The trouble with religion

[Big RR]

OK, which "facts"? If I'm wrong or mistaken I'd be happy to be corrected.

[Crackpot]

I can't find references for things that don't exist. Most of the things you list have references so tortured and drawn out that calling them biblically based is laughable (see blood transfusions and masturbation to name a couple on your list). The burden lies with the only making the claim (you)

[Rick]

Those witches were individuals that practiced precognition an art learned from the Egyptians. Sooth Sayers that tempted the favorites (at the time) of God and drew them away from his worship. It was something relevant to those under Mosaic Law those burned or otherwise killed were done in by those that wrested what they wanted from the scripture and fulfilled their own desires in the name of God.

They will answer

[dgs49]

Example: 2 Timothy 2:5
(KJV) “And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned except he strive lawfully.”

Basic English Bible: “And if a man takes part in a competition he does not get the crown if he has not kept the rules.”

Presented to me as, “Don’t waste your time doing exercise for exercise sake; you should only exercise as part of a game with rules, and according to those rules.” And the guy was serious. He believed that his exercise, playing basketball, was more biblically appropriate than my jogging.

[Rick]

However it has nothing to do with either. As stated if one does NOT that which is required one fails.

[Big RR]

Crackpot, re masturbation, I point out the story of Onan, slain by the Lord for spilling his seed on the ground:

Genesis 38: 8-10:
8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.

9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.

10 And the thing which he did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also.


Many have viewed this as a prohibition on masturbation (spilling seed on the ground), others as a prohibition on birth control, and it has been used as such. Indeed, the masturbation link is so well-known that onanism is used as a synonym for masturbation (check any good dictionary if you don't believe it.

Re blood transfusions, see the discussion on the JW belief in the threads below and the biblical verse(s) it is based on.

Am I saying these are proper or correct interpretations of the passages cited? Certainly not. But they are interpretations which have been used by some throughout history to justify their positions. Are they "tortured and drawn out "interpretations"? I guess it depends what side you're on. But you can't deny some have used chapter and verse of the bible to justify some pretty silly positions--from the existence of witches on down, which is the ONLY thing I am saying. Certainly one can disagree with those positions--and I disagree as well--but they are positions that have been taken throughout history.

Or, if you dispute that, tell me why. Start with the existence of witches or the case against masturbation and show my why no one has ever taken those positions to say that the word of the lord justifies their superstitions and stupidity.

[MajGenl.Meade]

OK Meade, I'll play. Exodus 22:18--Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. A 2 pointer there--it says that persons who are witches exist, and that it is proper to kill them as we should not let them live and go one doing their witchy things. Featured many time throughout history, including in Salem. Are there persons who have special powers as witches that we can, and should, freely do so? I don't think so, but past religious leaders insisted on it.

Good example to discuss. Do you have evidence that such persons as "witches" did not at any time live? I'll answer for you: no. So therefore the Biblical injunction (that certainly would have applied to the Witch of Endor), is or perhaps was at that time applicable. So the question there is not one of interpreting the Bible. It says what it says and it's a given. The question is interpreting whether person X is or is not a witch. This isn't interpretation but application. You and I will agree that in almost all cases it is incorrectly applied.

As to the rest, yes I've heard that people X justified their behaviour Y by reference to the Bible. But again, is it interpretation or application that is at issue? And if so, which Biblical verses are misapplied? I was hoping dgs or Liberty or whoever it was would back up the claim with some facts but evidently not

I appreciate your posts

Meade

[Big RR]

Meade--interpretation or application; does it really matter? The Onan story can be interpreted as an warning about the consequences of spilling ones seed on the ground, or it can be interpreted as a warning about what happens when the instructions of god (delivered through his prophet) are deliberately ignored. Likewise, it can also be misapplied, even if one accepts the masturbation connection, does this prohibit the collection of that seed for medical purposes? Is some masturbation wrong and some OK? I tend to subscribe to the misinterpretation side, but wither can achieve the same result.

As for witches, do you have evidence they lived at that time and are somehow now extinct? Or maybe was the term "witch" used to refer to something different than an evil woman (or man?), like someone who sought to ensnare and remove others from the will and plan of god? And did death mean capital punishment--like the hanging etc. visited on "witches" based in subsequent centuries, or did it mean something less drastic like shunning or expulsion from the community. Or was a witch not even a person, but a term from some impulse that turned you from god, and something you should kill within yourself--more of an allegory than a literal truth? I can't say, but I think the alternate interpretations make a lot more sense than saying witches existed at that time but don't exist today (maybe they were all killed?).

Just like we now understand that insane persons are mentally ill and not possessed by spirits (despite the accounts of jesus casting the spirits out), I think we can conclude that witches were a convention used at the time to describe something to the people in terms they could understand. And, as such, it does necessitate a revisiting of the teachings from time to time. IMHO, god still speaks to us and helps us to better understand the truth. As our knowledge of the natural universe is not static, our understanding of biblical passages should not be either.

[MajGenl.Meade]

מכשׁפה לא תחיה׃

A lot of interpreting could go on there! "Spell not live" is probably as close as one can get (anyone?) - indicating that one who casts spells is not to live. You can go to Leviticus and find that both male and female sorcerers are equally condemned. The practise involved appears to be using or manipulating spirits.

Note that Saul clearly disobeys God in consulting the witch of Endor, who summons up the purported shade of Samuel. And, yes the witch of Endor IS evidence that there was at least one witch in those days and 2 Kin. 9:22 says that Jezebel was also (bad publicity maybe); Manasseh another (male), then there's SImon and Elymas. And although I am sceptical, I can put you on to any number of people here who are convinced that they personally know people who use and manipulate spirits - call them witches, or sorcerers, or ju-ju men or muthi-men or sangoma or whatever. Deuteronomy 18:10–11 is pretty all inclusive

Your point is well taken - we both agree that given the drive to do so, men could interpret Noddy in Toyland or Debbie Does Dallas to satisfy their own inclinations. I'm pretty sure Gob's done some work on that one

Again I was trying to get dgs to post substance - I already knew you could!

Meade

Added:
PS yes I think there is a diff between interpretation and application. Onan surely did not masturbate but pulled out, spilling his seed. However, one can interpret it either way and it makes no difference - he disobeyed God, which is the point. The true error is in application when a church or person applies that to other people (than Onan) to say that THEY are disobeying God by engaging in either activity. It's the same as when preachers say that God promised he has plans for us, plans to prosper us and not to hurt us AND SO ALL WILL BE WELL. But THAT promise was made to Israel in captivity as a people - not to individuals - and it certainly did not mean that all those Israelites were going to go home and have new Rolls Royces all round and THEREFORE so are we brother, allelujah! Now I don't doubt that salvation is a plan that prospers us - but we only get there by dying here. Not the application that so many love to (incorrectly) use.

[Big RR]

Actually one of my favorites comes from the commandment (of the 10) against adultery. From about the time we first began to notice the opposite sex, it was drilled into our heads that this commandment also forbid us to have any sex before marriage. Trouble is, that's not adultery, it's fornication. And the bible is full of passages where adulterers and fornicators are mentioned separately in indicating that many who wrote the passages knew that adulterers and fornicators were two different things.

Now I will agree I never looked into the Hebrew roots of the words used in the oldest texts, but taking it at some of the earliest English translations (like the KJV), I do see this difference. And while fornication might well be condemned, it is not adultery. But it's stronger to say that one of the commandments on the tablets used to make the Arc of the Covenant (the same arc that killed a man (or drew the fire of god) for even touching it) prohibits premarital sex, which IMHO, is why this teaching persisted (and something that got me into a bit of hot water for openly questioning it in sunday school).

[Scooter]

It's also important to recognize that what was meant by adultery at that time was having sex with another man's wife. Period. Adultery was a sin against another man for having violated his property rights. There was no concept that having sex with another woman was any sort of offence to one's own wife. And fornication was only a sin if the woman was a virgin. Not a sin against her, but against her father, for leaving him with "damaged goods" that would be almost impossible to marry off.

[Big RR]

Scooter--while I don't know traditional Judaic law, that certainly describes the western view of adultery; and I think the real concern was to have one's wife bear another man's child that might be raised as his own (or not be sure whose the child is). And in a world where there was no real test for paternity, that concern is understandable (even if it is silly). Even the word adultery stems from a latin word meaning contaminate or pollute, a man's lineage could be contaminated forever by another's sperm/child. Which is probably why Solomon had 900 (or was it 600?) wives, but those wives each had only one husband and would bear only his offspring. In a male dominated society where women really didn't matter, that's what happens.

As for fornication, I'm unsure. Certainly the father could have a cause of action against you for "damaging" his daughter and leaving him saddled with her, but I also think the debauching of a young maiden was something seen as a sin/crime in and of itself (unless the woman were of a lower class than the debaucher), although maybe more a crime against the ideal of virginity, not the woman herself. But again, young men were never "debauched" by women.

[RayThom]

Believe what you choose to believe and, guaranteed, in the end we'll all spend eternity in the same place. Hallelujah!

http://www.ranker.com/list/top-20-bible ... ivana-wynn

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Debunk ... /Page6.htm

[MajGenl.Meade]

It’s certainly true that the commandment “You shall not commit adultery” refers only to a situation in which one or both parties are married. “Fornication” is a situation in which neither (or only one) party is married.

It is plain error to confuse adultery and fornication, as the Bible itself makes clear (and as stated by others here) by using both terms to describe different activities (also as all decent commentaries make clear).

Once again, the interpretation is precise. The application is woefully deficient if a person says that all sex outside marriage is “adultery”. By the plain meaning of language, it is not.

Jesus, who was a great one for clarifying the Law, said:

“What comes out of a man is what defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man.” Mark 7:20-23

So those who misapply the commandment against “adultery” are in fact making a valid argument - but from the wrong text. Issues of morality and ethics are not limited to the Ten Commandments, as Jesus’ consistent regret over such things as pride and even foolishness attests.

Paul of course goes so far as to say that the joining of flesh itself creates adultery, arguing from the situation of Adam and Eve who had no benefit of clergy, although some church teachings (perhaps most) seem to be very uncomfortable with that on the grounds that merely having sex does not imply a covenant. Whether that’s so or not, the words of Jesus leave no room to doubt that both adultery and fornication are er… evil.

Meade

[liberty]

Crackpot, re masturbation, I point out the story of Onan, slain by the Lord for spilling his seed on the ground:

Genesis 38: 8-10:
8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.

9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.

10 And the thing which he did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also.


Many have viewed this as a prohibition on masturbation (spilling seed on the ground), others as a prohibition on birth control, and it has been used as such. Indeed, the masturbation link is so well-known that onanism is used as a synonym for masturbation (check any good dictionary if you don't believe it.

.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the passage is referring to selfishness instead of masturbation. He did not want to provide children for his brother’s widow that would not be in his line, that would provid support for the widow in her old age and who’s flock would compete with his own.

[Scooter]

If you believe you could be wrong, then clearly the Bible is open to interpretation, therefore your earlier assertion that it is not open to interpretation fails. See, even a moron such as yourself manages to get one right every so often.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I ban Scooter for having me on ignore so he doesn't learn a thing or two

Meade

[Joe Guy]

Hallelujah!!!

[RayThom]

... with unimpeachable logic? You da' man.

Regardless, that will never stop Meade from lecturing (ie. entertaining) all of us with his vast esoteric biblical knowledge and mad, pedantic writing skills. I'm betting a tome in defense of the fundamentalist's bible is already in the works. IYCDTWBBTWBS

INCOMING!!! Bend over, brace yourself, and may God help us all.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I tried Ray, oh I tried but all I've come up with so far is about 73,685 words along these kind of lines:

Van Dorn and I were exiting the house on our way to a piano recital which he could not avoid and therefore inflicted also upon me simply because he could. Walking up the path toward us was a lively young woman of striking appearance who, upon seeing two such beaux cavaliers, smiled charmingly up at us as her cheeks coloured not a little, the which only enhanced her beauty. Van Dorn flourished his hat hither and yon and made a theatrical bow, leaving himself staring at his own boots, while I contented myself with a slight inclination of the head and a frank stare of naked admiration. She coloured more and needlessly brushed against me as she entered the house, no doubt in search of the doctor. Van Dorn hauled himself upright and seemed astonished that she’d gone.

“Is she not perfection?” he asked me, with a deep sigh as we resumed our walk. “Jessie Peters. She’s married but see how young and fresh she is? Why, I don’t believe her husband has any idea how to keep her happy and besides he’s been away now for nearly a year. She’s as jumpy as a flea in a fry pan, that one. And I aim to raise the heat and douse the flame!”

Despite his dubious figure of speech, I could see that Van Dorn was serious. I also felt quite sure that he was barking up the wrong tree. You don’t practise seduction as often and as successfully as I without recognizing the signs - if there was any dousing to be done, Jessie Peters was marked down as the next client for the Flashman Fire Insurance Company. Not least among her attractions was a house without a husband but as against that, there was Van Dorn marking his territory. Fortunately for me, he was as keen on fighting Federals as he was of fondling females and two days later he’d was headed north with most of his men to garner glory, leaving plenty back to watch the bivouac and me, should I roam too far. After a light lunch, I planned to do some wandering all right, around to the Peters house on Kedron Road to which I been directed and around Mrs. Peters for which no instruction was needed.

Things are not always as they seem and Jessie Peters was no exception. A servant opened the front door and in response to my crisp order to tell her mistress that an officer was calling, showed me into a parlour and hastened to do my bidding. I was standing in a pleasant room that revealed rather too much dominance of a female hand -- chintz and lace happen more often when a husband is absent and this one had been gone for a long time. Jessie walked in. She had an air of indifference about her until she saw which officer it was that had come a-wooing, for the way her eyes suddenly shone and her smile of delight enhanced her features, I had no doubt of the result. Still it doesn’t do to rush at the first fence on a strange horse. One must take the measure of its gait, habits and readiness before leaping.

“Mrs. Peters,” says I, making a leg which is hopelessly old-fashioned but is calculated to impress the soft of heart and head. I looked all admiringly at her with a sideward tilt of the head, the raising of eyebrows and the briefest of knowing smiles. “We’ve not been introduced but I feel sure you recognise and know far more of me than I of you - a painful deficiency that I hope may be remedied within the hour. Perhaps you would be kind enough to educate me?”

“Indeed, Major Flashman, I do know who you are and certain mutual friends have recommended you to me. One does not often have gentleman callers when a husband is far from home--" and I hesitated, for all of two seconds, you may be sure “--before agreeing to see who it was had come. If we are to be . . . closer acquainted, why then I should ask if you would like tea . . . or something else?” To say I was astonished at her forwardness is an understatement. Never mind the hurdles, this filly was tearing towards Becher’s Brook and unless I seized the reigns we might both come a cropper.

“I prefer something else; something rather stronger than tea,” I said, stroking my whiskers to emphasise the point. “Is there perhaps another room where I might be served?” Without another word, she indicated for me to follow and walked briskly out of the parlour and up the stairs - I had to move smartly to keep close behind her and then to dodge the backward sweep of her hand as she ensured my own hand was not too close. I happened to look down and noticed the servant standing in the hall in an attitude of disapproval -I waved.

“You will await me in there,” Jessie said, pointing to a bedroom. “Close the door”. I obeyed with alacrity and surveyed the terrain. It was clearly her bedroom and not shared with a husband as a swift glance through the wardrobes confirmed. I pulled the heavy curtains somewhat to enhance the atmosphere and after due consideration decided to remove my clothing and take up residence in the canopied bed to wait for the heavenly body of Jessie Peters to materialise. She came in to the room from another door that presumably gave access to a dressing room and I received my second surprise of the afternoon. She was dressed as a man, carrying a black bag and with a stethoscope hanging from her neck.

“The doctor,” she said, “is in” and she walked purposefully toward me as I pulled the sheet and covers up to my chin in bewildered concern. “Now, what seems to be the trouble?” I was lost for words. “Laryngitis is it? Let’s take a closer look”.

Before I could do anything at all she plumped the bag on the bed, opened it and removed a flat ivory instrument like a shoehorn that she inserted dexterously into my gaping mouth and employed to hold down my lower jaw as she peered closely in. I said “Aaaaaah” when she told me to. She shook her head in disapproval and removed the stick and replaced it at once with her own mouth, a quick kiss and then away, the little minx.

“Let’s see. No, not this,” and to my great relief she tossed aside a wicked looking saw. “And not this” rejecting a devilish looking instrument the purpose of which I could only shudder to consider. “No, I think I must listen to you”. She put the tubes of the stethoscope in her ears, pulled away the bedclothes all the way down to my ankles and return to place the wooden bell against my trembling cheek. I noted in passing that the instrument apparently belong to a Dr. Cammann and idly wondered how Peters had come by it . As she leaned over me, I realised first that her man’s jacket was too large for her and gaped open, second that she wore nothing beneath it and was showing the most appealing and shapely pair of Eve’s apples. With a whimper I reached out but again she slapped my hand away.

“Treat the doctor with respect, Major” she said, and moved the stethoscope down to my own chest. “As I thought - heartbeat much too fast. How’s your digestive tract?” The stethoscope tracked down to below my navel and by now I was in such a lather that she might as well have been quoting the latest stock prices.

“Oh dear!” she exclaimed loudly, “there’s a terrible swelling but do not be alarmed. I believe I have the treatment for that”. And she did.

You might have to pay to read the rest though. Still, with me being only half way done after 1.5 years of writing, it could be a while.

Meade