story that often eludes people (who don't care anyway) is that there are two special trees in the Garden of Eden -the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil; and the Tree of Life. The 'knowledge' that is revealed to Eve when she eats the fruit of the tree is self-awareness; it is therefore limited. This is an important point because the existence of The Tree of Life has become, not just in Judeao-Christian theology but in other cultures, symbolic of the repository of absolute power to which no human has access, though it has become part of culture through books, poems, films, paintings and so on.

As to the purpose of the Adam and Eve story, it is not literal at all. It is set in the context of a rule-based society in which people break the rules. In a society where God is the ultimate judge, breaking God's rules is viewed as 'original sin' from which so much human woe is derived, precisely because Adam and Eve became aware of their own power, distinct from God. Indeed, this mere idea, of humans being in some way autonomous, or independent of God is absolutely crucial to an understanding of relgion, as it informs us that being religious is about fidelity to God.

God thus transforms the human condition from being one of living without work or woe in an earthly paradise to one in which, expelled from Eden men are condemned to a life of hard work, and women to menstruation and painful childbirth. It is as if humans, toiling under these pressures said to themselves: 'what have we done to deserve this?'. Original sin was the answer. It is an attempt by early, literate human society to explain the human condition, it may not suit your needs today but it was a key part of social order c1500BCE.

[martin48]

Now, I'm even more confused. It's all allegorical.

“She’s as headstrong as an allegory on the banks of the Nile” - Mrs. Malaprop.

Now I've got to wait two weeks for Trish to tell me the errors in my thinking ;)



I would’ve thought the allegorical nature of the tales were as evident to Martin as to anyone else, given they are all stories of depicting the acts of an imaginary being and are aimed toward the goal of teaching us moral lessons.

But what morals do they teach? That generations of your enemies children should be punished for the transgressions of their ancestors? True, our children and grandchildren will pay for our short sightedness in dealing with our global environment. But that’s not the lesson of Adam and Eve’s expulsion from the Garden. They didn’t mismanage their resources. They didn’t war with their neighbors. Their expulsion wasn’t entailed by their actions; it was a sentence placed upon them and their children and their children’s children ad nauseum by a mighty and just god. The tale, which after all was written down and propagated by priests, teaches us that its just to mete out punishments to people who disobey their priests.

The same criticism applies to other “allegories” as well. Sure, not everyone was killed in the flood. Not even everyone in the Middle East at the time. Floods happen. Sometimes they are a result of human mismanagement. Unmaintained flood walls, misplaced reservoirs, building on the flood plain etc. But that’s not what the story of the flood teaches. It would have us believe those people deserved to die. Why? For not showing Jehovah (again a story written down and propagated by priests) sufficient respect. What kind of sick allegory would teach that such a sentence was just? Perhaps one that aimed to establish the political power of a priesthood over a bronze age people.

(As always, enjoying the discussion. If after today I don’t reply for a couple of weeks it’s not because I lost interest, but ‘cause I’ll likely be out of touch for awhile.)

[trish]

Now, I'm even more confused. It's all allegorical.

“She’s as headstrong as an allegory on the banks of the Nile” - Mrs. Malaprop.

Now I've got to wait two weeks for Trish to tell me the errors in my thinking ;)I'm still here today. Nothing wrong with your thinking that I can see. Interpret them as allegories or take them literally, either way "the things that you're libel to read in the Bible, they ain't necessarily so."

[Stavros]

I'm rather proud of my "lack of intellectual imagination". I only quote from the Bible, if I take what it says literally then I'm behaving no worse (and no better) than many Christians. But if I should "interpret" in some undefined way, then I assume there are many uncharted and undefined ways of doing this. I could interpret it all as complete tosh.

So "God thus transforms the human condition from being one of living without work or woe in an earthly paradise to one in which, expelled from Eden men are condemned to a life of hard work, and women to menstruation and painful childbirth. " I thank him - nice one!

Oh, by "c1500BCE", do you believe that the World was created on October 23, 4004 BCE (just after 9 am)? What happened in the first 2,500 years? I'm confused.

Martin

Martin, I wasn't being rude, I was suggesting that a man of your intelligence could at least look at this issue in the context of the history of ideas. Given the important role that religion has played in the history of human societies, I don't think it is unfair to ask that we take a detached view in order to ask what it means, rather than to either ridicule it or dismiss it as tosh or fantasy because we don't agree with it. People who believe the word of the Bible are entitled to, and probably do it for emotional, rather than spiritual reasons. And I offered a date somewhere beyond the for the sake of the argument. And, having decided to give Satan a starring role in your parody, you could at least acknowledge that he (or she, or it) was not in the Garden of Eden...

[Stavros]

I would’ve thought the allegorical nature of the tales were as evident to Martin as to anyone else, given they are all stories of depicting the acts of an imaginary being and are aimed toward the goal of teaching us moral lessons.

But what morals do they teach? That generations of your enemy's children should be punished for the transgressions of their ancestors? True, our children and grandchildren will pay for our short sightedness in dealing with our global environment. But that’s not the lesson of Adam and Eve’s expulsion from the Garden. They didn’t mismanage their resources. They didn’t war with their neighbors. Their expulsion wasn’t entailed by their actions; it was a sentence placed upon them and their children and their children’s children ad nauseum by a mighty and just god. The tale, which after all was written down and propagated by priests, teaches us that it's just to mete out punishments to people who disobey their priests.

The same criticism applies to other “allegories” as well. Sure, not everyone was killed in the flood. Not even everyone in the Middle East at the time. Floods happen. Sometimes they are a result of human mismanagement. Unmaintained flood walls, misplaced reservoirs, building on the flood plain etc. But that’s not what the story of the flood teaches. It would have us believe those people deserved to die. Why? For not showing Jehovah (again a story written down and propagated by priests) sufficient respect. What kind of sick allegory would teach that such a sentence was just? Perhaps one that aimed to establish the political power of a priesthood over a bronze age people.

(As always, enjoying the discussion. If after today I don’t reply for a couple of weeks it’s not because I lost interest, but ‘cause I’ll likely be out of touch for awhile.)

Afore ye go: Trish, look at in the context of human societies trying to develop the legal means to maintain social order in a precarious environment prone to drought, flood, scarcity, abundance -look at it in the context of a world view in which supernatural forces are very real and explain what happens, even what you see -what we call ancient civilisations did not have the benefit of science as we do today, and all those rules, even what you might want to call phobias, had a rational explanation. The legacy is in a myriad of tales, poems, narratives, but also in a fundamental way in law. Today we don't need to be told God will be angry for our sins, and yet people do have morals and make moral judgements, even if not in the context of religion.
There but a spectre, go we all.

[buttslinger]

I would’ve thought the allegorical nature of the tales were as evident to Martin as to anyone else, given they are all stories of depicting the acts of an imaginary being and are aimed toward the goal of teaching us moral lessons.


God is not an imaginary being. Don't take my word for it. Unless Buddha, Jesus, and Mohammad were all the greatest practical jokers of all time, there is a God that is the goal. All roads lead to Rome and all lives lead to God.

If you have a job, a house, like to chase skirts, I personally wouldn't recommend moving into a Monastery. But I would recommend crack cocaine, if you love to cum, a good rock is 10 times as good!!

[trish]

Afore ye go: Trish, look at in the context of human societies trying to develop the legal means to maintain social order in a precarious environment prone to drought, flood, scarcity, abundance -look at it in the context of a world view in which supernatural forces are very real and explain what happens, even what you see -what we call ancient civilisations did not have the benefit of science as we do today, and all those rules, even what you might want to call phobias, had a rational explanation. The legacy is in a myriad of tales, poems, narratives, but also in a fundamental way in law. Today we don't need to be told God will be angry for our sins, and yet people do have morals and make moral judgements, even if not in the context of religion.
There but a spectre, go we all.It’s not difficult to understand the appeal of religion to bronze age peoples, nor the political and social stability religious belief provides to the monarch and the priests know how to exploit it. One might even be able to explain how this prohibition had a modicum of survival value or that ritual worked to stabilize the body politic. The difficulty I have is understanding why people today find those stories particularly instructive, especially morally. They obviously fail as scientific explanations, but just as obviously they often fail miserably at being morally instructive. One might get better instruction watching Breaking Bad.

[trish]

God is not an imaginary being. Don't take my word for it. Unless Buddha, Jesus, and Mohammad were all the greatest practical jokers of all time,Why should I take their word for it? Jokers or suckers, the voices in their heads aren't anymore believable than the voices in the head of David Berkowitz.

[Dino Velvet]

Why should I take their word for it? Jokers or suckers, the voices in their heads aren't anymore believable than the voices in the head of David Berkowitz.

Son Of Sam is now Son Of Hope. He listens to the voice of God in the Heavens now turning away from the Labrador Retriever who formerly was his Good Shepherd.

[buttslinger]

Why should I take their word for it? Jokers or suckers, the voices in their heads aren't anymore believable than the voices in the head of David Berkowitz.

Yeah, you're probably right..........

[martin48]

You are right Satan is not mentioned in Genesis - in fact he seems to be rather a minor character in the whole story. Yes, my post was a "parody" (must remember Amercians don't usually get irony). I agree that where we are today - our moral norms, our laws, our societal structures - all owe much to religion; but it doesn't make it true or that it is the right path to follow.

The future of humankind is in our hands and not in the hands of a deity.




Martin, I wasn't being rude, I was suggesting that a man of your intelligence could at least look at this issue in the context of the history of ideas. Given the important role that religion has played in the history of human societies, I don't think it is unfair to ask that we take a detached view in order to ask what it means, rather than to either ridicule it or dismiss it as tosh or fantasy because we don't agree with it. People who believe the word of the Bible are entitled to, and probably do it for emotional, rather than spiritual reasons. And I offered a date somewhere beyond the for the sake of the argument. And, having decided to give Satan a starring role in your parody, you could at least acknowledge that he (or she, or it) was not in the Garden of Eden...

[martin48]

God is not an imaginary being. Don't take my word for it. Unless Buddha, Jesus, and Mohammad were all the greatest practical jokers of all time, there is a God that is the goal. All roads lead to Rome and all lives lead to God.



Buddha rejected the existence of a deity, refused to endorse many views on creation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism#cite_note-3)and stated that questions on the origin of the world are not ultimately useful for ending suffering. So we are down to two.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism#cite_note-5)

[yodajazz]

It’s not difficult to understand the appeal of religion to bronze age peoples, nor the political and social stability religious belief provides to the monarch and the priests know how to exploit it. One might even be able to explain how this prohibition had a modicum of survival value or that ritual worked to stabilize the body politic. The difficulty I have is understanding why people today find those stories particularly instructive, especially morally. They obviously fail as scientific explanations, but just as obviously they often fail miserably at being morally instructive. One might get better instruction watching Breaking Bad.

Once a person goes beyond self interest, to family community, etc, I don't see any major system besides religion, that promotes a universal treatment of others. Yes religions, often fall short of this, but compared to the next largest natural human grouping, nations, they are much more benign. It is reality nations, that promote the most wars, for the major example WW II, with over 50 million casualties. They often are the catalyst for change within nations. For example, the struggle to end slavery in the US was led religious people on moral grounds. Some people today are making money, the new god. They say technology would have freed the slaves, making them economically obsolete. The issue with the money god, is that unfair business practices can get minimized.

I see many examples cited here of God doing this or that. I see that as mostly someone trying to explain/understand why certain bad thing happen to people. These are minor, compared to greater principles that are often expressed in the Bible, or the Koran, for that matter. Those principles never change, people are just failing to understand, what they are. And unfortunately this also includes, some religious leadership. Then again there are also examples of this, in the Bible.

[yodajazz]

....

The future of humankind is in our hands and not in the hands of a deity.

I think most religious people would agree with this. But they would believe, that following a path with guidance from God, would help to lead mankind on a more productive path, and consider the good of all. Have you ever done any for of meditation?

[Stavros]

You are right Satan is not mentioned in Genesis - in fact he seems to be rather a minor character in the whole story. Yes, my post was a "parody" (must remember Amercians don't usually get irony). I agree that where we are today - our moral norms, our laws, our societal structures - all owe much to religion; but it doesn't make it true or that it is the right path to follow.

The future of humankind is in our hands and not in the hands of a deity.

But this is the pivot on which so much of religion rest: people are given, as it were, the 'rule book' or 'Instruction Manual' yet the actual observance of 'the book', and the actual behaviour that constitutes an individual life, is entirely human. That someone does, or does not believe in the 'ultimate' judgement of that life by God (or doesn't care), separates the religious from the secular, except, as I understand it in Buddhism.

[Stavros]

Once a person goes beyond self interest, to family community, etc, I don't see any major system besides religion, that promotes a universal treatment of others.

Socialism, Yodajass -offers a universal view of life on earth as something that we produce together, consume together, and should therefore share together. In this country -and it relates to disparate communities in England, Scotland, and Wales, the socialist movement had roots in the non-established churches which were often just a group of workers in a small town or village meeting in someone's room, but whose sense of community was more egalitarian than the one they perceived to be ordered by the Church of England with its hierarchy of priests and its structural relationship to the state/monarchy. A powerful sense of fair play and justice derived from the life of Jesus informed the daily lives of people who laboured, yet were poor; who served the state, yet received little in kind. It is quite different from what Frederick Engels claimed was the 'scientific socialism' of his friend Karl Marx, whose impatience with religion has been handed down in the epithet 'religion is the opium of the people'. Far from it in this country where it played an instrumental role in the formation of the Labour Party in 1900, most of whose leaders have been committed Christians who believed they had a duty above all to tackle poverty -the one exception, Tony Blair, never having known the reality of the wars and economic depressions of the first 50 years of the century which were so important to an earlier generation, even though his own professed Christianity was kept 'under wraps' by his Press Secretary Alastair Campbell who said of the Labour Govt 'we don't do God' (in fact the issue was to conceal Blair's fidelity to the Roman Catholic church as the Prime Minister of the UK cannot be Catholic).

It is a curious thing that early socialists often used Christian imagery when talking about the world they wanted to live in. The mystical, radical poet William Blake wrote in one of the most famous-and most misunderstood- poems in our language of Jerusalem re-built in 'England's green and pleasant land', having first produced two verses of bristling sarcasm as if the industrial landscape emerging at that time was incompatible with a perfect society; and this sense of a place of equality and justice became an important theme in much socialist literature. And when it is not an image of heaven on earth to soothe away the pain of long hours for little pay and no real freedom, it becomes (in another poem on Jerusalem) an image of ultimate liberation:


I Give you the end of a golden string;
Only wind it into a ball,
It will lead you in at Heaven’s gate,
Built in Jerusalem’s wall…

[SammiValentine]

mega mark verses giant gospel according to luke???

on syfy this sunday!!!!!!!!

[buttslinger]

It's pretty obvious who has read a book around here, I can't re-find my verse in the Bible, maybe I dreamed it, but it went something like this:

The Apostles and Jesus were hanging out talking, when one of the Apostles quizzes Jesus-
"We've followed your rules, we love God, and we love our neighbor, so how come we can't heal the sick or perform miracles?"
"Those things can only be achieved through prayer"

[buttslinger]

You are right Satan is not mentioned in Genesis -.

My friend actually took me over to the Satan's house, I remember it was a cold day. I thought the little brother was FAR worse than Lucifer. Their Mom was out so we smoked some really good weed and drank ice water. They had a nice crib, but it was like a sauna in there.

[yodajazz]

Socialism, Yodajass -offers a universal view of life on earth as something that we produce together, consume together, and should therefore share together. ....

You make a good point. However religion with their churches, give a direct sense of community, dealing with everyday issues, and individual situations. Ministers can serve as private counselors etc. But you make a good point.

[buttslinger]

There is a Society in England that gets together, at least there used to be, and they are all Bible Scholars to some extent, and they take each red verse in the New Testament that Jesus said, and they discuss it, trying to decide if it is something Jesus actually said, or something some guy SAID he said. All of the words of Jesus were written secondhand, after all.
I may have said this before.
"Give unto Caesar" ...that is solid Jesus. But there are some verses that are questionable.
One of my Professors in Collidge told my class this, and I wondered to myself if Jesus didn't have off days, or if being WISE meant you were locked in to a permanent wisdom from which you can't fall back, or if wisdom is a universal finite wisdom, or if it comes in flavors. I know there are all kinds of smart and stupid, but I didn't think you and some other guys could sit down and grade another guy on his wisdom. God is Universal, but only to some.

[Jamie Michelle]

Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Kill Witches
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

Kill Homosexuals
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Kill Fortunetellers
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Death for Hitting Dad
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

Death for Cursing Parents
1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

Death for Adultery
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

Death for Fornication
A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

Death to Followers of Other Religions
Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

Kill Nonbelievers
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Kill False Prophets
If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night
But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

Kill Followers of Other Religions.
1)If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

2) Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)

Death for Blasphemy
One day a man who had an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father got into a fight with one of the Israelite men. During the fight, this son of an Israelite woman blasphemed the LORD's name. So the man was brought to Moses for judgment. His mother's name was Shelomith. She was the daughter of Dibri of the tribe of Dan. They put the man in custody until the LORD's will in the matter should become clear. Then the LORD said to Moses, "Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and tell all those who heard him to lay their hands on his head. Then let the entire community stone him to death. Say to the people of Israel: Those who blaspheme God will suffer the consequences of their guilt and be punished. Anyone who blasphemes the LORD's name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel. Any Israelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the LORD's name will surely die. (Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT)

Kill False Prophets
1) Suppose there are prophets among you, or those who have dreams about the future, and they promise you signs or miracles, and the predicted signs or miracles take place. If the prophets then say, 'Come, let us worship the gods of foreign nations,' do not listen to them. The LORD your God is testing you to see if you love him with all your heart and soul. Serve only the LORD your God and fear him alone. Obey his commands, listen to his voice, and cling to him. The false prophets or dreamers who try to lead you astray must be put to death, for they encourage rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of slavery in the land of Egypt. Since they try to keep you from following the LORD your God, you must execute them to remove the evil from among you. (Deuteronomy 13:1-5 NLT)

2) But any prophet who claims to give a message from another god or who falsely claims to speak for me must die.' You may wonder, 'How will we know whether the prophecy is from the LORD or not?' If the prophet predicts something in the LORD's name and it does not happen, the LORD did not give the message. That prophet has spoken on his own and need not be feared. (Deuteronomy 18:20-22 NLT)

Infidels and Gays Should Die
So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other's bodies. Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever. Amen. That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved. When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, fighting, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They are forever inventing new ways of sinning and are disobedient to their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, and are heartless and unforgiving. They are fully aware of God's death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway. And, worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too. (Romans 1:24-32 NLT)

Kill Anyone who Approaches the Tabernacle
For the LORD had said to Moses, 'Exempt the tribe of Levi from the census; do not include them when you count the rest of the Israelites. You must put the Levites in charge of the Tabernacle of the Covenant, along with its furnishings and equipment. They must carry the Tabernacle and its equipment as you travel, and they must care for it and camp around it. Whenever the Tabernacle is moved, the Levites will take it down and set it up again. Anyone else who goes too near the Tabernacle will be executed.' (Numbers 1:48-51 NLT)

Kill People for Working on the Sabbath
The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)

You can find more verses here.


http://www.evilbible.com/

Hi, Silcc69. For the answer to your above issues, see 7.4.2: "God’s Relation to the Old Testament", pp. 46 ff. of my following article (published under my legal name):

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1741424 bytes, MD5: 8f7b21ee1e236fc2fbb22b4ee4bbd4cb. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEveryth ing , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://alphaomegapoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/redford-physics-of-god.pdf , http://sites.google.com/site/physicotheism/home/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf

Additionally, in the below resource are six sections which contain very informative videos of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler explaining the Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) of God's existence per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), which is also required by the known laws of physics. The seventh section therein contains an audio interview of Tipler.

A number of these videos are not otherwise online. I also provide some helpful notes and commentary for some of these videos.

James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk@4ax.com , 30 Jul 2013 00:51:55 -0400. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo , http://archive.is/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS The plain text of this post is available at: TXT, 42423 bytes, MD5: b199e867e42d54b2b8bf6adcb4127761. http://mirrorcreator.com/files/JCFTZSS8/ , http://ge.tt/3lOTVbp

[yodajazz]

There is a Society in England that gets together, at least there used to be, and they are all Bible Scholars to some extent, and they take each red verse in the New Testament that Jesus said, and they discuss it, trying to decide if it is something Jesus actually said, or something some guy SAID he said. All of the words of Jesus were written secondhand, after all.
I may have said this before.
"Give unto Caesar" ...that is solid Jesus. But there are some verses that are questionable.
One of my Professors in Collidge told my class this, and I wondered to myself if Jesus didn't have off days, or if being WISE meant you were locked in to a permanent wisdom from which you can't fall back, or if wisdom is a universal finite wisdom, or if it comes in flavors. I know there are all kinds of smart and stupid, but I didn't think you and some other guys could sit down and grade another guy on his wisdom. God is Universal, but only to some.

A monthly magazine I read, had a column from a scholar name Rocco Errico. He a scholar in the actual language Jesus spoke, as well as other related language. There were some idioms of the time. Republicans least favorite saying of Jesus is: "It's harder for a rich man to get into heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle." Rocco said in an article that the "Eye of the needle"hy, was a the name a specific mountain passage. It was supposed to be difficult but not impossible for camels to do.

One idiom I read about, in related Semitic culture, was a term called 'natural born eunuch'. This meant gay, and t people, I suppose, that were not attracted to females, by nature of their feelings from birth. Jesus said, "Some are born that way, and some were made that way by men" as he was answering a question about eunuchs. It doesn't seem to me, that he would be referring about a rare birth condition, in light of the idiom's meaning. The ones made by men, were done sometimes to prisoners of war. And certain professions required this, such as those guarding royal women's quarters. Jesus ended the passage saying, "Them that understand, should accept it".
(later translations after King James version). Jesus then is clearly in disagreement, with the "God hates Gays" crowd.

[Stavros]

You make a good point. However religion with their churches, give a direct sense of community, dealing with everyday issues, and individual situations. Ministers can serve as private counselors etc. But you make a good point.

Sorry, Yoda but I think that the egalitarian component of socialism undermines the authority of churches and ministers -indeed a signal failure for many in the development of Christianity has been, quite precisely, the way in which churches, ministers and popes have become an institution creating its own rule book, its own hierarchies, appearing to become distant from the core message of the Gospels. This might not happen in small communities (but small communities can be oppressive in their own way), and the Quakers don't have a priestly order to dole out advice and punishment. Socialism is supposed to live and breathe through co-operation, yet in those cases where it too developed into an institution, it was seen to fail, and fail rather badly...perhaps human societies cannot organise themselves without creating hierarchies?

Your point in the other reply about Eunuchs is I think a slippage of terminology -there may have been an ancient word for the 'intersexed' who have always existed, but a 'Eunuch' is a man-made creature...

[yodajazz]

Sorry, Yoda but I think that the egalitarian component of socialism undermines the authority of churches and ministers -indeed a signal failure for many in the development of Christianity has been, quite precisely, the way in which churches, ministers and popes have become an institution creating its own rule book, its own hierarchies, appearing to become distant from the core message of the Gospels. This might not happen in small communities (but small communities can be oppressive in their own way), and the Quakers don't have a priestly order to dole out advice and punishment. Socialism is supposed to live and breathe through co-operation, yet in those cases where it too developed into an institution, it was seen to fail, and fail rather badly...perhaps human societies cannot organise themselves without creating hierarchies?

Your point in the other reply about Eunuchs is I think a slippage of terminology -there may have been an ancient word for the 'intersexed' who have always existed, but a 'Eunuch' is a man-made creature...

No slippage here, about the passage saying "some are born that way" especially when looking at the larger context of the passage from Mathew 19th chapter. The verse where Christ says "male and female, he (God) made them." has been used by some to justify discrimination of gender variants. Not only was 'natural born eunuchs' a phrase used during the time, but they were also recognized by Roman Law according to this reference:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100630140306AA2SG9y
(See Tim A). Of course many don't interpret Jesus's passage as referring to 'gender variants'. This is why his open sentence in the verse is key: "all cannot accept this saying, but only unto those it has been given", (Mathew 19:11). Some people just cant understand. If that's not the truth, I don't know what is. Just to be clear, I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about people that cant accept gender variance.

[buttslinger]

ALL you guys are too worried about mixing it up, let's ROCK!!!! I kind of insulted Trish, and I love her!!!

I thought socialism was totally about commerce. I think the original Lloyd's of London, group insurance of sailing ships, was a great combination of communism and capitalism. It worked.

As far as Jesus as a eunuch, some yogis can be serious cocksmen, but I don't think any of the spiritual heavyhitters chased skirts. they shoot that sexual energy up their spine through their brains, for the big payoff. So in that respect, all Men of God have limp dicks.

When Alexander the Great got to India, he talked about running into "gymnast philosophers" which were the devotees of Buddha. Jesus considered himself a hard-core Jew, but I don't think there's any doubt he was heavy into the Jewish version of yoga and breathing exercises and meditation.

I think if Jesus were alive today, he'd shake his head at what passes for religion today, just like the old Jesus updated a lot of the old Jewish hokum when he was alive, he changed a lot of that "eye for an eye" stuff. Buddha had a camp that was closed for the season in winter, everybody would retire for heavy duty soul searching on their own, but in the summer anybody could come up to him and discuss anything that vexed them, but yes, there was a lot he wouldn't discuss if it strayed from the path of salvation.
Theres's a funny story about a wife and kids showing up demanding Buddha give back their husband and dad, who Buddha had seduced away from them, and he ended up going back with his family. I guess salvation isn't for everybody.

You must admit, even after two and a half thousand years, Jesus and Buddha had some terrific one liners. Like the Henny Youngman of their time.

[Dino Velvet]

I think if Jesus were alive today, he'd shake his head at what passes for religion today

Heck yeah. I tell my family all the time how The Catholic Church has made a mockery out of God. I'm too much of a goon to them so they continue going to the fetish costume party every Sunday. I actually love my family and will never give up my crusade. My cousin's sons need to be rescued from the people who saved them. They're young and impressionable but also very bright with infinite potential. No reason for them to be harnessed by fear and insecurity.

I'm not trying to take God away from anybody. Just the shackles and domination of man.

[Dino Velvet]

Another thing about priests. Who would take advice from a biological retard who has no understanding of his own wiener? If you are a man, why would you ever prop up another man(especially one as this) above you in front of your own wife and children in your own home?

[buttslinger]

I used to come down hard on my Church until my Dad died, the Pastor and the Church show up in full force during Family Emergencies, and the Catholics really take good care of their people at the end. And Dino, I know Jesus talked with whores as equal souls, but, uh, you're going to have a tough time convincing St Peter that you hung out with hoes because you asked yourself "What would Jesus do?"
My friend came up to me during my Baptism and pulled me away, before it was over, it turned out, and the Pastor called my sister by the wrong name, so I'm not even sure if we'll get in Heaven or not.

[Dino Velvet]

I used to come down hard on my Church until my Dad died, the Pastor and the Church show up in full force during Family Emergencies, and the Catholics really take good care of their people at the end. And Dino, I know Jesus talked with whores as equal souls, but, uh, you're going to have a tough time convincing St Peter that you hung out with hoes because you asked yourself "What would Jesus do?"
My friend came up to me during my Baptism and pulled me away, before it was over, it turned out, and the Pastor called my sister by the wrong name, so I'm not even sure if we'll get in Heaven or not.

I learned a lot from my mother dying never asking for God's hand once. I would have beheaded the priest that attempted to intrude.

I went to Catholic School and know nuns and priests as a mixed bag. They are also owned people maybe partially not aware of the evil they have joined hands with. The awareness is key for the level of accountability to be held.

God is God and if he exists he looks after the innocent possibly punishing the guilty too.

[Stavros]

No slippage here, about the passage saying "some are born that way" especially when looking at the larger context of the passage from Mathew 19th chapter. The verse where Christ says "male and female, he (God) made them." has been used by some to justify discrimination of gender variants. Not only was 'natural born eunuchs' a phrase used during the time, but they were also recognized by Roman Law according to this reference:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100630140306AA2SG9y
(See Tim A). Of course many don't interpret Jesus's passage as referring to 'gender variants'. This is why his open sentence in the verse is key: "all cannot accept this saying, but only unto those it has been given", (Mathew 19:11). Some people just cant understand. If that's not the truth, I don't know what is. Just to be clear, I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about people that cant accept gender variance.

At the risk of being considered pedantic, the word 'Eunuch' in the Bible appears to be a translation from Aramaic into Greek of the word 'Saris'. The quote from Matthew does not mention Eunuchs in the sense in which I understand it, where a part or all of the male genitals have been removed -most commonly the testicles. Eunuchs did exist in ancient societies and that is where I probably misled you, and their function was to mediate between men and women where spaces were segregated, in a place of religious worship, a palace -since they were a form of servant they would appear to be available only to the higher reaches of the state or religion. If anything, the Matthew quote may actually be more accurately referring to the intersexed and thus the key point you make remains completely valid.

[buttslinger]

When I went to Sunday School I hated that scratchy suit, and all the kids there tried real hard to prove they weren't sunday school sissies.
A close friend of mine was Irish-Catholic, and his little brother died in a drunk driving accident four days before Christmas, seventeen years old. My friend, his sister, and lots of my other friends had been semi-complicient by kinda aiding and abetting his drinking lifestyle, the Mother LITERALLY went to the nuthouse later. My friend was out in the yard pulling up trees from the ground, lots of heavy drinking, and after bad-talking the Church for years he went in to confess to the Priest. His sister was actually more emotional usually and she sat still and quiet, making me even more nervous. My friends and I all turned Catholic for that period, going to Mass and stuff. They say nobody really is afraid to die, it's the people around them they fear for.

[martin48]

I think you briefly spoke of this before, Jamie




Hi, Silcc69. For the answer to your above issues, see 7.4.2: "God’s Relation to the Old Testament", pp. 46 ff. of my following article (published under my legal name):

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1741424 bytes, MD5: 8f7b21ee1e236fc2fbb22b4ee4bbd4cb. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEveryth ing , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://alphaomegapoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/redford-physics-of-god.pdf , http://sites.google.com/site/physicotheism/home/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf

Additionally, in the below resource are six sections which contain very informative videos of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler explaining the Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) of God's existence per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), which is also required by the known laws of physics. The seventh section therein contains an audio interview of Tipler.

A number of these videos are not otherwise online. I also provide some helpful notes and commentary for some of these videos.

James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk@4ax.com , 30 Jul 2013 00:51:55 -0400. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo , http://archive.is/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS The plain text of this post is available at: TXT, 42423 bytes, MD5: b199e867e42d54b2b8bf6adcb4127761. http://mirrorcreator.com/files/JCFTZSS8/ , http://ge.tt/3lOTVbp

[martin48]

Enjoy the following - it may only be allegorical, if not ..... shit!




Revelation 9:7-19




7 The locusts looked like horses prepared for battle. On their heads they wore something like crowns of gold, and their faces resembled human faces.

8 Their hair was like women’s hair, and their teeth were like lions’ teeth.

9 They had breastplates like breastplates of iron, and the sound of their wings was like the thundering of many horses and chariots rushing into battle.

10 They had tails with stingers, like scorpions, and in their tails they had power to torment people for five months.

11 They had as king over them the angel of the Abyss, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon and in Greek is Apollyon (that is, Destroyer).
12 The first woe is past; two other woes are yet to come.
13 The sixth angel sounded his trumpet, and I heard a voice coming from the four horns of the golden altar that is before God.

14 It said to the sixth angel who had the trumpet, “Release the four angels who are bound at the great river Euphrates.”

15 And the four angels who had been kept ready for this very hour and day and month and year were released to kill a third of mankind.

16 The number of the mounted troops was twice ten thousand times ten thousand. I heard their number.
17 The horses and riders I saw in my vision looked like this: Their breastplates were fiery red, dark blue, and yellow as sulfur. The heads of the horses resembled the heads of lions, and out of their mouths came fire, smoke and sulfur.

18 A third of mankind was killed by the three plagues of fire, smoke and sulfur that came out of their mouths.

19 The power of the horses was in their mouths and in their tails; for their tails were like snakes, having heads with which they inflict injury.

[buttslinger]

I remember seeing an R. Crumb comic probably around 1980, and the 60s were long gone, and he was saying that when his Dad and his friends got together, they would talk about WW II, but when he and his friends got together they would talk about old acid trips.

In Biblical times, they didn't have a Public Library where you could pick up a couple Philip K Dick paperbacks, they didn't have movie theatres where you could see wide screen Spielberg, life was pretty brutal. But I'm sure whenever the boys got together with a lambskin of wine, they'd try to out-do each other with the best stories.

I think a lot of the fantastic stuff from the Old Testament was Mystic stuff, the old version of getting high as a kite, I think most people here remember how whack pot smokers seemed until you tried some yourself, then it suddenly makes sense. Everybody knows the story of Adam and Eve, maybe it is the story of each individual's journey as a child, in Kid Heaven, when life was brand new and anything was possible, then as you develop into a kid, you enter a world of pain, Nodsville. Damn REALITY.

Maybe when you get old in your Adult diapers you'll have Revelations, in your sleepy half awake state, when your own mortality is in sight and closing fast.

One time home on Christmas break I found some mescaline in a friend's drawer left over from summer. I took it and smoked a J of Columbo, I didn't know mescaline broke down into poison. I had to go out and sit in the car, and the entire world was falling UP, I was going down into Alice's rabbit hole. I think a lot of Alice in Wonderland was about a mathematician getting high on the poison of his day. Does Alice in Wonderland make any sense?

[martin48]

Does Lewis Carroll make sense?

"Was brillig and the slithy toves,
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe."

What's wrong with that?

Is Alice in Wonderland really about drugs? Check out www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19254839

Certainly lots of great literature has been written under the influence.

Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote his most famous poem, Kubla Khan, after an opium-influenced dream

"In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure-dome decree:
Where Alph, the sacred river, ran
Through caverns measureless to man
Down to a sunless sea.
So twice five miles of fertile ground
With walls and towers were girdled round;
And there were gardens bright with sinuous rills,
Where blossomed many an incense-bearing tree;
And here were forests ancient as the hills,
Enfolding sunny spots of greenery."

[Stavros]

Enjoy the following - it may only be allegorical, if not ..... shit!
Revelation 9:7-19


Revelation is a sequence of warnings, not predictions. It works on the level of a mother chiding her son 'If you don't stop that I'll tell you father when he comes home!'. Floods, earthquakes, famine, pestilence, death, volcanic eruptions, wars -not hard to predict, and in an age when people believed supernatural forces were gods, the agenda for an emerging institution like the Church is ready-made. I wonder how many people, with or without religion believe if they do something 'bad' something 'bad' will happen to them...

[buttslinger]

There was a Tim Reid sitcom, Frank's Place, about a northern big city brotha who inherited a bar in New Orleans, and the show was about him getting thrown into a completely different world unto itself in the deep south.
In one episode, I think it's where he finally meets the family of this girl he likes, and they are an age-old black N.O. family of high repute, and he's around the dinner table with them, a great big family at a big table with silverware, china, and polite conversation, and Tim Reid is trying to appear deep and interesting, so he says
"They say some scholars consider Shakespeare to be higher literature than the Bible"
Time screeches to a halt and the Grande Matriarch of the family sends Tim an icy look that could kill.

The Bible sets itself up as an easy mark, proclaiming itself to be the word of God, and these churches that handle snakes or say condoms are sinful, hmm....

A thread about the verses of William Shakespeare, and what they mean, that might be a little trickier, we have the original text from the man himself, and his apostles in greasepaint, and every credible literary guy accepts Shakespeare as head and shoulders above any one else, so by trashing him you just look stupid.

I saw on another sitcom in which Shakespeare and Sir Francis Bacon were such drunken whoremungers, that whenever people saw them bopping down the street together after 4PM, they'd say
"Oh shit, looks like Shake and Bake are on a tear again"

[yodajazz]

Enjoy the following - it may only be allegorical, if not ..... shit!




Revelation 9:7-19




7 The locusts looked like horses prepared for battle. On their heads they wore something like crowns of gold, and their faces resembled human faces.

8 Their hair was like women’s hair, and their teeth were like lions’ teeth.

9 They had breastplates like breastplates of iron, and the sound of their wings was like the thundering of many horses and chariots rushing into battle.

10 They had tails with stingers, like scorpions, and in their tails they had power to torment people for five months.

11 They had as king over them the angel of the Abyss, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon and in Greek is Apollyon (that is, Destroyer).
12 The first woe is past; two other woes are yet to come.
13 The sixth angel sounded his trumpet, and I heard a voice coming from the four horns of the golden altar that is before God.

14 It said to the sixth angel who had the trumpet, “Release the four angels who are bound at the great river Euphrates.”

15 And the four angels who had been kept ready for this very hour and day and month and year were released to kill a third of mankind.

16 The number of the mounted troops was twice ten thousand times ten thousand. I heard their number.
17 The horses and riders I saw in my vision looked like this: Their breastplates were fiery red, dark blue, and yellow as sulfur. The heads of the horses resembled the heads of lions, and out of their mouths came fire, smoke and sulfur.

18 A third of mankind was killed by the three plagues of fire, smoke and sulfur that came out of their mouths.

19 The power of the horses was in their mouths and in their tails; for their tails were like snakes, having heads with which they inflict injury.


I have not been a great fan of the Book of Revelations. Seems to me that people deep into this book are so focused on the end times, the rest of the
Bible is unimportant. It's like their happy with wars, plagues, and the like, because this means Christ is closer to coming back to earth.

[martin48]

Second Sitting of the Last Supper


10cc The second sitting for the last supper - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru90B00ltOo)