Oj bit the big one

[Monocrom]

Lot tried to pimp out his daughters to sodomites....

Actually no, that's not what he did. I already covered that; above.

 

[LRJ88]

LRJ88

You seem to have a warped and twisted view of the Bible so let's get two things straight.

1. Just because it's in the Bible does not mean it is behavior condoned or endorsed by the Bible. Slavery is not endorsed by the Bible. When Moses commanded slaves to be freed in the seventh year (Deuteronomy 15:12-18), he took slavery that lasted for life down to indentured servitude. Slavery already existed. This was the first step toward the boss and employee relationship we have today. If you read the Book of Philemon, it is about an escaped slave of a Christian whom the apostle Paul sends back with the letter asking him to be kind to the slave and free him, treating him as a brother. This letter helped end slavery in the Roman Empire. Before that, they didn't even consider slavery as wrong.

The Bible doesn't endorse divorce. Divorce was starting to occur frequently during the time of Moses. All a man had to say was, "I divorce you" three times to the wife and they'd be considered divorced. However, then the woman would have no financial support and if she tried to get with another man, she'd be found guilty of cheating on her husband, the penalty is stoning to death. What Moses did is tell the men that if they divorce their wives, they need to give them a certificate of divorce to prove the woman did not commit adultery, keeping her safe from stoning and allowing her to remarry. (Deuteronomy 22, 24)

Jesus said, "You have heard it said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'" (Matthew 5:38) This was not him suggesting violence. He was quoting the Code of Hammurabi comparing what the world's idea of justice said vs. what Jesus wanted people to do (show love to your enemies).

2. Just because there are hypocrites in the Bible does not mean it's not the legitimate inspired (God breathed) Word of God. If it was a history book written by humans, you would never know about their character flaws and failures. The author(s) would be too embarrassed to be honest and tell you these things and be remembered by their mistakes for all time. But the Bible was inspired by God who wanted us to know that even the greatest people in history made huge mistakes and God forgave them anyway, just as he forgives us. Some examples: Jacob was a con artist, Moses was a drunk, Abraham was a coward that kept telling people his wife was his sister so they didn't kill him, Lot tried to pimp out his daughters to sodomites, King David was an adulterer and murderer.

Ah, thank you for showing what you think i know of the bible already from the start, i'll keep that in mind in my reply.

Your first point goes over several rather large subjects which will need to be responded to separately.

Things not endorsed or condoned by the bible changes based on who reads it and wants to benefit their own points from it, what one person claims is true in one interpretation another will claim to have a completely different meaning and it breeds no true Scotsman fallacies from people arguing that their very own version of it is correct.

Slavery never ended in the Roman empire, slavery declined in lieu of people of either indentured servitude from debts or from being expected to take up certain forms of work as part of the growing tenancy in the affected regions. In other words nothing changed, regardless of anything the verses with Paul says there.

Divorce in the bible and looking at the actual historical divorce laws doesn't exactly make the bible out to be nice, even compared to divorce laws in the Roman Empire. The bible says some other things in regards to marriage and divorce as well: "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." a statement which means she can't divorce him and he can't divorce her, in other words she's stuck with her rapist and can't even get away. This is also from old Deut, as you'll likely recall.

According to the bible Jesus said "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.", this isn't even the full context of the quote, but it shows more of what was mentioned. That being said, Jesus also had another banger up his sleeves: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." all of the old laws, all 613 of them, are by this definition still in effect. You can argue it if you want to, but you'd think that something claimed to be the word of god wouldn't be so bad at bringing the correct point across.

I'd like some evidence that the bible is a historical book. And i'm not talking about bringing up certain characters or certain places, if we were to go by that standard any "based on real events" movie would also be historical, even if it sports Abraham Lincoln riding a muscle car to mow down space zombies outside of the modern white house. There's scriptures that didn't make it into the bible, it's been translated back and forth for centuries, there's many outright contradictions and things which couldn't possibly have happened without invoking "god did it" when it clashes with reality, and i'm honestly quite tired of people attempting to use the bible as an excuse for anything whatsoever considering its use by anyone to support whatever point they feel like. The largest case of hypocrisy is people still taking this book and running with it as if it makes them superior, and i'm more than familiar with sects and how they work to see how it seeps into people when they decide to turn off parts of their brains just because this is in its place.

 

[Hooked on Fenix]

Actually no, that's not what he did. I already covered that; above.

Sorry, bad choice of words. It was more like throwing them to the wolves to protect the angels. I'm sure he made the decision in the heat of the moment and thought it would calm these evil men down. He may have known that God and Abraham couldn't find 10 godly men in the city to make it worth saving so they were all dangerous men. Maybe he knew they were no longer into women and just wanted to buy some time. We may never know.

 

[Hooked on Fenix]

Divorce in the bible and looking at the actual historical divorce laws doesn't exactly make the bible out to be nice, even compared to divorce laws in the Roman Empire. The bible says some other things in regards to marriage and divorce as well: "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." a statement which means she can't divorce him and he can't divorce her, in other words she's stuck with her rapist and can't even get away. This is also from old Deut, as you'll likely recall.

If you read that section in context it says:
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."- Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Here's some problems with your logic. You don't "meet" a girl and find out if she's a virgin without getting to know her first. This isn't like a Viking raping and pillaging here. We are dealing with date rape. The girl started out liking the guy. The part where "they are discovered" means someone caught them in the act. This may or may not mean the girl tried to get help. In other examples of the same chapter, if the girl didn't scream for help, she was complicit in the act and treated the same as the man. Them requiring to be discovered implies that the girl might not be that innocent in the act. By making them get married, it ensured that she would be taken care of financially. No deadbeat dads if they had kids. Back then, women couldn't own land, get a job, and there was no alimony in a divorce. Being without a man and away from the family meant starvation.

 

[LRJ88]

If you read that section in context it says:
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."- Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Here's some problems with your logic. You don't "meet" a girl and find out if she's a virgin without getting to know her first. This isn't like a Viking raping and pillaging here. We are dealing with date rape. The girl started out liking the guy. The part where "they are discovered" means someone caught them in the act. This may or may not mean the girl tried to get help. In other examples of the same chapter, if the girl didn't scream for help, she was complicit in the act and treated the same as the man. Them requiring to be discovered implies that the girl might not be that innocent in the act. By making them get married, it ensured that she would be taken care of financially. No deadbeat dads if they had kids. Back then, women couldn't own land, get a job, and there was no alimony in a divorce. Being without a man and away from the family meant starvation.

I have read the section, i've read several translations of the section, and i've read the different interpretations of the section depending on who wants to say what and in what way they want to push for one meaning over the other. The bible was written in several different languages, with meanings of words in said languages shifting depending on the time of it, but this goes back to the point i made in regards to no true Scotsman fallacies in that i have one interpretation of it, in context, which means that someone explicitly raping a woman will be forced to marry her regardless of her wishes, and you have another interpretation, but it's based on the same source and neither is exclusively wrong or right regardless of context.

The entire field of apologetics has set out to make it more palpable and to try to shoehorn the bible into something that more fits modern audiences, with some people like William Lane Craig going to great lengths attempting to justify some of the messed up stuff being said in the bible, but none of that makes it right. An omnibus of manuscripts written by people with no connection to actual historical events other than fleeting mentions and without the necessary foundation to back it up shouldn't be taken as instructions for how to live anymore than any old fairytale should.

 

[letschat7]

While I'm fairly certain he committed that murder it is really cool to see a mockery made of American courts and the icing on the cake was when he wrote the book: what if I did it. It was just brilliant.

I mean sure I'd like to see people's relationships work out but I really don't get worked up if some one kills a person. Someone I was friend's with in prison scammed a woman and when she made a bid deal about it he dismembered her body, wrapped it up in bags and tossed her pieces in a river and he was such a nice guy or I meet a man who attempted to bomb some Americans in time square and knifed a federal employee but he had a good sense of humour and he had a voice like an angel when he did his calls to prayer.

I think we should focus on OJ the football player and not get so worked up if he did happen to commit murder. Who knows maybe he asked for forgiveness?

 

[Monocrom]

I'm sorry but you can't separate the football player from the sadistic, violent murderer. They're the same person. I once saw a beautiful landscape painting with a large building in the middle of it. The painting was quite good. Not excellent. But the artist had more than just a bit of talent. Then I looked at the signature. Turns out it was painted by a certain short, not-so-funny German man, who sported an Oliver Hardy moustache.

Can't separate the painter from the genocidal monster. Sorry, just how it is.

 

[letschat7]

Oh yeah I got tricked by that painting too. It only went for like $34,000 USD which is very low.

 

[KITROBASKIN]

LRJ88, you obviously care about understanding the Bible. Could you possibly accept it is the power of God but the work of man? Remember how Jesus called himself son of man when others were wanting to call him son of God?

Could you consider that the Bible was written at a time when the writers were living in a world different than what we've become since God's love has become more widely known?

 

[LRJ88]

LRJ88, you obviously care about understanding the Bible. Could you possibly accept it is the power of God but the work of man? Remember how Jesus called himself son of man when others were wanting to call him son of God?

Could you consider that the Bible was written at a time when the writers were living in a world different than what we've become since God's love has become more widely known?

No, i can't accept that. I can't accept or have faith in something which is in itself not following its own logic as something which is in any way any proof of any divinity. To me not just the bible, but any religious text isn't worth more than any other piece of written down tales and stories. I value the records of someone 5000 years ago counting the amount of grain they brought with them on a boat higher than i value any form of elaborate Aesop's fable which contradicts the rest of them, especially since there's so many cases of certain things reappearing in later manuscripts albeit with a new author when it suits the narrative of the time.

The bible wasn't written in a time, the bible as we know it today is an omnibus of different manuscripts from different times, chosen because they fit in with the overall idea at the time of compilation, along with changes to make it easier to sell it. We still see various people today trying to claim divine providence, we see people putting together elaborate works of fiction based on real people and places, yet they haven't actually happened.

If we were to go forwards 500 years in history, to the point where we've managed to muddle the past with reinterpretations, historical records being lost to time and just generally our present day being hazy in retrospect, would we take it seriously if there was a widespread religion centered around L. Ron Hubbard? Or a religion taking after the teachings of Jim Jones, their main holiday being centered around drinking Kool-Aid and praying to a comet? How many religious are there today which we find silly or outright dangerous due to how different they are to the one we're already in? To me this applies to all religions and asking me to be part of it, asking me to concede something which goes against my whole worldview because others feel like it hurts their feelings in the matters is akin to me asking others to accept that the sky is red and the reason we don't fly off this flat disc of ours into space is because of spirits always pulling us down.

 

[letschat7]

Sometimes some stuff gets lost or changed in translations which is probably why Quran specifies to only read it in Arabic which is good if you happen to speak it.

One time one of my friends had a sub for Chaynu and was doing his studies and he had me bring my English lang Tanakh (old-testement for the Christians here) and a whole paragraph had been changed in meaning and words in that it didn't resemble what was said in Hebrew.

It is also necessary to become learned and consult commentary when studying religious texts otherwise you may miss somethings because you don't understand some things. Like for example if you was to read the very first parts of Genesis(Bereshit) there are some stuff mocking religions of the region that are so easily missed. I had no idea until I did some religious studies.

 

[KITROBASKIN]

Son of man?

Better to pluck the eye out? Fig tree gets cursed because not producing fruit? Not spilling seed by the wayside?

 

[Monocrom]

Old and New Testaments.... Read The Holy Bible cover-to-cover.
Come up with conclusions based on that. Best way to do it.

For a modern-day but as literal as possible translation: The New American Standard Bible.

For something easy to read and understand: The Good News Bible.

 

[wacbzz]

1 Thessalonians 5:18.
In all things, give thanks.

 

[letschat7]

When it came to bibles I prefered NKJV initially unless doing public readings which I would use KJV for the more interesting grammar. Anyways in reading it those later parts, by Paul, I found to be rather objectionable. In reading the Quran I also figured that perhaps Mohammad(PBUH) may have been there to correct a bunch of mistakes he made. My studies haven't had it as far as Smith yet though.

I was advised that if you use and English Quran to have a Noble by a jihadi ally.

 

[LRJ88]

When it came to bibles I prefered NKJV initially unless doing public readings which I would use KJV for the more interesting grammar. Anyways in reading it those later parts, by Paul, I found to be rather objectionable. In reading the Quran I also figured that perhaps Mohammad(PBUH) may have been there to correct a bunch of mistakes he made. My studies haven't had it as far as Smith yet though.

I was advised that if you use and English Quran to have a Noble by a jihadi ally.

It isn't exactly getting any better with the scriptures there.

 

[raggie33]

Screw oj

 

[bykfixer]

No, i can't accept that. I can't accept or have faith in something which is in itself not following its own logic as something which is in any way any proof of any divinity. To me not just the bible, but any religious text isn't worth more than any other piece of written down tales and stories. I value the records of someone 5000 years ago counting the amount of grain they brought with them on a boat higher than i value any form of elaborate Aesop's fable which contradicts the rest of them, especially since there's so many cases of certain things reappearing in later manuscripts albeit with a new author when it suits the narrative of the time.

The bible wasn't written in a time, the bible as we know it today is an omnibus of different manuscripts from different times, chosen because they fit in with the overall idea at the time of compilation, along with changes to make it easier to sell it. We still see various people today trying to claim divine providence, we see people putting together elaborate works of fiction based on real people and places, yet they haven't actually happened.

If we were to go forwards 500 years in history, to the point where we've managed to muddle the past with reinterpretations, historical records being lost to time and just generally our present day being hazy in retrospect, would we take it seriously if there was a widespread religion centered around L. Ron Hubbard? Or a religion taking after the teachings of Jim Jones, their main holiday being centered around drinking Kool-Aid and praying to a comet? How many religious are there today which we find silly or outright dangerous due to how different they are to the one we're already in? To me this applies to all religions and asking me to be part of it, asking me to concede something which goes against my whole worldview because others feel like it hurts their feelings in the matters is akin to me asking others to accept that the sky is red and the reason we don't fly off this flat disc of ours into space is because of spirits always pulling us down.

So how do you believe we are even here in the first place?
No right or wrong answer, just a question.

 

[LRJ88]

So how do you believe we are even here in the first place?
No right or wrong answer, just a question.

In what sense do you mean, what scale of how? Cosmic scale, planetary, or just why humans are here at all? I can't really tell, i don't know the entire history of how we came here, but i can be honest enough to admit that i don't know, and i don't fill in the void of my knowledge with a feelgood solution.

 

[defloyd77]

Wow, it's sure getting awfully biblical in here. I'll throw my hat in the ring.

Burn in hell OJ and may Satan's barbs be ever pointy as he makes you his b**** - Defloyd : 77