Let's try and get 1,000,000 replies to this post

Diesel 11 said:
Numbers 5:11-31. Here’s the NIV translation.

Basically from what I understand, if a woman cheats on her husband and gets pregnant, her husband is to take her in front of the priest, and the priest will curse her and give her a drink that forces her to miscarry. AKA the child is aborted.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's necessary to the interpretation that she's actually knocked up when her husband gets "suspicious" - it just means that if the curse "gets her" she won't be able to have children in future. Which was seen as a sort of catastrophe in that society, and a source of shame to the woman concerned.

I think the basic point of it, though, was just to prevent whatever retribution the "suspicious husband" (read: nasty, possessive bastion of toxic masculinity) would otherwise inflict because, as Jesus reminded the descendents of those people much later, their "hearts were hard" (Matthew 19:8). It was just a jar of water with a pinch of grit and a bit of ink in it, so chances are it wouldn't have done anything anyway.
Perun said:
Both is blatantly apparent if you do historical research and mostly, if you read the Bible in the original languages they were written in which, ironically, Biblical literalists explicitly tell you not to do.
Click to expand...
I never trust people who say that - it makes me wonder what's in there that they don't want me to know about ...
____no5 said:
I always thought that the first 5 books Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy were either written directly by Moses, or more likely, were based on earlier Moses' writings.
Click to expand...
I have a book recommendation for you: "The Badly Behaved Bible" by Nick Page. I think at the very least you'll find it an entertaining read :D
 
Diesel 11 said:
Numbers 5:11-31. Here’s the NIV translation.

Basically from what I understand, if a woman cheats on her husband and gets pregnant, her husband is to take her in front of the priest, and the priest will curse her and give her a drink that forces her to miscarry. AKA the child is aborted.
Click to expand...
It's actually the Lord who causes her to miscarry: "may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry"
 
Travis The Dragon said:
And killed a lot of people back in the Bible days. I guess this explains it?: https://www.desiringgod.org/intervi...-kill-women-and-children-in-the-old-testament
Click to expand...
What does it explain? It asks why it’s okay for God to kill people and then answers that by saying, “Cuz he’s God.” Wow, big brain right there. It assumes that God exists (of which there is no proof) and that everything he does is right (which is wrong IMO, regardless of whether a Christian God exists or not). Seems like yet another inconsistency from the big man, murder is bad unless I do it or order it. An inconsistency so twisted that it makes you wonder if it isn’t just all made up.
 
Diesel 11 said:
What does it explain? It asks why it’s okay for God to kill people and then answers that by saying, “Cuz he’s God.” Wow, big brain right there. It assumes that God exists (of which there is no proof) and that everything he does is right (which is wrong IMO, regardless of whether a Christian God exists or not). Seems like yet another inconsistency from the big man, murder is bad unless I do it or order it. An inconsistency so twisted that it makes you wonder if it isn’t just all made up.
Click to expand...
Anyone who says "it must be true/right because it's in the Bible" just isn't engaging their brain. There's all sorts of stuff in the Bible that's just plain wrong (almost all of Judges, for a start) and I honestly think we're supposed to spot that.

Seriously, I recommend you read "The Badly Behaved Bible" - it puts a lot of things into perspective.
 
Diesel 11 said:
What does it explain? It asks why it’s okay for God to kill people and then answers that by saying, “Cuz he’s God.” Wow, big brain right there. It assumes that God exists (of which there is no proof)
Click to expand...
It assumes God exists, and so does the arguement that it's not ok for God to kill, for obvious reasons...
Diesel 11 said:
and that everything he does is right (which is wrong IMO, regardless of whether a Christian God exists or not).
Click to expand...
The way I think about this: It's not "morally wrong" that if, idk, someone is blown up, then they die. That's just reality. And if our morals don't apply to reality, they shouldn't apply to the force that is above reality. What "right" means is a different thing.
 
Shmoolikipod said:
The way I think about this: It's not "morally wrong" that if, idk, someone is blown up, then they die. That's just reality. And if our morals don't apply to reality, they shouldn't apply to the force that is above reality. What "right" means is a different thing.
Click to expand...
Well, I don’t think that’s morally wrong for someone to be blown up and killed. That’s the natural result of being blown up. But I believe that it is morally wrong for a person to intentionally blow someone else up and kill them. Now, God may be above reality, but he is also allegedly the reason we have morals. Therefore, assuming that God isn’t above his own morals, if he blows someone up and kills them, then he is morally in the wrong. Since God can never be morally wrong since he’s God, then he would never blow someone up. Therefore God takes a somewhat hands-off approach to running the universe and that seems kind of weak to me. However, if he IS above his own morals, and will blow up a person just because, then he is not deserving of being God, he’s a sadistic monster.

Frankly neither of these pictures of “God” are ones I would want to worship. One of them is like an uncle you rarely see, and the other is a psychopath who rules through fear. This is the issue I have with even believing a god exists at all.
 
Travis The Dragon said:
If your an atheist who doesn't believe in God, why even get involved in religion at all? Why don't you just ignore it altogether and completely forget about it?
Click to expand...
1) You can learn about religions in spite of being an atheist.
2) In the United States of America one cannot just ignore religion because it is a dominant force in politics and in a lot of people’s lives. Every day I’m surrounded by Christians believing the same poisonous things, how can I just ignore it?
 
Travis The Dragon said:
I'm not saying the USA should ignore religion, just atheists.
Click to expand...
If you’re an atheist living in the USA, how would you expect that to work out?

Travis The Dragon said:
And why would you want to learn about something you don't even believe in? Seems pointless to me.
Click to expand...
You should learn things to decide what you believe, not believe things to decide what you learn.

And even if you’ve learned enough to feel that you can safely draw conclusions, it never hurts to learn more, especially about something that can indirectly impact you a great deal, like religious belief in the USA.
 
Travis The Dragon said:
How could it impact someone in a great deal especially if they don't even believe in it in the first place?
Click to expand...
Because people who do believe it regularly try to subvert the first amendment’s guarantee of separation of church and state by trying to pass laws that support their religious beliefs, usually altering the language just enough to have it not be explicitly religious, though its intent is clear.

And these people try to get others who share their beliefs installed in positions of power throughout the government, including places like the Supreme Court, so they can impose their religious beliefs through the judiciary as well as the legislative and executive branches.

And some of these people even want to make foreign policy decisions based on long-term religious goals (e.g. what might bring about the rapture faster), rather than doing what would be best for people in the real world. It tends to be a problem when people think that physical reality is a passing fad with the “true” reality only coming after death, as it gives them license to do some pretty outrageous things in the physical world.

Just look at how the Fox News people light up on the topic of Muslims trying to bring about Sharia law, while they’re fully supportive of Christians trying to do a 100% equivalent thing of their own. Why does my money say “In God We Trust” on it? Why was god inserted into the pledge of allegiance after the fact? Why do my tax dollars pay the salaries of military chaplains? Why is there a national prayer breakfast? All of this shit arguably violates the first amendment and should have been struck down by now, but the theist mob is running the show, so I’ll get a heaping dose of religion with my civics and I guess I’m just supposed to shut up and accept it.

Does that make it more clear?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top