...and thanks for the badge!!

[Word]

Well, the point is that something like this had always a symbolic meaning to the people it was written for, even if it's a very trivial one. In Ancient Greece, education was basically the same as complete memorization of every single word of Homer (nearly the same would apply for Rome a few centuries later, but with some more authors). Since Homer had a reputation of being the greatest poet that ever lived (while his existence is questioned by some), you'll find thousands of subtle allusions in other authors' works that succeeded the Iliad (to name a few, there's almost always a subplot that involves kidnapping, two lovers that don't recognize each other before the ending, shipwrecking with only one or two survivors, and/or someone apparently dies and later turns out to have been saved - it's not an arbitrary kind of interpretation because at least 4 such motives appear in every single greek novel). There are hundreds of other examples for this, but I think this is enough. It's not something I made up, it's there, and it's provable. The same applies for the pelicans of the bible. There's nothing funny or absurd about it, otherwise it wouldn't have been written. And if you think otherwise, you simply don't know enough about it. Don't you, as an artist, see how many people naively defame even a good work of modern art, because they have no understanding of its concept (e.g. 'I have never heard about Gerhard Richter but his paintings are nothing but ugly smearing I could also produce myself' - and that's what one of our most popular talkshow hosts said serveral weeks ago, when Richter had his 80th birthday...)?

Nowhere does he mention that you can't eat a pelican because it's a pagan symbol.

And again, he doesn't mention it because the few people that could read at that time most likely knew what was meant. The pelican symbol's pagan origin isn't irrelevant, but I doubt any linguist would tell you that the English language is meaningless despite all its loanwords (same for every other language).

I don't want to be disrespectful, that's why I said it explicitly. For once I'm certain that I know something which you don't, but of course it isn't anything special and it would be arrogant and ridiculous to condemn someone older for something he doesn't know, when you know lots of other stuff that I don't. As I said, I'll double check the bible quotes, and I hesitate to write something about the rest before I haven't done that. I'm just trying to play a fair game and tell you what I have at the back of my mind when I write about these passages.

[Olive]

As an atheist, I agree with sine on most parts, but find the tone used disgusting. If this thread was to convince the people in doubt, why the condensceding, disrespectful and ignorant tone? This never was a discussion, as in a discussion one provides understanding. None is found here.

Many also seem to forget religion evolves through time. The norms and values of 2000 years ago simply don't count nowadays. What we find atrocious now, might have been widely accepted back then. Nevertheless, I believe religion in general is a substitute for ignorance, for the unknown. It generates cohesion within its societies, it's a shame it goes unaccompanied by room for mutual understanding though.

[chrisd]

As an atheist, I agree with sine on most parts, but find the tone used disgusting. If this thread was to convince the people in doubt, why the condensceding, disrespectful and ignorant tone? This never was a discussion, as in a discussion one provides understanding. None is found here.

Many also seem to forget religion evolves through time. The norms and values of 2000 years ago simply don't count nowadays. What we find atrocious now, might have been widely accepted back then. Nevertheless, I believe religion in general is a substitute for ignorance, for the unknown. It generates cohesion within its societies, it's a shame it goes unaccompanied by room for mutual understanding though.

Very wisely spoken, Olive!

[sinewav]

Sorry for the "disrespectful tone," but you should go jump off a bridge if you think people who endorse rape and murder and slavery and torture need to be respected.

Word still hasn't read Deuteronomy because he's still insisting the pelican is a metaphor. It's not. Moses is talking about actual animals you can or cannot eat. Here is the link and I suggest you show me the least amount of respect by actually reading the goddamn thing: Don't Eat These!

For those losing track of the argument, Word claims that:

The Catholic Church I'm familiar with does cherry-pick, but it is aware of the other passages as well, and it treats them sometimes more criticallly than any atheist would (because atheists don't even take them seriously or put them under the general suspicion of being a how-to guide for reaching personal fulfilment within a religion by any means necessary). The bible is sometimes vague or describes an issue in a way we today aren't used to, but not against better judgement.

Well, here is an atheist who is thinking very critically of these "other passages." When the bible says...

• "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days."

... that's not vague at all. This is clearly saying if a man rapes an virgin who isn't engaged to be married, he has to pay her father money and marry her himself. And this is supposed to "describes an issue in a way we today aren't used to?" And it's not against better judgment?

Poppycock. The mental gymnastics of the religious make an entraining dance for the sane. Up next, Word claims rape is a metaphor.

[Word]

Word still hasn't read Deuteronomy because he's still insisting the pelican is a metaphor. It's not. Moses is talking about actual animals you can or cannot eat.

OK, how exactly does that contradict what I've said above? You still didn't get that all these animals had a spiritual significance, regardless if it's mentioned there or not. It's a historical fact, and you don't even have to be a super-devout Christian to know that.

Sorry for the "disrespectful tone," but you should go jump off a bridge if you think people who endorse rape and murder and slavery and torture need to be respected.

If you're thinking I do endorse such actions you should re-read the text I linked earlier:

Sometimes it homes in on matters with pinpoint accuracy. At other times it is replete with personal taste and unhelpful adjectives - often in the space of the same verse. We have to be able to separate what is myth from what is historically accurate. We have to be able to identify a way of life that belongs to a people not our own. Not everything will be applicable, so not everything will be picked.

[sinewav]

You still didn't get that all these animals had a spiritual significance, regardless if it's mentioned there or not. It's a historical fact, and you don't even have to be a super-devout Christian to know that.

Word, the passage is not about spiritual significance. It's about what you can or cannot eat. This is the biblical reason people don't eat pork and shellfish. Again, not a metaphor. If it was a metaphor, Jews wouldn't need to worry about food being kosher.

We have to be able to separate what is myth from what is historically accurate. We have to be able to identify a way of life that belongs to a people not our own. Not everything will be applicable, so not everything will be picked.

Here is the problem with that. All those things in Deuteronomy (including rape and murder) are the word of God, given to Moses, who then told the chosen people. How can you pick and choose which of God's words you want to follow? By admitting the bible is just a bunch of stories written by man, and that much of it has lost cultural significance, you end up in a place without universal biblical truths. All the goodness you want to distill from the bible, all the clever saying like "love thy neighbor"... you can have them all without God. In fact, the golden rule most Christians attribute to Jesus was a popular saying hundreds of years before he lived (if he lived at all).

So what are you left with? If the bible is the word of God, you need to follow it "to the letter." If it's the fallible word of man inspired by God, then it's of no more use than finding the path to heaven through Harry Potter books or from watching Star Trek. (note: both of those are way less violent and I'm not aware of any rape in them either.)

Here is something I want you to think about. And when I say "you," I mean everyone reading this post. Think seriously about heaven and hell. Think about eternal bliss and eternal torture. I'll give you a second to ponder it, but you should take as long as you need to let it really sink in.

. . . . . . . .

Now, given the stakes are so high. Given the two possible outcomes,* and the fact you can die at any second, don't you want to be absolutely sure you're going to heaven and not hell? Do you want to put your faith in a book you might not agree with 100%? Maybe you only agree with 80% of it? Because guess what? When you die you can't go 80% to heaven.

* No purgatory in the bible; unfortunately, that's made by man too.

[Word]

Word, the passage is not about spiritual significance. It's about what you can or cannot eat. This is the biblical reason people don't eat pork and shellfish. Again, not a metaphor. If it was a metaphor, Jews wouldn't need to worry about food being kosher.

At the risk of repeating myself...
Why do you think that the Jews were told not to eat these animals? Because they symbolize something. I never said it was nothing but a metaphor, you just seem to read something out of my posts I haven't said. I said the animals had a spiritual significance and symbolize something, hence they had to be worshipped and not been degraded to food. The only thing the text can be accused of is providing no explicit arguments for that, because these arguments were already in the heads of the people who read it (in many cases already going back to pagan beliefs, as you rightly said). And just because we today aren't used to pelican burgers doesn't mean it was unrealistic for the people of Israel to eat them before someone wrote this text. And I bet that the people of Israel already avoided these animals before it was written down.

Here is the problem with that. All those things in Deuteronomy (including rape and murder) are the word of God, given to Moses, who then told the chosen people. How can you pick and choose which of God's words you want to follow?

They are the word of God, but they're directed at the Jewish tribes of Israel in particular (you even mentioned "the chosen people"), not directly at the Americans and Europeans of 2012. You have to think for yourself how you can translate that into our civilization.

(if he lived at all)

He did. Tacitus didn't like him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

[sinewav]

Why do you think that the Jews were told not to eat these animals? Because they symbolize something.

Breaking news! This isn't what I think, this is what the bible says (or does not say). Nowhere does it say this is symbolic, and I personally think it is a terrible idea to assume anything considering the result of a wrong assumption is eternal torture. The bible is self-contained. You shouldn't need anything supplemental to get into heaven. After reading the bible, I can safely say that God would be angry if you tried to add anything to it.

Read the whole book of Deuteronomy to get the context. That's the crux of your argument, isn't it? Context? You seem to be stuck on pelicans; and I guess I would too because it's hard to ignore the ridiculousness of it. But if we make pelicans metaphors, then we are open to making everything in Deuteronomy a metaphor. That includes the 10 commandments. You can't pick and choose, and shouldn't, especially when the verses are so explicit and clear as in the cases of stoning adulterers and such.

God gave these commandments to ancient Jews, so they don't apply to 21st Century Christians? You don't have to follow the 10 commandments? You see Word, now you are in another trap. It's impossible to escape the absurdity of the bible.

And finally, you can ask yourself why a divine being who so loves you and wants you to go to heaven would make the instruction manual so confusing.

inb4 "not an instruction manual" even though a "commandment" is an "instruction."

[Kijutsu]

>2012
>believing in god

I seriously hope you guys don't do this.

[Cody]

anyone else do the rage face where it says men cant dress in drag ? Some of the best Friday nights of my life were at a downtown Drag Show

[chrisd]

>2012
>believing in god

I seriously hope you guys don't do this.

LOL! My life is my own, you know....

[Kijutsu]

>2012
>believing in god

I seriously hope you guys don't do this.

LOL! My life is my own, you know....

You're religious, so technically it isn't your own.

[chrisd]

Technically that is true, yes....

[Olive]

Sorry for the "disrespectful tone," but you should go jump off a bridge if you think people who endorse rape and murder and slavery and torture need to be respected.

First of all, I read the list and lol'd a bit.

Secondly, I know many people who practice religion by interpreting the bible in their own way. Off course most people don't accept rape even though the bible states it's legit. As I said before, times change and so do norms and values. You cannot expect a 2000 year old religion's social standards are in equillibrium to the present one's, apparently it's quite the opposite. Sane modern believers will reject many passages written in the bible, if one doesn't, don't blame their religion but blame their crooked personality.

[ItzAcid]

I'd just like to state two things. One that can be backed up biblically, and the other that is just an interpretation of the bible.

Some bible scholars think that the old testament law/instructions delievered by Moses were specific to a much different culture than what is present today, which is obviously true. They also believe that his law became partially obsolete as Jesus "perfected" his law in the New Testament. The values taught by Christ are more intended to guide future generations, as the goal of Mosaic law are much more dated, and often discarded.

As for the cultural difference, the bible states that "sin" can be described as doing something that wrongs yourself or your neighbor, in the **passage I'm talking about. Example would be deliberately carrying out an action that you knew was wrong, whether you're religious or not and is completely independent of laws given in the bible. What is wrong in one culture is completely acceptable in another, so it is only reasonable to assume that "sin" varies among people. There are the basic laws in the bible, but if the action is a norm of your society, then it is acceptable. Another thing stated is that if your neighbor considers an action wrong, whether you do or not, and you still do whatever it may be, that is "wrong". I say all of this to say that maybe rape and many of the things in Deuteronomy are directed at a specific culture, and as it progressed, the idea of what was "wrong", or a "sin", changed as well. Sure, some of the ideas are morbid, but so are the physical mutilations of children in some tribes across the world today as a sign of maturity.

**Romans I believe... I'll cite some shtuff here in a bit.

Pretty much reiterated what Olive had to say :p oops.