This is by far not the entire story. Plus, my wording may have been a bit harsh, but it doesn't really change the argument. Also, that site doesn't present any "reasoning" on why this exists. It only provides another part of the bible where this isn't so. Once again, this is the contradiction I'm talking about that calls the bible's validity into question. Remember that "digging yourself in deeper" I was talking about earlier? :lol:
Did you even read the site? :S Or for that matter, all the way through?
The bottomline for that site is that the passages in the Corinthians are not a law of any kind. The man was suggesting that when looking at passages in the Bible, it is worth looking at the context upon which it was written. In this case, the possibility was that it was Paul telling the early Christians to stop making a bad impression and do what the natives do. An equal possibility is that the use of the word "nature" might not necessarily refer to natural law or universial law.
Paul telling the early Christians to do what social convention says to do because he was concern about how the church appears to unbelievers and holy men having long hair are not two contridictory things.
It is becoming increasingly questionable to me if you know the Bible. The Bible, as a whole, is not a law book. The Criminal Code of Canada is a law book. The Bible isn't. Songs to God and accounts of events are not law.
I think you're missing the point here. I WASN'T talk about he new testament at all. That was kind of my point. Why is it that there are so many vile things in the old tastament and not the new. And I wasn't talking about any specific book because its happened more than once. It may not have been rocks in some cases and have been a river, but either way, innocent children did die by god's hand multiple times. The fact that you're so in the dark about this is another thing to take note of. These are the things the churches either ignore or cover up with some kind of rediculous explanation.
I'm going to be honest here, sometimes I don't even know what your point is. One moment I get the impression you're talking about contridictory laws in both books...next moment I get the impression you think both books are the same. I would also like to point out that considering I did point out a while ago about the destructive things God has done when you suggested that a loving God should help humans, I'm not so in the dark as you imagine myself to be.
Could it not be that the God in both Testaments are the same God? Could there not be a God that can be both full of wrath and full of love? If you and I have personalities, why is it such a stretch of the imagination that a divine being could be more then one dimensional?
On a side but slightly related note...the death of the firstborns was the final plague. Before, there were ten other "miracles" performed. While I was reading about it, it was also suggested that the Pharaoh may at first glance appear to be purposely denying the Israelites freedom (at times promising it until the plagues stop and then taking it back and sometimes punishing them) but that in actuality, it could be God hardening the Pharaoh's heart. In this case, God was trying to demonstrate to everyone that He is perfectly willing to use His powers to honour the Covenant. It must be shown that the freeing of the Israelites is not because the Pharaoh is such a great and nice guy but because God really does exists and He can do lots of powerful things.
I'm not trying to make God look good. I suppose God thought killing all firstborns would make demonstrate His existance and that He's not a genie: perfectly harmless and there to do the bidding of all who rubs Him the right way.
No, in fact the majority don't take the bible metaphorically. Espcially Catholics. This is why there's been so many a damn dispute in the Vatican about which version of the bible is "official" and whether or not dinosaurs can exist.
My experience as a Catholic and interacting with other Catholics suggest otherwise. Seriously, I went through the Catholic school system here in Canada from grade 1 to grade 13. There was never a single moment I can remember where the Bible was taught to be viewed literally instead of metaphorically.
A search on Roman Catholics on Wikipedia also seems to suggest a slightly different story:
The British bishops taught that the Bible must be approached with the understanding that it is "Godâ€™s word expressed in human language", giving proper acknowledgement both to the word of God and its human dimensions.
This understanding of the Scriptures is opposed to a fundamentalist interpretation that "disregards the various human dimensions of the Scriptures, and thereby undervalues the gift of Scripture and the 'divine condescension' which gives us Godâ€™s word in human language."
The Bible, they said, is not intended to give teaching on scientific or historical matters, but, as the Second Vatican Council's document Dei Verbum states, contains instead "the truth which God wished to be set down in the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation." Thus, "the material found in (the opening eleven) chapters of Genesis could not simply be described as historical writing. Though they may contain some historical traces, the primary purpose was to provide religious teaching." A similar observation was made about the apocalyptic visions in the Book of Revelation, recalling those in the Book of Daniel.
I think you would have an arguement if I was a fundamentalist...but I'm not and I don't take the Bible literally.
At this point I can't even tell if you're arguing or not. Because this was my point exactly. Two completely different books, completely different rules, and completely different gods. So how accurate could this thing be? That was my original question.
That's because you keep assuming I was disagreeing with you. I never said the two books are the same. They make up one body of work but in itself, they are not the same.
As I suggested before, it could very well be one God with more then one dimension to His nature. As for rules, you're really going to have to put some on the table here. The only example you've brought up that's close enough is the notion of an eye for an eye which is a reference to the idea of a punishment fitting the crime.
Tying this into the main point of whether or not there is a god though. The bible was passed down through many scribes. Scribes would often misspell things and adlib, especially when translating from a completely different language. This one reason there are so many different versions of the bible. In some versions, there are entire passages added or left out. This is probably because some scribes had the urge to add in something that make their path to heaven easier or take something out that made them look bad. I know there's more to it than that. A lot of the dirtier newer stuff that I don't remember can be found in the book Misquoting Jesus.
All of this is not a guess, this is a fact and it is mentioned in thousands upon thousands of history books. But none of them are school books, I'm sure. So this doesn't disprove god, does it? But it definately makes me think there is more of an argument against his existence than for it. Because as I've stated before, we're talking about a giant invisible man, here. No offense to anyone, but its pretty difficult to rationally argue with someone who believes in this idea.
If this is a fact, then please cite it. I'm not trying to be aggressive but you're arguing that the Bible is not only poorly translated but purposely manipulated and that there are thousands of history books out there proving that.
As an aside, in case anyone's misunderstanding...I have never been interested in converting anyone and convincing people that God exist. What bothers me isn't people not believing in God or thinking God doesn't exist but people thinking that just because I'm Catholic, I'm stuck in the dark age, am kept in the dark or am incapable of thinking. Or equally worse, too afraid to think. It strikes me as really condescending..: Black Kitty :.