MAGA Pastor Greg Locke demonstrates what a Bible thumping WHACKO is capable of

BTW, I don't believe in "Red Box Rules" either (nor do I believe in any rules).

I’m with you, I find them silly and childish, al Jizzerror.

you can make your own rules whenever you seed or write an article...

[✘]

(nor do I believe in any rules).

Yes.  If only people weren't so easily offended.  I was watching videos on youtube this evening and this was recommended.  Thought you might appreciate the message.  The visuals are okay, but not as spiritual as the last one I posted.

This was the video I was watching.  I don't know why a johnrich video was recommended.  I don't know if I confuse youtube's algorithm or if it knows me better than I know me.  LOL!

pastor locke is demonstrating what happens to little girls that don't drop their panties in his bible school...

Or, maybe they just didn't read  this part  of the Bible:

They damn sure did not read the following or they wouldn't be calling their savior the Prince of Peace.  Or maybe that is why Yeshua kept telling his followers how stupid they were.  Yeshua is the god of division and gibberish.

Luke 12:49-56 NLT - Jesus Causes Division - “I have come - Bible Gateway

Jesus Causes Division

⁴⁹  “I have come to set the world on fire, and I wish it were already burning!   ⁵⁰  I have a terrible baptism of suffering ahead of me, and I am under a heavy burden until it is accomplished.   ⁵¹  Do you think I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I have come to divide people against each other!   ⁵²  From now on families will be split apart, three in favor of me, and two against—or two in favor and three against.

⁵³  ‘Father will be divided against son
     and son against father;
mother against daughter
     and daughter against mother;
and mother-in-law against daughter-in-law
     and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.’ ^{[ a ]} ”

⁵⁴  Then Jesus turned to the crowd and said,   “When you see clouds beginning to form in the west, you say, ‘Here comes a shower.’ And you are right.   ⁵⁵  When the south wind blows, you say, ‘Today will be a scorcher.’ And it is.   ⁵⁶  You fools! You know how to interpret the weather signs of the earth and sky, but you don’t know how to interpret the present times.

mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.

That sounds like a fucking "two foot putt."

Yeshua is the god of division and gibberish.

Perhaps it seems this way to you because you don't understand what these verses mean. What it is that he is saying. Those things in the verses that disturb you aren't the goal, they are the consequences of the choice Yeshua brought. Turn to God or not, in the general sense that applies to all of us. More specifically, since he was speaking to Jews, the division he speaks of is between those Jews who would remain under the old covenant, and therefore in their sins, as opposed to those who accepted the new one which hung on the salvation he would bring. 

That probably doesn't change your mind about it, I'm sure. However, what else could Yeshua do? Obey his Father or submit to mere human mores and standards for the sake of non-existent unity? That is, humans will never be unified, as history amply shows. In the end, Yeshua's mission was to bring people to God on God's terms. Placing that choice before people will inevitably create division, don't you think? 

Perhaps it seems this way to you because you don't understand what these verses mean.

Biblical exegesis always seems to be several levels of abstraction removed from the literal text.   Especially when the literal text is inconvenient.  God seems unable or unwilling to simply state what He means and the ' actual meaning ' is often a complex interpretation that contradicts the literal text.

If someone criticizes scripture, that individual ' clearly' does not understand how to properly interpret the language.  

Do you think I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I have come to divide people against each other!  

This clearly states that Jesus intends to divide people against each other rather than bring peace.   There is no language suggesting that this is a consequence , the language connotes intent with division as the intended outcome.   " I have come to divide people ... ".

This clearly states that Jesus intends to divide people against each other rather than bring peace.   There is no language suggesting that this is a consequence , the language connotes intent with division as the intended outcome.   " I have come to divide people ... "

You are correct, TiG. If we isolate the relevant verses and have only them to look at, this is indeed what it says. Do you know what it doesn't say? Something that it needs to say to have any meaning? 

Something that it needs to say to have any meaning? 

Logically, then, something that should have been stated to provide a clear statement.  

One could impose many various contexts to cause these words to 'have' a variety of meanings.   Gets back to my comment on levels of abstraction.

Perhaps it seems this way to you because you don't understand what these verses mean.

I do in this translation because it is plain English.  Are the words correct?  Who knows?  No one who wrote the New Testament met Jesus.  There are ZERO eyewitness accounts.

Why would a god play word games with his beloved children?  After all, it is not like the stakes are eternal salvation or eternal torment, is it?

Logically, then, something that should have been stated to provide a clear statement.  

Logically, yes. And it was provided. It's in not simply the context of the surrounding statements but the rest of the Bible as well. 

One could impose many various contexts to cause these words to 'have' a variety of meanings.   Gets back to my comment on levels of abstraction.

Yes, one could, if they approach hermeneutics the way you do. Not even secular scholars of the Bible do what you do. 

So, getting back to the point, unless you are claiming that these verses were intended to stand alone and without supporting context to give them meaning, my original statement stands. Jesus came to bring division (but not only that) in pursuit of a larger goal, not an end in itself. The way you and mocowgirl read it doesn't ask or answer the question as to why he brought it. Rather important, don't you think? 

I do in this translation because it is plain English.  Are the words correct?  Who knows?  No one who wrote the New Testament met Jesus.  There are ZERO eyewitness accounts.

People keep saying this but it isn't true.

 Why would a god play word games with his beloved children?  After all, it is not like the stakes are eternal salvation or eternal torment, is it?

I don't think it is a matter of word games. It is written in plain language. The problem is primarily with the hearer, first. We are born with a natural enmity toward God. We don't want to be subject to Him but, rather, in charge of our own life and fate. Because of that, the message is hard to hear. Also, because we are fallen, we want different things than what God wants for and from us. 

Other factors are not understanding the culture of the time the words were written in and who they were being written to. Translations do their best to relate the intended meaning in a way we can understand but there's a lot you really have to know about that culture and people to really understand. 

In the end, you isolated verses and then made a false claim about them. No apparent attempt to understand what was said in context. The "why" of why Jesus said what he did. That is an actual example of playing word games, don't you think? 

People keep saying this but it isn't true.

I don't have any idea of how many times we have gone down the rabbit hole of discussing your and my religious beliefs.

In my unemotional, logical opinion after having read Yahweh's instruction manual on how to properly worship, adore and obey him - if your god was a parent, then he would be the most self-serving, ignorant, abusive, sadistic one that ever existed.  The very last thing I would ever want to do is to spend eternity singing his praises.  

I don't have any idea of how many times we have gone down the rabbit hole of discussing your and my religious beliefs.

Then I will trouble you no further. 

Logically, yes. And it was provided. It's in not simply the context of the surrounding statements but the rest of the Bible as well. 

I am saying that your interpretation (you offered what you believe to be true) was not included in the scripture.   You had to supply it by offering a context.    The problem with requiring a biblical scholar (amateur or pro) to interpret scripture (provide details from a greater context where the broadest context is 'the rest of the Bible as well') is that quite a few experts provide very different interpretations.   The problem is:   which interpretation is correct.    Why is Drakk's interpretation better than that of anyone else?

No offense intended to you personally, but you are without question but one opinion of many.

Yes, one could, if they approach hermeneutics the way you do. Not even secular scholars of the Bible do what you do. 

What, specifically, is the way I do?

So, getting back to the point, unless you are claiming that these verses were intended to stand alone and without supporting context to give them meaning, my original statement stands. Jesus came to bring division (but not only that) in pursuit of a larger goal, not an end in itself. 

Everything is within some context.   So I am not claiming that context does not matter.   What I am observing is that in many cases the rather clear language of scripture is claimed to mean something other than what a direct read suggests because of "context".   This is how people are able to make the Bible 'say' what they desire.   Just apply a suitable context (or, even, make one up that suits the purpose) and we have the Bible producing the desired result.

The way you and mocowgirl read it doesn't ask or answer the question as to why he brought it. Rather important, don't you think? 

Who is the authority for determining why (the deep intended meaning) of scripture?   In my life I have found quite a few 'authorities' who disagree with each other.   How do we distinguish the true authorities from the fake authorities?

ADDENDUM:

⁴⁹  “I have come to set the world on fire, and I wish it were already burning!  

Jesus is stating that he has come to disrupt the norm (set on fire).   That could mean anything.

 ⁵⁰  I have a terrible baptism of suffering ahead of me, and I am under a heavy burden until it is accomplished. 

Jesus is stating that he carries a great burden that will not ease until he has ‘set the world on fire’;  he also states that he will suffer greatly in the future.

  ⁵¹  Do you think I have come to bring peace to the earth?

Clearly, Jesus does not see his mission to be one of getting humankind to peacefully coexist.

No, I have come to divide people against each other!   ⁵²  From now on families will be split apart, three in favor of me, and two against—or two in favor and three against.

Specifically, he intends to ACT with the consequence of dividing people.   He wants to split families apart (divisive) along the lines of favoring Him and not favoring Him.

You say that this specifically means that Jesus intends to make a clear split between those Jews who follow his new covenant vs. those who stick with the old covenant:  “More specifically, since he was speaking to Jews, the division he speaks of is between those Jews who would remain under the old covenant, and therefore in their sins, as opposed to those who accepted the new one which hung on the salvation he would bring.“

Can you imagine someone else offering a different interpretation of that on which Jesus would divide people?   For example, dividing Christians from those who do not believe in the Trinity?   All sorts of possibilities to be inserted in this vague language.   Who says the division is strictly between OC and NC?  (And where is the authoritative definition of OC vs. NC?)   Why was the specific division not stated in the scripture?  It would have been easy to do … to be clear.

⁵⁴  Then Jesus turned to the crowd and said,   “When you see clouds beginning to form in the west, you say, ‘Here comes a shower.’ And you are right.   ⁵⁵  When the south wind blows, you say, ‘Today will be a scorcher.’ And it is.   ⁵⁶  You fools! You know how to interpret the weather signs of the earth and sky, but you don’t know how to interpret the present times.

In short, Jesus observes that human beings can see future weather events based on current signs but that they do not know how to interpret present times.   The phrase ‘present times’ could mean anything.   More room for clever interpretation.

I will address this first and then the addendum as a separate issue afterwards. 

I am saying that your interpretation...

My, or anyone else's interpretation, isn't really the point I'm making. In fact, what little interpretation I gave was intentionally vague because I didn't want the interpretation to be the issue. Rather, the method of arriving at an interpretation is the point. Recall what I was responding to. 

Yeshua is the god of division and gibberish.

To support her claim, she presented the verses that she did. Unfortunately, in trying to be as inoffensive as I could manage in my reply, I think I was less than clear in what I was trying to point out. I should have simply stated plainly that those verses can't be taken in isolation like that and get anything like a real meaning out of them. To use the verses the way she did and, as far as I can tell, the way you attempt to treat them, Jesus is literally saying he came to create division for no purpose, reason or goal. Put another way, to take that interpretation one necessarily has to discard the narrative of the entire Bible and chuck it out the window. And regardless of how open to different interpretations the Bible seems to you, there are basic elements that cannot be misinterpreted. God created man. Man fell. God enacted plan to save man. Jesus is that plan. Those who repent and accept Jesus as savior will live eternally with God, those who don't, won't. 

What, specifically, is the way I do?

In my observation of our arguments concerning interpretations, you seem to have two co-equal rules. One, the Bible is not from God but is the imaginings of primitive shepherds and, two, because of the first, one can interpret it anyway one wishes. You do not seem to understand that, even if it were the imaginings of primitive shepherds, they still had a narrative. A specific story they were telling. When Orson Scott Card wrote Enders Game, one can interpret the story any way they wish. However, only one interpretation will match the story Card intended to tell. 

So, because of that, in your addendum you break down what you think the words of those verses mean according to the actual grammar of the sentences rather than the larger context in which those verses appear. The best example I can give of this is your treatment of Exodus 21:20-21. No matter how an explanation of the verses are presented to you in context, you insist that God is literally saying that He's perfectly okay with the slave owner beating their slave nearly to death, as long as they don't actually die. You absolutely refuse to look at the context in which the verses occur and simply isolate them in order to make your argument. 

And while this may seem like a poke at you, it isn't. I literally don't understand how someone who claims adherence to critical thinking, logic and reason can do that. It's basic communication. What is said always has to be understood within the context in which it is said. 

What I am observing is that in many cases the rather clear language of scripture is claimed to mean something other than what a direct read suggests because of "context".   

Without specifics, it's hard to know to what you refer. In any case, it is my experience that most people who do not believe the Bible is the word of God understands little of what it actually is. They tend to think of it more as a text book for Jews and Christians and, in a sense, it is. But it's more than that. It is absolutely stuffed with poetry and figures of speech. E. W. Bullinger's Figures of Speech (really slow reading, let me tell you) used in the Bible identifies 217 distinct figures of speech, for instance. So, while Jesus clearly says the words "it is better to cut off your hand if it causes you to sin than to go into Hell with two" it doesn't mean that he's being literal. This is evident by the fact that your hand can't cause you to take any action. It's just a hand. Point being, what you consider "rather clear language" probably isn't, if you're just going off that verse. 

This is how people are able to make the Bible 'say' what they desire.

This I agree with. But the question is, why does this occur? Is the fault with the Bible or is it with the motive of the one interpreting? I'm pretty confident that, in spite of your opinion of the Bible, even you recognize that people like Kenneth Copeland absolutely mangle the meaning of the verses he uses to take advantage of people. 

In reality, there's only one way to read the Bible to get out of it what was intended, and no one ever gets it all right. It would be unrealistic to expect perfection from a mere human. To put it simply as I can, to read the Bible correctly means to let go of everything we ourselves think is true about reality and let God teach us His. Put another way, to let go of all we think life is about and understand it from God's perspective. That's it's purpose, after all. It isn't to make our lives work out the way we want them to. It's to make it work out the way God wants it to. 

The way you and mocowgirl read it doesn't ask or answer the question as to why he brought it. Rather important, don't you think? 

Who is the authority for determining why (the deep intended meaning) of scripture? 

Not really relevant to the point. The point was, Jesus said what he said about bringing division for a reason. He is not the God of division and gibberish. 

To use the verses the way she did and, as far as I can tell, the way you attempt to treat them, Jesus is literally saying he came to create division for no purpose, reason or goal.

And it is fair to interpret this in context of Jesus in general.    But a) it is clear that scripture is often worded vaguely (and arguably poorly) which suggests that it was man-made without the aid of a perfect source and b) who is the authority on the proper interpretation?

You do not seem to understand that, even if it were the imaginings of primitive shepherds, they still had a narrative. 

And depending upon the skill of the author, that narrative may come through clearly, vaguely, or not at all.   When it is unclear, the question remains:  who is the authority on proper interpretation?

The best example I can give of this is your treatment of Exodus 21:20-21. No matter how an explanation of the verses are presented to you in context, you insist that God is literally saying that He's perfectly okay with the slave owner beating their slave nearly to death, as long as they don't actually die. You absolutely refuse to look at the context in which the verses occur and simply isolate them in order to make your argument. 

Because you offered no persuasive argument.   The context you provided was, essentially, that the rest of the Bible suggests God would never condone slavery ... so there.    You offered no specific written context that explains why God continues to allow slavery, makes special rules for proper enslavement, etc.   There are rules against coveting possessions but no rule that states:  thou shalt not own another human being as property.    In terms of moral guidance, God is condoning the owning of human beings as property.   

Without specifics, it's hard to know to what you refer. 

Your Exodus 21 example is a good one for this.  You claim a direct read is wrong due to context yet have never delivered context that explains it.  (See above.)

Is the fault with the Bible or is it with the motive of the one interpreting?

Probably both, but my point is that given this reality, how can anyone think they have the true, divine meaning of the Bible (assuming there is one)?

 The point was, Jesus said what he said about bringing division for a reason. He is not the God of division and gibberish. 

This you should take up with MoCowGirl.   My aspect / criticism is that the Bible cannot be reliably interpreted.    Barring a literal read (and even there problems exist), without a single authority reconciling all the levels of context, it is not possible to know divine truth (if there is even a divine truth in the Bible).

⁴⁹  “I have come to set the world on fire, and I wish it were already burning!  

Jesus is stating that he has come to disrupt the norm (set on fire).   That could mean anything.

In a general sense, yes, but it can't mean just anything. He means something specific and wasn't just choosing a random word to use. Fire has only so many meanings within the Bible, most often having to do with judgement, purification. Sometimes a description of what God is like (a consuming fire) and sometimes in reference to the Holy Spirit. 

The problem in interpreting what Jesus means is that he's not exactly talking about doctrine here. He's speaking about how he is feeling (I wish). Also, what he says here could be interpreted in more than one way and all of them be true. I've read some commentaries on this verse and some of them say this has to do with Judgement but I'm not sure I understand their reasoning. Some think it has to do with the Holy Spirit's work in the world after Jesus ascends post resurrection. 

In any case, one thing we can be sure of. If a given interpretation has nothing to do with the work Jesus was here to do, then it's wrong. In a sense, Jesus was kind of like John Wick, a man of singular focus, as the movie says. 

 ⁵⁰  I have a terrible baptism of suffering ahead of me, and I am under a heavy burden until it is accomplished. 

Jesus is stating that he carries a great burden that will not ease until he has ‘set the world on fire’;  he also states that he will suffer greatly in the future.

More specifically, the great burden he carries is the sins of the world. He is the sacrificial lamb God prepared so that His wrath and justice against all our wrongs will be satisfied. Aside from being a completely innocent man in every conceivable sense of the word being saddled with what we did, he would also be rejected, abused and killed by the very people he was doing this all for. You know I believe in God completely and even I can't say I really comprehend what that must have been like. The one who made us took responsibility for what we did and gave his righteous standing and put it on us like it were ours to begin with. 

That is what he meant. Hard for us to understand that because moral imperfection is all we know. 

  ⁵¹  Do you think I have come to bring peace to the earth?

Clearly, Jesus does not see his mission to be one of getting humankind to peacefully coexist.

Simply going with your phrasing, no, that wasn't the goal. The goal was always and ever to be reconciled to God, progressive churches notwithstanding. 

In a more specific sense, we need to understand who he was saying this to. What did they think peace on earth would mean? To them, peace on earth would mean Jesus conquering the world to bring it all under the Mosaic law so that all would, basically, become Jews. The Jews gave him over to the Romans because he didn't meet their expectations. 

No, I have come to divide people against each other!   ⁵²  From now on families will be split apart, three in favor of me, and two against—or two in favor and three against.

Specifically, he intends to ACT with the consequence of dividing people.  

Yes, which is what I said in my first post. Consequence, not goal. 

He wants to split families apart (divisive) along the lines of favoring Him and not favoring Him.

It doesn't say he wants that to happen as if it were his preferred outcome. It is simply the inevitable result of his entry into human affairs (being born with the mission he was born with). Humanity went wrong. Jesus is God's plan to fix it for those who wanted fixing in accordance with His will and purpose. The effects of this range from the general to the specific. Generally, all of us have to contend with who Jesus is. Accept or reject. More specifically, are you going to try to justify yourself or are you going to allow God to do it for you? In the Jew's case, which is really just a microcosm of all humanity, were they going to stick with the Mosaic law and try to handle their own salvation, try to justify themselves before God or were they going to admit they were unable to and allow God to do all the work? 

It is this that split families, not Jesus actually working to split them because he had some malicious intent to split them. And, again, it's just a microcosm of the bigger picture. It wasn't just the Jews. Just look at those who try to follow God in the way He intends us to. Following Jesus is always divisive because there's always those who oppose what Jesus and his Father want. 

You say that this specifically means that Jesus intends to make a clear split between those Jews who follow his new covenant vs. those who stick with the old covenant:  “More specifically, since he was speaking to Jews, the division he speaks of is between those Jews who would remain under the old covenant, and therefore in their sins, as opposed to those who accepted the new one which hung on the salvation he would bring.“ Can you imagine someone else offering a different interpretation of that on which Jesus would divide people?   For example, dividing Christians from those who do not believe in the Trinity?   All sorts of possibilities to be inserted in this vague language.   Who says the division is strictly between OC and NC?  (And where is the authoritative definition of OC vs. NC?)   Why was the specific division not stated in the scripture?  It would have been easy to do … to be clear.

Hmm. Assuming I understand your question correctly, no, not as you've posed the question. While the doctrine of the Trinity is divisive among the fringe and mainstream Christianity, it isn't so because of anything Jesus intended or said or could conceivably be attributed as a valid interpreted meaning to the referenced verse. In other words, it would be a pretty convoluted slog to try to connect the doctrine of the Trinity as the meaning behind the referenced verse. It simply isn't what he was talking about. 

⁵⁴  Then Jesus turned to the crowd and said,   “When you see clouds beginning to form in the west, you say, ‘Here comes a shower.’ And you are right.   ⁵⁵  When the south wind blows, you say, ‘Today will be a scorcher.’ And it is.   ⁵⁶  You fools! You know how to interpret the weather signs of the earth and sky, but you don’t know how to interpret the present times.

In short, Jesus observes that human beings can see future weather events based on current signs but that they do not know how to interpret present times.   The phrase ‘present times’ could mean anything.   More room for clever interpretation.

You're just stating that this is so without providing a credible example. In fact, in this case, Jesus meant exactly what he says here. He's speaking to Jews, who know the law. They know what their scripture says. And here he is, the one the scripture talks about and they're missing it. He healed the sick, cast out demons, raised people from the dead, altered nature, lived, acted and taught without fault and still they demanded to know when he would meet their expectations rather than submit and follow. He has given them all the proof to back up his claim that anyone could want and still they were missing it. 

If you have a different possibility for the meaning of "present times" I'm certainly willing to hear it, but you need to back it up with scripture and in context. Otherwise, you're just making an unsupported claim. 

So, I've probably spent a lot of time on something that you're going to dismiss out of hand. Not your problem but mine. I chose to do it. I do so because I keep hoping that one day you'll realize that, whatever you think of the Bible right now, you will realize that whoever wrote it actually had specific ideas they meant to communicate and you'll wonder what it might be. I know that if you spoke to an actual accredited Bible scholar, secular or otherwise, they'd tell you that the Bible just being a collection of writings of ignorant shepherds is simply pure nonsense. Mostly for your own sake, but also because it's so frustrating to try to have a conversation with you about the subject when, whether you believe it or not, you know so little about it. And that isn't a put down. 

Good night, TiG. 

Jesus is stating that he has come to disrupt the norm (set on fire).

To use the verses the way she did and, as far as I can tell, the way you attempt to treat them, Jesus is literally saying he came to create division for no purpose, reason or goal.

And it is fair to interpret this in context of Jesus in general.

Why? 

But a) it is clear that scripture is often worded vaguely (and arguably poorly) which suggests that it was man-made without the aid of a perfect source

This is just a declarative statement without evidence. I certainly do not agree with it. 

and b) who is the authority on the proper interpretation?

The Bible. If a given interpretation contradicts something elsewhere in the Bible, it's wrong. There is a maxim concerning interpretation of the Bible. The best interpreter of the Bible is the Bible. Surely you would agree that the Bible's internal logic must be consistent? 

You do not seem to understand that, even if it were the imaginings of primitive shepherds, they still had a narrative. 

And depending upon the skill of the author, that narrative may come through clearly, vaguely, or not at all.   When it is unclear, the question remains:  who is the authority on proper interpretation?

Communication is a two way street, TiG. If the hearer is not listening, it's not the fault of the author. If the listener is listening with an ear to how well what is said matches my preconceived notions it won't be the fault of the author but the fault of the listener. It isn't coherent because it doesn't agree with what I believe, in other words. 

Because you offered no persuasive argument.   The context you provided was, essentially, that the rest of the Bible suggests God would never condone slavery ... so there.       

No, actually, it wasn't the context I provided but I'm not going to bother with repeating it all. It would just get rejected again. In any case, I never said God doesn't condone slavery, within the actual definition of "condone". I said God doesn't approve of slavery, although now at this later date, I can imagine situations where He might not think it unjust, even if it were not what He would prefer. 

You offered no specific written context that explains why God continues to allow slavery, makes special rules for proper enslavement, etc.

Why God allows slavery is not given. That is, God doesn't explain it specifically anywhere that I know of. As for what you call special rules, they seem obvious to me. To protect the slaves. 

 There are rules against coveting possessions but no rule that states:  thou shalt not own another human being as property.    

Why do you think coveting and slavery are two different things?

In terms of moral guidance, God is condoning the owning of human beings as property.

Do you ever ask yourself why that might be or do you just go with your own views on the subject as inerrant and infallible? That is, do you think that because slavery is morally wrong in general there can be no scenario where it is actually justified? For instance, suppose someone borrows from someone else, knowing God prefers mercy and forgiveness. That person squanders the borrowed money, expecting mercy and forgiveness. Suppose he gets it. Then does it all over again, taking advantage of God and His preferences? 

Or suppose your nation attacks another nation simply to steal what they have? You go in and slaughter men, women and children for the purpose of coveting what they've worked for and built. Your side loses. How do you pay for what you've done? With your life? In what way? 

What makes you think that God has to see slavery the way you do? Apparently, you are of the opinion that nothing justifies slavery but how can you justify claiming that God has to have the same attitude? Present an argument that definitively shows that God cannot use an institution man created to achieve a greater good. 

Lastly, "approval" is not a synonym of "condone". 

Your Exodus 21 example is a good one for this.  You claim a direct read is wrong due to context yet have never delivered context that explains it.

I don't recall it that way. If you read Exodus 21, you will see a list of rules. Yet thinking of them as simply rules would be wrong. This is true of any of the laws. More important than the rule is why it's there. What's behind it? You simply read it legalistically. "I beat this guy nearly to death but I got him on his feet, no matter how shakily, within two days, so I'm good with God." You can only arrive at such an interpretation by ignoring every last thing God has ever said in the Bible. In fact, your Bible would simply consist of those two verses, concerning this subject. 

Probably both, but my point is that given this reality, how can anyone think they have the true, divine meaning of the Bible (assuming there is one)?

Can't really answer that, meaningfully, knowing where this question is being asked from. In your mind there is no possibility that the Bible is actually true so what could I say to change that? Nothing. The only thing I could say is that anyone who thinks they have the true, divine meaning, in its entirety, is certainly wrong. That would be beyond imperfect beings. 

Fortunately, salvation isn't dependent on perfect understanding. That is, God doesn't accept us because we have perfect knowledge or understanding. He accepts us because we repent and trust in His Son. That's what matters. 

The point was, Jesus said what he said about bringing division for a reason. He is not the God of division and gibberish. 

My aspect / criticism is that the Bible cannot be reliably interpreted.    Barring a literal read (and even there problems exist), without a single authority reconciling all the levels of context, it is not possible to know divine truth (if there is even a divine truth in the Bible).

You seem to think of this as some sort of scientific endeavor. It isn't. Nor is it a case of having to prove what one is convinced of for it to be valid. Nor is it a case of having to figure it out on one's own. The Bible is just a tool. It is not the main event. That would be God and He promises that He will save us if we trust in Him. If we repent and submit to His will, which is Jesus. That isn't hard to understand and, that much at least, isn't difficult to interpret. The rest is a matter of how God wants us to go through this life. And it is eminently possible to know because He's right there with you as you go through it all. 

Logically, then, something that should have been stated to provide a clear statement

How does logic and the Bible co-exist?

First, there is a being.  A god.  That is all there is.  A god. 

Now, the plot.

For reasons that are never explained, the god starts creating things.  Why?  Why does a god need anything?  

Then this god creates a bunch of random things like stars and planets.  From what we now know, the stars and planets number in the billions, trillions, gazillions?  Is there life on these other planets?  Doesn't really matter as far as the Bible story because the Earth is this god's most important creation. 

Shazaam, the Earth is populated with trees, plants and animals.  Yet, the god is still not satisfied.  This is appearing to be a very needy god already and we are just a few pages into the story.

This god needs a companion and takes some dirt and makes one and calls it Adam.  God literally makes its companion out of dirt?  

Adam, for some strange reason, is not completely satisfied for having a god as a companion because Adam has sexual needs given to him by the god that made Adam.  This begs the question, why did this god create sexual needs?  Nothing had to ever die - a star, a planet, a tree, a flower, an animal.  There was zero need for fertilization or copulation for anything to reproduce because creation was as perfect as its creator - a god.  

The god has knowledge of what is good and what is evil.  Surprise, the god created both concepts and set the parameters.  Why?  Why does a god need the concepts of good and evil?  If the god is good, then why doesn't it create everything as good and peaceful?  The god created evil because it needs evil.  Why?

If a person can hang with the story, we find the god is vengeful, wrathful, requires blood sacrifice (animal & human) and winds up drowning the vast majority of its creations because it finds humans to be evil and displeasing.

The rest of the Bible is about humans struggling and mostly failing to honor, to obey and to worship this god properly and being punished and killed for their failings.

Even the NT, with its messages of hope, is filled with admonishments not to be the humans that this god created us to be and to be godlike - forgiving, peaceful and even humble.

Logical?  Not hardly.

The god has knowledge of what is good and what is evil.  Surprise, the god created both concepts and set the parameters.  Why?  Why does a god need the concepts of good and evil?  If the god is good, then why doesn't it create everything as good and peaceful?  The god created evil because it needs evil.  Why?

This is an easy one. Without a contrasting other experience, there could be no good. If everything was "good" the concept would be meaningless. We only experience good because we are aware that there is a "not good". God created or not, we experience existence in terms of opposites ,dualities , and relativities. Without down the concept of up is meaningless. Telling someone to move to the left would be pointless without the alternative of the right. Without evil to contrast it to no one would know that good existed. 

I dont know why this is so, but it is and it is a fruitless question to ask why God permits evil. 

God is by definition a supernatural concept which means it is beyond our ability to understand within the confines of our experience of this existence. This existence IS what we refer to as nature. We cannot examine or prove or disprove supernatural concepts. They are a matter of faith. It is always amusing to watch people strain to denigrate concepts that are by definition beyond human understanding. 

All human scriptures are cultural expressions of the civilizations, or tribes, that created them. By themselves they neither prove the existence of God or disprove it.  

This is an easy one.

I think you're missing the point of her post. Her questions are rhetorical in nature, asked in pursuit of demonstrating why (to her) there is no logic to be found in the Biblical narrative. 

Also, what he says here could be interpreted in more than one way and all of them be true.

Does it not bother you that there are many interpretations that you would consider to be true?   It emphasizes how easy it is to interpret the Bible differently and certainly you recognize that the interpretations you consider to be false others consider to be true.    This is my point by the way.

More specifically, the great burden he carries is the sins of the world. 

I suspect most people would conclude that Jesus' burden is that and that the suffering is his dying.

The goal was always and ever to be reconciled to God, progressive churches notwithstanding. 

The language suggests the goal is to be divisive ... to thwart peaceful coexistence.   The language speaks of breaking families and friends apart.   Why focus on collateral damage instead of just directly stating intent — clarity in meaning?   If you were to write this part of scripture you would have stated what you have been stating here (bring closer to God, NC vs. OC, etc.).   If the meaning is specific then the language can be specific.   The fact that the language is vague, here and elsewhere, and that theologians must provide (various) interpretations that bring in (via select context) entirely new information, suggests (strongly) that the Bible is not the source of divine truth but rather is simply a tool by which human beings generate the religious truths they seek (exploiting the language of the ancient writers).

It doesn't say he wants that to happen as if it were his preferred outcome.

Per above.   He speaks of the collateral damage and does NOT speak of the preferred outcome.   You provided the preferred outcome.

If you have a different possibility for the meaning of "present times" I'm certainly willing to hear it, but you need to back it up with scripture and in context.

Present times is referring to what is happening in the present.   The meaning of the phrase is not the problem.   The problem is the use of the phrase.   It does not given any indication of what people should be interpreting.   Present times connotes a domain of everything that a human being can sense.   Not helpful, ergo vague.    

I do so because I keep hoping that one day you'll realize that, whatever you think of the Bible right now, you will realize that whoever wrote it actually had specific ideas they meant to communicate and you'll wonder what it might be.

Is that what you think my 'problem' is?   I have not argued that the writers of the Bible just randomly penned sentences.   Of course they had an intent.   My argument is that people interpret the Bible as the divine word of a perfect God yet this 'divine word' can be interpreted many ways (and is).   And since there is no authority who can state which interpretation is correct, the Bible cannot be taken as divine.   One cannot trust an interpretation to be truth.   And thus, one should not hold anything from the Bible as the divine word of a perfect God.

I know that if you spoke to an actual accredited Bible scholar, secular or otherwise, they'd tell you that the Bible just being a collection of writings of ignorant shepherds is simply pure nonsense.

I have never claimed that!!   I have always noted that the Bible an impressive accomplishment given how it has evolved.   My criticism is not with the skills of the writers but rather with the obvious contradictions and errors in the resulting work.    In short, my criticism is that the content of the Bible itself, coupled with the many contradictory interpretations and the reliance upon 'context' illustrate that the Bible is a product of human beings and should never be taken as divine.

Mostly for your own sake, but also because it's so frustrating to try to have a conversation with you about the subject when, whether you believe it or not, you know so little about it. And that isn't a put down. 

Yes it is a put down.   You are back to claiming that those who disagree with you and who do not buy your arguments simply do not understand.   That the problem is not your position and argument but rather the ignorance of your interlocutors.    Your ending commentary (e.g. ignorant shepherds) illustrates that you have a very distorted profile of my position and what I have written.

Why? 

Not sure, I must have copied the wrong text by mistake.   Skip this, I do not remember.

If a given interpretation contradicts something elsewhere in the Bible, it's wrong.

All the passages that speak of proper enslavement rules illustrate that God condones the owning of people as property.   Where is that contradicted?   And when contradicted, which interpretation is correct:   the interpretation that God condones the owning of people as property or the interpretation that God does not condone the owning of people as property?

The Bible absolutely cannot be the authoritative source for the correct interpretation because it is demonstrably errant and contradictory.   I really am amazed that you think the Bible itself can be the authoritative source since it always requires interpretation by human beings and thus the interpretations will vary.   If the Bible could serve as the authoritative source then exegesis would systemically always produce the same interpretations.   We know that this is not true, so why would you think your argument would be persuasive?

No, actually, it wasn't the context I provided but I'm not going to bother with repeating it all. 

This is what you consistently do.   You often dismiss any paraphrasing on what you have written.   You have spent your time writing all sorts of words on nuances, yet here you refuse to offer clarity on your position.

In any case, I never said God doesn't condone slavery, within the actual definition of "condone". I said God doesn't approve of slavery, although now at this later date, I can imagine situations where He might not think it unjust, even if it were not what He would prefer. 

And now here you spend two sentences on semantic nuances.   Making rules for how to properly enslave another human being is condoning slavery.

condone ≡ " accept and allow (behavior that is considered  morally  wrong or offensive) to continue. "

Why God allows slavery is not given. 

Agreed.   All we know is that God allowed it and even provided rules for proper enslavement.   God disallowed coveting possessions but there is no "thou shalt not own another human being as property".   And we are really talking about property ... slaves were often willed to descendants ... like cattle or equipment.

Why do you think coveting and slavery are two different things?

What an odd question.   Why do you think wanting a car and stealing the car are two different things?   I do not see where you are heading.

That is, do you think that because slavery is morally wrong in general there can be no scenario where it is actually justified?

Not the point.   The point is that God condones slavery and never provides moral clarity that owning another human being as property is wrong.

Lastly, "approval" is not a synonym of "condone". 

condone ≡ " accept and allow (behavior that is considered  morally  wrong or offensive) to continue. "

You simply read it legalistically. " I beat this guy nearly to death but I got him on his feet, no matter how shakily, within two days, so I'm good with God ." You can only arrive at such an interpretation by ignoring every last thing God has ever said in the Bible. In fact, your Bible would simply consist of those two verses, concerning this subject.

Your claim is that the collective words of God per the Bible contradict this passage.   Now it is time to make an argument to support your claim.

In your mind there is no possibility that the Bible is actually true so what could I say to change that?

That is irrelevant.   You should be able to make a very convincing argument that you have the true, divine meaning of the Bible.   If not, then on what grounds do you hold anything you read to be divine truth (or even truth)?

The Bible is just a tool.

Indeed.    A demonstrably flawed tool that logically will not yield divine truth.

All human scriptures are cultural expressions of the civilizations, or tribes, that created them. By themselves they neither prove the existence of God or disprove it.  

Agreed.    However, the gods described by human writings have details, actions, etc.   It is possible to use the description of a god to prove that this god (as described) cannot possibly exist.   If the description of a god is self-contradicting, the god (as described) does not exist.   This does not mean there is no god;  it simply means that this god (as defined) does not exist.

I dont know why this is so, but it is and it is a fruitless question to ask why God permits evil. 

For you, this is a fruitless question.  Evil did not have to exist.  Yahweh did not permit evil.  Yahweh created evil. 

For me, it shows Yahweh is just one of tens of thousands of gods created by men in their image.

The Yale course on the Hebrews explains the history of the people who created and worshipped Yahweh.  It was on youtube a year ago, I don't know if it still is.

If people would do some research on the origins of world religions and how they have evolved, it would probably be extremely beneficial to their ability to choose a belief system that would be mentally and physically rewarding for them in today's world. 

Religion is a rigged game where the rules are open to interpretation.  Anyone and everyone can present themselves as an authority on what god really meant and how people should really live.  Pastor Greg Locke is just a common example of the men presenting themselves as god's rep to fleece the flock.  

There is only one God and can only be one God. God is the defined as THE supreme being. 

Not everyone agrees with you there.   Polytheism still exists.

But I think you missed my point.    Let's say that a sentient creator (God) does indeed exist.   With that as a given, my comment applies.   People will define their god as they imagine God.   Their definition might be detailed to the point where it is self-contradicting.   If so, the god character they defined does not exist.   That does not mean God does not exist, it just means that their god (that which they defined) does not exist.

Fervent religiosity is a childlike belief in magic. It is hard to take those seriously when they speak so matter of factly about mythical figures with supernatural powers. As if The Easter Bunny and The Tooth Fairy were also legitimate to believe in...

After all, "You must respect my beliefs!"

Must we? 

You are opposed to religion,fair enough. I am talking about the way our existence works. It is impossible to experience good without the existence of evil. 

How does logic and the Bible co-exist?

Easy.   One can compare the Bible to itself.   When one does that, one sees contradictions.   Logic shows that a self-contradicting statement cannot be true.

Logical?  Not hardly.

I trust you know that I was not saying that the Bible is a coherent work; quite the opposite.

The only way there can be more than one God is if you reject the dictionary definition of God. God is THE supreme being . "gods" are not God, they are something lesser. 

The only way there can be more than one God is if you reject the dictionary definition of God.

Is Hinduism a non-religion?

Further, you have again missed my point.

Let's say that a sentient creator (God) does indeed exist.   With that as a given, my comment applies.   People will define their god as they imagine God.   Their definition might be detailed to the point where it is self-contradicting.   If so, the god character they defined does not exist.   That does not mean God does not exist, it just means that their god (that which they defined) does not exist.

Fervent religiosity is a childlike belief in magic. It is hard to take those seriously when they speak so matter of factly about mythical figures with supernatural powers.

Is that why you didn’t take the Clintons seriously?

”When George H.W. Bush called Bill on election night in 1992 to concede, Hillary recalled in Living History, “Bill and I went into our bedroom, closed the door and prayed together for God’s help as he took on this awesome honor and responsibility.” Her words are an unmistakable echo for anyone who knows the Bible well. Jesus, in his Sermon on the Mount, preached, “But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”

It is impossible to experience good without the existence of evil. 

Good:   Not littering

Good:   Returning a found wallet with money intact

Good:   Saving a child from drowning

Good:   Altruistically giving one's life for the benefit of many others

Seems to me that one can recognize various levels of good.   The concept of good can run from 0 to 100 and need not have the 0 to -100 scale (the scale of evil).

Plus, we could have a little bad as well:

Bad:   Littering

Bad:   Stealing

etc.

There is no need for high levels of evil for us to experience good.

Easy.   One can compare the Bible to itself.   When one does that, one sees contradictions.   Logic shows that a self-contradicting statement cannot be true.

I’m an agnostic atheist that has never felt the need to discredit people’s faiths.

The many different people wrote the Bible over hundreds of years.  They lived in different places in different circumstances and faced separate challenges.  These differences bring different perspectives and points of view to what they wrote.

One might think that instead of disparaging it, even none believers like my self would celebrate the diversity and find value in its symbolism.

I was in kindergarten when I first asked why there was no longer any evidence of or examples of the magic written about in all the Bible stories they told us in Church and Sunday School. The best answer the wisest Christians and Biblical scholars I have ever known came with was this. "After Jesus was crucified, died, rose from the dead and ascended to Heaven all the magic on Earth ended, and that magic would only return when Jesus returns"... 

Uh Huh!

Does it not bother you that there are many interpretations that you would consider to be true?

Depends on what is being talked about. If one interpretation says Jesus is God and another says Jesus is not God, both cannot be true and would be unacceptable. However, if Jesus says something like "I have come to set the world on fire, and I wish it were already burning!", there is no reason he could not be talking about more than one thing such a statement applies to. For instance, the Holy Spirit is sometimes described as a fire and he would certainly be looking forward to the day when the Holy Spirit would come upon those who would believe in him. At the same time, fire also has to do with judgement and it would also be true that Jesus would look forward to the day he would sit in judgement of evil and end it forever. 

The language suggests the goal is to be divisive ... to thwart peaceful coexistence.   The language speaks of breaking families and friends apart.   Why focus on collateral damage instead of just directly stating intent — clarity in meaning?

Per above.   He speaks of the collateral damage and does NOT speak of the preferred outcome.   You provided the preferred outcome.

Present times is referring to what is happening in the present.   The meaning of the phrase is not the problem.   The problem is the use of the phrase.   It does not given any indication of what people should be interpreting.   Present times connotes a domain of everything that a human being can sense.   Not helpful, ergo vague.

All of this is said with isolating the referenced verses from the rest of the Bible to make your case, TiG. It's as if you insist on taking one paragraph from a ten volume history on WWII and then complain because it's vague and open to interpretation and doesn't really explain anything. Well yeah. Of course not! Who does that? 

I don't understand why, but it's as if there's this neutron star dense mental block in you that prevents you from understanding that the clarity and meaning comes from the rest of what is written. There are four different Gospels, each approaching the subject from slightly different angles that give meaning and context to what Jesus does and says. And all of that has as its foundation the Old Testament. We're looking at, what, six verses here? How much clarity, how much meaning do you think can be crammed into that? 

And since there is no authority who can state which interpretation is correct, the Bible cannot be taken as divine.

This is not a sound statement as there is no reason the Bible cannot be the word of God regardless of whatever authority you think is necessary. It is also not sound because, to be God's word doesn't depend on correct interpretation. That is, it isn't correct interpretation that makes it God's word. 

But more importantly, God's word isn't simply words written on paper and bound into a book. That is the least of what it is. God's word is the power of God working in the world to accomplish His will. God said... and there was light. Because of this, if one seeks God His power will be more than sufficient to make up for where we don't get it totally right. Point being, perfect interpretation isn't expected by God any more than a parent expects perfect obedience or understanding from a toddler. 

One might think that instead of disparaging it,

Why are you speaking of disparaging religion?   Do you think that any critical analysis of religion is disparaging?   That it is in some way wrong to be critical of any or all religions?

At the same time, fire also has to do with judgement and it would also be true that Jesus would look forward to the day he would sit in judgement of evil and end it forever. 

Yes, this is not an example of a contradiction.   It is an example of many, varied interpretations.   A contradiction is the harshest situation because that proves a falsehood.   Varied interpretations proves ambiguity and thus the inability to know which of the interpretations should be taken as divine truth (it is an indication that none should be taken as divine truth).

All of this is said with isolating the referenced verses from the rest of the Bible to make your case, TiG. 

You are just repeating yourself now.   The phrase 'present times' is an incredibly broad scope.   You understand that.   Why does your reply not recognize that?

I don't understand why, but it's as if there's this neutron star dense mental block in you that prevents you from understanding that the clarity and meaning comes from the rest of what is written. 

Prove it.   Historically, all you have ever done is provide your context to support your interpretation.   You have yet to provide a persuasive argument that the Bible itself determines a single divine truth.   

You are increasingly getting personal and insulting.   You might not notice it, but this might be a good time to just end this discussion.

This is not a sound statement as there is no reason the Bible cannot be the word of God regardless of whatever authority you think is necessary. 

Of course the Bible could be the divine word of God.   But without an authority that can reliably provide the divine truth interpretation, it might as well be a collection of ancient books written by many flawed human beings over many centuries.

For you, this is a fruitless question.  Evil did not have to exist.  Yahweh did not permit evil.  Yahweh created evil. 

It would be pretty hard to find either a Jew or a Christian who's serious about their faith to agree with this. God is not a basically neutral entity that sat down one day and decided what was good and what was bad. Goodness IS God. It is a part of His essence. It wasn't something that had to be figured out. He is simply the definition of good.  

Because of that, evil does not have to be created as evil would simply be anything that is in opposition to God. Likewise, good was never created because God has always existed. 

Bad:   littering

Bad:  keeping

Bad:  looking away out of fear

Bad:  selfishness

There is no need for high levels of evil for us to experience good.

I think you are missing the point. Why is not littering "good" ?   Because it is the opposite of littering, which is not good. Everything in this world is in relation to something else.  What would "warm" mean if every location on earth was warm? It wouldnt mean a thing and being warm wouldnt cause the satisfaction it does now. 

This is simply the way of the world. It is not a subject open to semantics. 

You are opposed to religion,fair enough.

Not all of them.  

I am somewhat a fan of Buddhism.  I don't have enough knowledge to know if it is all worthwhile.  It is kind of like the positive points of any religion that tells other people to work on themselves instead of controlling others.  The bad points are if you are not at the top of the food chain, the religion and its adherents, who are controlling, sadistic, narcissistic and overall just bad authority figures, should be recognized for who they are and shunned if possible.  

Introduction to Basic Beliefs and Tenets of Buddhism (learnreligions.com)

Buddhism Is Distinctly Different From Other Religions

Buddhism is so different from other religions that some people question whether it is a religion at all. For example, the central focus of most religions is one or many. But Buddhism is non-theistic. The Buddha taught that believing in gods was not useful for those seeking to realize enlightenment.

Most religions are defined by their beliefs. But in Buddhism, merely believing in doctrines is beside the point. The Buddha said that doctrines should not be accepted just because they are in scripture or taught by priests.

Instead of teaching doctrines to be memorized and believed, the Buddha taught how to realize truth for yourself. The focus of Buddhism is on practice rather than belief. The major outline of Buddhist practice is the   Eightfold Path .

Basic Teachings

In spite of its emphasis on free inquiry, Buddhism might best be understood as a discipline and an exacting discipline at that. And although Buddhist teachings should not be accepted on blind faith, understanding what the Buddha taught is an important part of that discipline.

The foundation of Buddhism is   the Four Noble Truths :

1. The truth of suffering   ( "dukkha")
2. The truth of the cause of suffering   ( "samudaya")
3. The truth of the end of suffering ( "nirhodha")
4. The truth of the path that frees us from suffering   ( "magga")

By themselves, the truths don't seem like much. But beneath the truths are countless layers of teachings on the nature of existence, the self, life, and death, not to mention suffering. The point is not to just "believe in" the teachings, but to explore them, understand them, and test them against your own experience. It is the process of exploring, understanding, testing, and realizing that defines Buddhism.

The Bible absolutely cannot be the authoritative source for the correct interpretation because it is demonstrably errant and contradictory.

That is an incomplete thought. It should read...

The Bible absolutely cannot be the authoritative source for the correct interpretation because it is demonstrably errant and contradictory according to the standards and values I hold to be true and relevant. 

Else how are you to make such a judgement? 

who's serious about their faith to agree with this.

Anyone, who is serious about their faith, is unlikely to agree with someone who doesn't believe in their faith and denounces it as so illogical that the religion's god deserves to be put in the myth category with Zeus, Apollo, Odin, etc.

Is Hinduism a non-religion?

Hinduism would not apply the dictionary definition of God to their deities. They don't think of them, historically, as omni-anything, nor do they attribute things like the problem of evil with them. Their gods are a different sort of thing altogether, although if I remember correctly, there's been a comparatively recent effort in some traditions to try to bring some of them up to the level of the Abrahamic God. God envy, maybe. 

The best answer the wisest Christians and Biblical scholars I have ever known came with was this. "After Jesus was crucified, died, rose from the dead and ascended to Heaven all the magic on Earth ended, and that magic would only return when Jesus returns"...

So without Yahweh/Yeshua's magic burning bushes and turning water into wine, the god's reps have to resort to bashing Barbies with Bibles to get people's attention in modern times?

Embarrassing, juvenile behavior to say the least.

You are increasingly getting personal and insulting.   You might not notice it, but this might be a good time to just end this discussion.

Probably a good idea. I am not here to insult you. 

Why are you speaking of disparaging religion? 

Because many do here.

Do you think that any critical analysis of religion is disparaging? 

No.

That it is in some way wrong to be critical of any or all religions?

No, but some like to share their disdain while celebrating all manner of other cultural beliefs.

Anyone, who is serious about their faith, is unlikely to agree with someone who doesn't believe in their faith and denounces it as so illogical that the religion's god deserves to be put in the myth category with Zeus, Apollo, Odin, etc.

Not the point behind what I said. I was simply presenting our perspective on God, good and evil. Nothing more. 

There is no requirement of omni- qualities to be defined as a God.  

Further, the god Brahma is the god of creation.

I doubt one would get very far trying to argue that polytheism ("the belief in or worship of more than one god") is not based on multiple gods or that polytheism cannot be a religion:

polytheism , the belief in many gods. Polytheism  characterizes  virtually all religions other than  Judaism ,  Christianity , and  Islam , which share a common tradition of  monotheism , the belief in one God.

britannica

The Ten Commandments of the Bible were literally lifted straight from Egypt. Moses gave the Israelites "The Law". The ancient laws of Egypt which required everyone to honor the gods and their elders and the holy days, to not give false witness, or steal or murder or cheat or even covet what was not theirs. The basic rules of civilization and any organized state. It was not rocket science... 

The standards and values I hold to be true, in this case, is a standard for evidence equivalent to what we routinely use in law and science and propositional logic.

One might think that instead of disparaging it, even none believers like my self would celebrate the diversity and find value in its symbolism.

For those of us who were raised in it and physically, mentally and emotionally harmed by it, we have insider knowledge of what goes on behind the curtain.

Assorted controlling, manipulative, sadistic, and narcissistic personalities are drawn to be in positions of power over people.  Religious authority gives a prime opportunity to rape children and women, wage wars, and even make laws based on their religious belief in complete disregard of people's right not to observe that religion. 

History is filled with the atrocities committed at the behest of authority figures like the Pope and various Christian heads of state in Europe.  People were tortured and burned at the stake.

I don't see where the Abrahamic religions have been disparaged enough for the harm they have done since their inception and continue to do today.

The Ten Commandments of the Bible were literally lifted straight from Egypt.

What is your documentation for this assertion.

It is not rocket science.

Exactly, no rockets in the Bible.

For those of us who were raised in it and physically, mentally and emotionally harmed by it, we have insider knowledge of what goes on behind the curtain.

I’m sure that it true but it might be more of a reflection of those controlling the curtain than those that wrote the Bible.

Religious authority gives a prime opportunity to rape children and women, wage wars, and even make laws based on their religious belief in complete disregard of people's right not to observe that religion. 

I don’t know that religion was the motivation or just a convenient excuse.

I don't see where the Abrahamic religions have been disparaged enough for the harm it has done since its inception and continues to do today.

Has it done any good for its believers?

Has it done any good for its believers?

How would I know?  

Do you know?

it might be more of a reflection of those controlling the curtain than those that wrote the Bible.

It might be more of a reflection of the men who wrote the Bible.  

Perhaps but the range is vast from Genesis to Revelation.

No, it seems unquantifiable.

There are many writers and sources who have covered this. You can take your pick. I would expect you to know this...

ancientpages

Do you know?

I do.

Critical scholarship is divided over its interpretation of the ten commandment texts.”

Sounds like less certainty of a direct lift.

Has it done any good for its believers?

That is saying the people, who were tortured, hung, burned at the stake, don't matter because it done good for the people who carried out the torturing, hanging and burning.

No, it seems unquantifiable.

As does the damage.

I also know because I have so many friends and family who are Christians.    My late FIL is a prime example.   He was deeply religious (Catholic), participated in the church, acted like an idealized Christian (benevolent, helpful, never a disparaging word, generous, altruistic, etc.) and was, in short, one of the most decent human beings I have ever had the pleasure to know.

His religion gave him comfort.   He was comforted in knowing that he acted according to what he believed was expected by God and that he would have heavenly rewards and be reunited with his loved ones and friends.   

That is a good thing because he never tried to impose his religion on anyone else (not even a hint) ... he just lived his life with a belief that worked for him.

I could make a flipside argument too, but I am going to stick with the pure positive.

So for some believers it has worked in that it brings comfort;  it provides a foundation to deal with the bad, scary aspects of life and death.

But your point is also quite correct.

Why is not littering "good" ?   Because it is the opposite of littering, which is not good.

I think you missed where I offered some examples of bad too.

My point was that we do not need to have great evil to understand good.   We can understand various levels of good (comparing them to each other) and can even compare the most modest good with modest bad (continuing to the negative).   We are perfectly capable of appreciating these differences without great evil such as that executed by people like Putin.

To wit, we do not need great evil to appreciate good.   

So for some believers it has worked in that it brings comfort;  it provides a foundation to deal with the bad, scary aspects of life and death.

Your FIL is my idea of what a Christian should be.  He was the best person he could be.  He helped others when he could.  He didn't try to convert them to his brand of religion or even mention it.

When I was a believer, I really tried to emulate your FIL's lifestyle.  I was taught that Yahweh had a divine plan and would do as he saw fit with me and everyone else.  I was somewhat concerned with national/international affairs, but I was taught that Yahweh had a divine plan.  Circular reasoning was my go to method to avoid over-thinking (or thinking) anything and everything.

Almost 4 decades ago, my (ex) husband told me that I should be a "good" wife and attend church on Sundays to pray for him, my response: "I'd rather be on the lake with you fishing on Sundays.  If you feel the need to be prayed over, I can do it in the boat."  That was the last time he ever requested that I should pray for him.  We rarely missed a Sunday on the lake from March to September.  Yahweh never seemed to be bothered enough to let me know he was displeased so I figured I was right where I needed to be according to the divine plan.

My life has changed drastically now that I know there is not a Yahweh and a divine plan.  That divine plan was an emotional crutch and a safety net.  I do fully understand why some people find comfort in religion and ignore the negative aspects.  I applaud their ability to do so as long as they are not harming or bothering others with their religious beliefs.  However, they just might find they are really better people without religion and treasure this life even more and make greater contributions to their loved ones and communities.

Giving up belief in Santa Claus did not mean that I quit enjoying Christmas.

Without "not good" to contrast it to, no one would know what good is. I think this is quite self-evident, but apparently everyone doesnt see it that way. 

I totally disagree that "God" could make a world without evil. That would be impossible in an existence that has the parameters that this one does. 

Without "not good" to contrast it to, no one would know what good is.

Yes we would.   We can compare levels of good.   Just like if we only had the color blue, we could compare shades of blue from the lightest to the darkest.

I totally disagree that "God" could make a world without evil. 

A supreme entity could make individuals who do no harm to others willingly.    Just as some of us are wired where we find it inconceivable to ever murder someone, all individuals could be wired such that what we consider evil would be inconceivable to them.

Actually the subject had been previously covered.

Actually the subject had been previously covered.

I guess you didn't notice the acknowledgement ant the beginning of the article:

This article was inspired by Trout Giggles' last publication ( thenewstalkers ).

I'm quite sure neither was read. lib = bad = comment...

Why haven't the fucking evan genitals noticed that Ken and Barbie have no genitals and, therefore, they cannot "live in sin"?

the ED ken and porn star ken accessories are included in the barbie pornhub package...

porn star ken accessories

Does this package include a tiny strap-on?

... and pink fur-lined handcuffs.

My cat said no.

How would Pastor Locke like it if a demonic wrecking ball was used to demolish his fucking dream house?

Erection?

Erection?

The Donald lost his erection in 2020.

Melanoma was ecstatic.

... because he only gets an erection the first tuesday of november, every 2 years...

been tracking him?

Have you two always been so close?

I think that's called stalking...

Perhaps but how else would he know?

Exactly 

[deleted]

I didn't know one could taunt themselves

I try not to show any favoritism ...

Pastor Locke.  As always with some of a particular persuasion, 'the cruelty is the point'.

Pastor Locke.  As always with some of a particular persuasion, 'the cruelty is the point'.

I just saw this news on youtube.  Jim Jones is departed, but his ilk carry on.

I hope he realizes the "church" just destroyed *$223.21 of, I hope, "church" property.  * Amazon Price  

I read some of the comments on youtube on the video in this seed.

It seems the pastor is an adulterer, possibly a wife beater, and definitely a hypocrite, who has married his wife's best friend (also divorced) after his wife divorced him.  Somehow, the court saw fit to allow two of the four children to live with him.

From 2018

Popular Internet Pastor Greg Locke Marries Church Assistant After Divorce | Church & Ministries News (christianpost.com)

After months of denying they were in an intimate relationship before his recent divorce, Greg Locke, the outspoken internet preacher and lead pastor of Global Vision Bible Church in Tennessee, has married his administrative assistant and ex-wife's best friend, Tai Cowan McGee.

Pulpit and Pen  first cited a copy of the newlywed's marriage certificate filed in Wilson County, showing that Locke, 42, and McGee who also recently went through a divorce, were married on Tuesday by Global Vision Bible Church's Executive Pastor Jarrod Almond. The marriage came after Locke legally divorced his   ex-wife  Melissa, whom he said he " loved for 21 years ."

Locke, who has four children with Melissa, including two who were adopted, shot to internet fame after he   posted a video on Facebook  on April 22, 2016, criticizing Target for its new policies on gender-neutral bathrooms. He has since become well-known for his support of hardline conservative values, including his opposition to divorce.

Locke said Thursday he will continue preaching against divorce despite his failed marriage.

"I still preach against divorce. I'm in a series right now in Ephesians, I'm encroaching on Chapter 5. You know, I'm gonna have to preach about marriage. Husband's love your wives as Christ loves the Church, that's a difficult balance right now but I'm gonna have to learn to be a way better husband than I was the first go round," he said of his new marriage.

Since news broke of his personal life earlier this year, Locke has been the subject of several unsavory headlines, some of which accused him of being both physically and verbally abusive to his wife who struggles with mental illness.

I read some of the comments on youtube on the video in this seed.

which led me to this video of pictures of texts this pastor sent to his wife.  I read the comments on this video.  People claimed that Greg admitted to sending these texts on his facebook page.

Fortunately, Greg is very easy to understand.  Unfortunately, there are still people who believe that Greg is their creator's rep on Earth.

adulterer... wife beater... hypocrite... physically and verbally abusive to his wife who struggles with mental issues.

I guess my impression of him in Trout Giggle's article was correct.

"He seems nice."

"He seems nice."

who struggles with mental issues.

a bible thumper? oh no, it cannot be...

standard prerequisite...

What a total asshole hypocrite. Yeah...he'll keep preaching against divorce even after his 2nd, 3rd, etc divorces

I really can't stand people like him

he'll keep preaching against divorce

As you may remember from NewsVine, I'm very pro-divorce.  

I love having ex-wives because they always want booty calls.

a complimentary e ticket ride...

hopefully that doesn't inhibit him from banging church groupies on sundays...

hopefully that doesn't inhibit him from banging church groupies on sundays...

Do men like him actually have groupies?  I figure they spend most of their time watching porn, masturbating and fantasizing about having groupies.

Thanx for posting that "spiritual" video.

Thanx for posting that "spiritual" video.

You are most welcome.   This used to be one of my favorite songs back in the day.

I do what I can to further discussions and make them interesting to everyone.  In this instance, I posted this video with you in mind.  

I dunno, somehow I'm thinking that those young ladies have even less clothing on when they hear anything about god...

In this instance, I posted this video with you in mind.  

K.

I posted this brief video with you (and the other ladies on this thread) in mind.

surrounded by boxes of lube...

There has been a good discussion of the Bible on this thread.

Some of the founding fathers, many of whom owned slaves, used Bible passages to "justify" slavery.

Butt, what I find disturbing is that the Bible has been used to justify war (and, therefore, killing).

Usually, both sides in a war think, "God is on our side." 

Here's a song from the Vietnam Era:

One hit wonder?

should've been your theme song...

give me an F...

give me a U...

[✘]