Yea Or Nay: The Biblical Religion

[PoliticalChic]

chic----I DESPISE your adulation of the "biblical religion" OVER so many others ideologies that ALSO include very fine humanistic
ideals. You trivialize very fine ideologies -----you are a bible
supremist------sorta like Hernan Cortez who committed genocide
against the entire Aztec nation with the help of Jesus Christ and the
filthy whore Queen (of the auto de fe) Isabella. Ok----Aztec belief
was a bit bloody-----but that is no excuse for genocide and massive
gold theft and forced conversions (and you can add chattel slavery
based on shade of skin)

In a firmament of stupid and vapid posts, this must be near the very top.

Truly a dull and stupid conflation of mis-affiliated points.

If you thought it would make you appear knowledgeable, guess again.

Now you can go back to thumbing through the encyclopedia.

is that the best you can do? ------well, yeah-----probably

It must have been pretty good.....it brought you crawling back.

 

[irosie91]

chic----I DESPISE your adulation of the "biblical religion" OVER so many others ideologies that ALSO include very fine humanistic
ideals. You trivialize very fine ideologies -----you are a bible
supremist------sorta like Hernan Cortez who committed genocide
against the entire Aztec nation with the help of Jesus Christ and the
filthy whore Queen (of the auto de fe) Isabella. Ok----Aztec belief
was a bit bloody-----but that is no excuse for genocide and massive
gold theft and forced conversions (and you can add chattel slavery
based on shade of skin)

In a firmament of stupid and vapid posts, this must be near the very top.

Truly a dull and stupid conflation of mis-affiliated points.

If you thought it would make you appear knowledgeable, guess again.

Now you can go back to thumbing through the encyclopedia.

is that the best you can do? ------well, yeah-----probably

It must have been pretty good.....it brought you crawling back.

I never crawl----my right knee is tender-----I believe that there is some problem with the medial head (medial condyle) of the tibia secondary to over-use in childhood

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. They may use a different name….but it is nature that government school grads have been taught to worship.



“When you ask atheists, as I have for decades, what they believe in, the most common answer is "science." There is nothing higher than science for an atheist because the natural world is all there is. So, worship of the Earth, the environment or nature is almost inevitable in a secular world.

[The Bible] contains the most radical idea in history. It stated, for the first time in history, that God created nature and is not part of nature. It is one of the reasons I believe the first five books, the Torah, are God-given. No human beings 3,000 years ago in the late Bronze Age would have come up with an idea so opposed to the way the human mind naturally works -- to regard gods as part of nature.”
Maybe Nature Shouldn't Be Worshipped After All




Science teaches us what we can do…..but not what we should do.

Students, the captive audience of secularists, are either too lazy or too cowardly to question the religion based on a pretended ‘science.’
Real science is based on experimentation and proof before a conclusion, yet neither evolution nor global warming are proved in such a manner….yet taught as facts.



10. Both nature-worship and ‘science’ are used to hide the real reason that religion is dismissed. This is:

"Just because any religious idea, any idea of any god at all, any flirtation even with a god, is the most inexpressible foulness, particularly tolerantly (and often even favourably) accepted by the democratic bourgeoisie—for that very reason it is the most dangerous foulness, the most shameful “infection.” A million physical sins, dirty tricks, acts of violence and infections are much more easily discovered by the crowd, and therefore are much less dangerous, than the nubile, spiritual idea of god, dressed up in the most attractive “ideological” costumes." Letter from Lenin to Maxim Gorky, Written on November 13 or 14, 1913 Lenin 55. TO MAXIM GORKY

 

[rylah]

Did anyone already say your avatar fits your behavior?

What is my 'behavior'?

That wasn't about You,
there was a post by an ape which was removed.

Edit: PoliticalChic sorry this caused confusion,
in spite that we might not be on the same page, I actually enjoy much of Your posting.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Did anyone already say your avatar fits your behavior?

What is my 'behavior'?

That wasn't about You,
there was a post by an ape which was removed.

Edit: PoliticalChic sorry this caused confusion,
in spite that we might not be on the same page, I actually enjoy much of Your posting.

Thank you.

I didn't know a post had been deleted.

 

[Hollie]

9. They may use a different name….but it is nature that government school grads have been taught to worship.



“When you ask atheists, as I have for decades, what they believe in, the most common answer is "science." There is nothing higher than science for an atheist because the natural world is all there is. So, worship of the Earth, the environment or nature is almost inevitable in a secular world.

[The Bible] contains the most radical idea in history. It stated, for the first time in history, that God created nature and is not part of nature. It is one of the reasons I believe the first five books, the Torah, are God-given. No human beings 3,000 years ago in the late Bronze Age would have come up with an idea so opposed to the way the human mind naturally works -- to regard gods as part of nature.”
Maybe Nature Shouldn't Be Worshipped After All




Science teaches us what we can do…..but not what we should do.

Students, the captive audience of secularists, are either too lazy or too cowardly to question the religion based on a pretended ‘science.’
Real science is based on experimentation and proof before a conclusion, yet neither evolution nor global warming are proved in such a manner….yet taught as facts.



10. Both nature-worship and ‘science’ are used to hide the real reason that religion is dismissed. This is:

"Just because any religious idea, any idea of any god at all, any flirtation even with a god, is the most inexpressible foulness, particularly tolerantly (and often even favourably) accepted by the democratic bourgeoisie—for that very reason it is the most dangerous foulness, the most shameful “infection.” A million physical sins, dirty tricks, acts of violence and infections are much more easily discovered by the crowd, and therefore are much less dangerous, than the nubile, spiritual idea of god, dressed up in the most attractive “ideological” costumes." Letter from Lenin to Maxim Gorky, Written on November 13 or 14, 1913 Lenin 55. TO MAXIM GORKY

You would do yourself, and others, a favor by not praying at the altar of a fundie loon.

There’s no “belief” required for science. There’s no reason to “believe in” mathematics or science as belief is not requirement.

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

Dennis Prager is a fundie rightwing radio host, pseudo-intellectual, and regular contributor to Townhall, where he tries to argue that the United States is a Christian nation and that liberals are bad. As opposed to some radio hosts Prager seems to know something about history and religion, but mixes it readily with bizarre untruths, Jonanism, nonsense, and psychological projection, for instance with regard to his claim that ‘the Left’ allows their ‘feelings’ to get in the way of policy; Prager himself would of course never do that. A fine example of Prager’s general acumen is displayed in this rant, where he argues that The Left is hateful. Why? Because they call right-wingers … hateful, and rightwingers don’t call leftists hateful. That’s the premise, and Prager is evidently unaware of the dialectical position he has put himself in. Hilarity ensues.

 

[jwoodie]

Dennis Prager is a fundie rightwing radio host, pseudo-intellectual, and regular contributor to Townhall, where he tries to argue that the United States is a Christian nation and that liberals are bad. As opposed to some radio hosts Prager seems to know something about history and religion, but mixes it readily with bizarre untruths, Jonanism, nonsense, and psychological projection, for instance with regard to his claim that ‘the Left’ allows their ‘feelings’ to get in the way of policy; Prager himself would of course never do that. A fine example of Prager’s general acumen is displayed in this rant, where he argues that The Left is hateful. Why? Because they call right-wingers … hateful, and rightwingers don’t call leftists hateful. That’s the premise, and Prager is evidently unaware of the dialectical position he has put himself in. Hilarity ensues.

Go back to OZ, Straw Man.

 

[luchitociencia]

The God of the Bible prohibits human sacrifice…..I’d say that’s a pretty good reason to appreciate the Bible.

One day, the Children of Israel saw the daughters of Moab and they went crazy. You have no idea. Those women were attractive, sexy, sensual, covered with provocative dresses showing almost their beautiful nakedness.

The dudes not only fell in love and can't avoid their lusting behavior, but they also ended forgetting their God and started to follow the idolatry of the Moabites.

The biblical god was pissed off.

And this god sent plagues as punishment for what the Children of Israel were doing.

Cries, screams, you get the point, the Children of Israel felt the severe punishment and God told Moses to take the heads of the tribes and hang them on the trees.

And Moses obeyed the order and executed the human sacrifice. The leaders died over there exposed to the Sun.

After the human sacrifice the plague went away.

 

[luchitociencia]

And the ‘slavery’ represented in the Bible is in no way equivalent to that of the Democrat South.

The difference is that slaves, according to the Law of Moses, were supposed to be treated with DIGNITY.

That's all.

 

[luchitociencia]

To put it succinctly, and in comparison, the Bible teaches life, not death.

Sure you are right, but even when the bible teaches life, it also shows people never learn.

 

[luchitociencia]

“When you ask atheists, as I have for decades, what they believe in, the most common answer is "science." There is nothing higher than science for an atheist because the natural world is all there is. So, worship of the Earth, the environment or nature is almost inevitable in a secular world.

I think there is a little misunderstanding from your part.

Believing in science (science methods, scientific investigation, etc) won't automatically make you a worshiper of earth or nature.

Science itself is not to be believed but learned.

On the other hand, there is a current tendency of blind beliefs in "theories of science", to which several people do worship as their gods. Still, there is a huge difference between the branch of knowledge called science based on facts and the so called theoretical science, recently based on mere imaginations.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And the ‘slavery’ represented in the Bible is in no way equivalent to that of the Democrat South.

The difference is that slaves, according to the Law of Moses, were supposed to be treated with DIGNITY.

That's all.

1. Actually, it far from 'that's all.'



As I stated....


2. Not only is the above not endorsed by the Bible…..but it is expressly forbidden.
The aspects that identify what we call 'slavery' today, the colloquial meaning, are the following:

a. permanence of bondage

b. treatment as material assets

c. control of the life and death of the slave: the slave could be beaten to death

d. an escaped slave had to be returned to his master….as decreed in the Dred Scott Democrat Supreme Court decision.


3. None of the above are allowed to the 'slave owner' by the Bible.


"The Bible uses the Hebrew term eved (עבד) and Greek doulos (δοῦλος) to refer to slaves. Eved has a much wider meaning than the English term slave, and in many circumstances it is more accurately translated into English as servant or hired worker."
Christian views on slavery - Wikipedia


e,g, "God spoke face-to-face with Moses but Joshua will be instructed by Eleazar; Moses was the servant of God but Joshua is Moses’s minister (Joshua 1.1)." https://uwaterloo.ca/grebel/sites/ca.grebel/files/uploads/files/CGR-22-1-W2004-1_1.pdf







"If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything."
Exodus 21:2


So….if the Bible is your excuse for the imposition of slavery….the argument fails at the briefest perusal of the text.


4. But….how about simply defining black slaves as 'foreign'?

"While foreign slaves could be made slaves for life,…"


The treatment of blacks in the South doesn't seem to have conformed to this:

"….the laws regarding the general treatment of slaves applied to them as well (Lev 24:22, Num 15:15-16). The law made it clear that foreigners were not inferiors who could be mistreated (Ex 23:9); instead they were to be loved just as fellow Israelites were (Lev 19:33-34). " Slavery in the OT


If the Bible is used as the excuse used for slavery, then all of the restrictions need be followed.
They weren't.
It isn't.

 

[PoliticalChic]

To put it succinctly, and in comparison, the Bible teaches life, not death.

Sure you are right, but even when the bible teaches life, it also shows people never learn.

Never learn what?

 

[PoliticalChic]

“When you ask atheists, as I have for decades, what they believe in, the most common answer is "science." There is nothing higher than science for an atheist because the natural world is all there is. So, worship of the Earth, the environment or nature is almost inevitable in a secular world.

I think there is a little misunderstanding from your part.

Believing in science (science methods, scientific investigation, etc) won't automatically make you a worshiper of earth or nature.

Science itself is not to be believed but learned.

On the other hand, there is a current tendency of blind beliefs in "theories of science", to which several people do worship as their gods. Still, there is a huge difference between the branch of knowledge called science based on facts and the so called theoretical science, recently based on mere imaginations.

Science is very specific in the way it documents what is true.

Although known, today, as science, beliefs in global warming, and Darwin's theory are simply offshoots of a political view.



The term 'science' no longer means anything due to its use by the Left.

 

[Hollie]

And the ‘slavery’ represented in the Bible is in no way equivalent to that of the Democrat South.

The difference is that slaves, according to the Law of Moses, were supposed to be treated with DIGNITY.

That's all.

1. Actually, it far from 'that's all.'



As I stated....


2. Not only is the above not endorsed by the Bible…..but it is expressly forbidden.
The aspects that identify what we call 'slavery' today, the colloquial meaning, are the following:

a. permanence of bondage

b. treatment as material assets

c. control of the life and death of the slave: the slave could be beaten to death

d. an escaped slave had to be returned to his master….as decreed in the Dred Scott Democrat Supreme Court decision.


3. None of the above are allowed to the 'slave owner' by the Bible.


"The Bible uses the Hebrew term eved (עבד) and Greek doulos (δοῦλος) to refer to slaves. Eved has a much wider meaning than the English term slave, and in many circumstances it is more accurately translated into English as servant or hired worker."
Christian views on slavery - Wikipedia


e,g, "God spoke face-to-face with Moses but Joshua will be instructed by Eleazar; Moses was the servant of God but Joshua is Moses’s minister (Joshua 1.1)." https://uwaterloo.ca/grebel/sites/ca.grebel/files/uploads/files/CGR-22-1-W2004-1_1.pdf







"If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything."
Exodus 21:2


So….if the Bible is your excuse for the imposition of slavery….the argument fails at the briefest perusal of the text.


4. But….how about simply defining black slaves as 'foreign'?

"While foreign slaves could be made slaves for life,…"


The treatment of blacks in the South doesn't seem to have conformed to this:

"….the laws regarding the general treatment of slaves applied to them as well (Lev 24:22, Num 15:15-16). The law made it clear that foreigners were not inferiors who could be mistreated (Ex 23:9); instead they were to be loved just as fellow Israelites were (Lev 19:33-34). " Slavery in the OT


If the Bible is used as the excuse used for slavery, then all of the restrictions need be followed.
They weren't.
It isn't.

1. You should actually read the Bibles you thump so loudly but have never read.

Peter: 18 Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

Timothy: 1 All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered.

Colossians: 22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. <----- It's what your Lord wants

Want more?


2. The church never stood up against slavery or for civil rights. They defended their hatred and intolerance and bigotry by saying this was the way god wants things. You can create a seething cauldron of hell on earth and if enough people believe "this is the way god (insert name of any god here) wants it" then it will become acceptable. "I am on a mission from God!" cried Hitler publicly and loudly in 1934. I agree. Given what believers of the gods have done to humanity, he sure was.

 

[luchitociencia]

If the Bible is used as the excuse used for slavery, then all of the restrictions need be followed.
They weren't.
It isn't.

You must understand that people in the South were religious people followers of the bible.

Same as Pilgrims, who came looking for freedom of religion, this is to say, freedom to choose a religion denomination other than the Anglican.

Pilgrims did the same than the Israelite, this is to say, they also killed hundreds of thousands of aborigines of the land in order to become the new owners of the land.

They followed the biblical teachings allowing slavery.

And same that happened with the Israelite, in America corruption ruled after the first generations passed away (Pilgrims) and the law of Moses and the law of the land weren't obeyed. And like today when laws allow marriage between men and marriage between women, same as well laws were made allowing discrimination against people with darker skin. Those laws became the new normal in those years.

Comparing to what happened in the biblical Israel, the parallel is very precise.

You mention the Law of Moses, but you are not mentioning the disobedience to those laws by the Israelite.

When you put side to side, no the laws but the ac=tions of both people, the Israelite and the American, you find out that history repeated itself one more time. One more time because such is what has happened even before Israel became a kingdom, and the whole nations of the world have behaved the same thru generations.

 

[luchitociencia]

Never learn what?

Obeying the doctrines and laws mentioned in the bible.

Faith alone is not what guides to "life" without obeying the laws. It is written, God choose Abraham because Abraham obeyed His Laws, Commandments and Precepts.

Jesus himself showed faith without forgetting to obey the Law.

You have faith, but are you obeying the Law of God? Hmm?

 

[PoliticalChic]

If the Bible is used as the excuse used for slavery, then all of the restrictions need be followed.
They weren't.
It isn't.

You must understand that people in the South were religious people followers of the bible.

Same as Pilgrims, who came looking for freedom of religion, this is to say, freedom to choose a religion denomination other than the Anglican.

Pilgrims did the same than the Israelite, this is to say, they also killed hundreds of thousands of aborigines of the land in order to become the new owners of the land.

They followed the biblical teachings allowing slavery.

And same that happened with the Israelite, in America corruption ruled after the first generations passed away (Pilgrims) and the law of Moses and the law of the land weren't obeyed. And like today when laws allow marriage between men and marriage between women, same as well laws were made allowing discrimination against people with darker skin. Those laws became the new normal in those years.

Comparing to what happened in the biblical Israel, the parallel is very precise.

You mention the Law of Moses, but you are not mentioning the disobedience to those laws by the Israelite.

When you put side to side, no the laws but the ac=tions of both people, the Israelite and the American, you find out that history repeated itself one more time. One more time because such is what has happened even before Israel became a kingdom, and the whole nations of the world have behaved the same thru generations.

"You must understand that people in the South were religious people followers of the bible."


Actually, they were Democrats, and they clearly did not follow the Bible.....as I showed in the previous post.


Here's what you must understand: the South's slavery was political, not biblical.


The two hallmarks of the Democrat Party......socialism, and slavery.


Southern Democrat theoretician George Fitzhugh made an interesting admission about two related desires of the Democrats: Slavery and Socialism.



" What society needed was slavery, not just for blacks, but for whites as well. "Slavery," "is a form, and the very best form, of socialism."

"Socialism," Proposes to do away with free competition; to afford protection and support at all times to the laboring class; to bring about, at least, a qualified community of property, and to associate labor. All these purposes, slavery fully land perfectly attains. [...] Socialism is already slavery in all save the master... Our only quarrel with Socialism is, that it will not honestly admit that it owes its recent revival to the failure of universal liberty, and is seeking to bring about slavery again in some form.” Fitzhugh, George (1854Sociology for the South, p. 48)


And, they remain, the party of slavery and of socialism.

 

[luchitociencia]

Here's what you must understand: the South's slavery was political, not biblical.

But, what do you expected?

Of course was political because the US system is not theocracy but democracy.

The law ruling in the US is the law of the land and not the bible.

You just can't enforce the biblical laws in a country which is not ruled by religion doctrines.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here's what you must understand: the South's slavery was political, not biblical.

But, what do you expected?

Of course was political because the US system is not theocracy but democracy.

The law ruling in the US is the law of the land and not the bible.

You just can't enforce the biblical laws in a country which is not ruled by religion doctrines.

The South's version of slavery bore no resemblance to the sort outlined in the Bible.

Try to understand that.

It is your mistake in comparing the two.