Biblical passages that cause real difficulties to most thinking Christians

Asiaprod

As mentioned in the A&A forum, PDN brought up the issue that there are actually plenty of Biblical passages that cause real difficulties to most thinking Christians. I am always keen to learn and would be interested in hearing some of these and learning why they cause difficulties. For example, is it because they may have been miswritten, are to complex to understand, or do not apply in this day and age.
This is a serious request, please do not take it as an excuse to attack Christian beliefs please.

MrPudding

Obviously not that many then....

MrP

Zombrex

MrPudding wrote: »

Obviously not that many then....

MrP

Well PDN is supposed to have loads ...

Perhaps putting [Christian Only] in the thread title might get more responses, at the moment it looks a bit like an attack the Christian type of thread.

MrPudding

Wicknight wrote: »

Well PDN is supposed to have loads ...

Perhaps putting [Christian Only] in the thread title might get more responses, at the moment it looks a bit like an attack the Christian type of thread.

Making it christian only makes it kind of pointless though. There have been a number of occasions where I would like to discuss something raised in a christian only thread, but obviously can't. Not great really.

MrP

Zombrex

MrPudding wrote: »

There have been a number of occasions where I would like to discuss something raised in a christian only thread, but obviously can't.

That is kinda the point

Fanny Cradock

Do you want to give people a chance to reply before you start with the digs?

philologos

The only two books I have difficulty with before thinking about them and trying to find out the context of them are the books of Joshua and Judges.

Asiaprod

MrPudding wrote: »

Making it christian only makes it kind of pointless though. There have been a number of occasions where I would like to discuss something raised in a christian only thread, but obviously can't. Not great really.
MrP

This is why I do not want this to be a Christian Only thread. I want it open discussion if anything without the risk of descending into the usual chaos.

PDN

God ordering the Israelites to kill all the children in Jericho etc. is one passage that I doubt I will ever fully understand this side of heaven.

Xhristy

This post has been deleted.

MrPudding

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Do you want to give people a chance to reply before you start with the digs?

Good point. It was only 24 hours and 40 views since it was posted. Sorry.

MrP

santing

Xhristy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The genealogies in Genesis may go back a bit in time and may extend a bit beyond the current story. Which is perfectly acceptable.

So Genesis 10 finishes past the story of Genesis 11.

wolfsbane

santing wrote: »

The genealogies in Genesis may go back a bit in time and may extend a bit beyond the current story. Which is perfectly acceptable.

So Genesis 10 finishes past the story of Genesis 11.

Exactly. Gen.11 is a detailed account of how the united people of Earth broke up into the many nations just described. A bit like Gen. 2 details man's creation that was given in Gen.1.

JimiTime

Maybe its just my black heart, but the killing of children by God is not a big deal to me. The bears mauling the young men that taunted elijah, I welcome actually. There were 4 year olds that I knew even as a kid myself, that they'd be trouble in later life. We as people can't judge though, so we must give children a chance to grow, make their decisions and hopefully change, even when it looks hopeless. If God see's the future of the child though, then there's no difference between the child and the man IMO. Surely the killing of children by men would not have been good for the mens mental health though. I wonder why God got men to kill, when he showed that he himself could and would kill when necessary. Thats the bit that troubles me in all the God judging bits.

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

Maybe its just my black heart, but the killing of children by God is not a big deal to me. The bears mauling the young men that taunted elijah, I welcome actually. There were 4 year olds that I knew even as a kid myself, that they'd be trouble in later life. We as people can't judge though, so we must give children a chance to grow, make their decisions and hopefully change, even when it looks hopeless. If God see's the future of the child though, then there's no difference between the child and the man IMO. Surely the killing of children by men would not have been good for the mens mental health though. I wonder why God got men to kill, when he showed that he himself could and would kill when necessary. Thats the bit that troubles me in all the God judging bits.

Remind me not to ask you to babysit.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

Remind me not to ask you to babysit.

As long as they don't call me baldy, 'Not so Gentle' Ben will stay in his cage:) I've got a big stick for the minor offences.:)

Dog Fan

As a child I always found a particular hymn titled "suffer little children to come unto me" to be very unsettling. Only later did i learn the the modern english translation was "let the little children come to me".

Strange thing the english language!

Sometimes I look at the death of Jesus as portrayed in the 4 gospels, and wonder how to reconcile the different accounts. From Jesus crying 'My God, My God, why have you forsaken me', to 'It is accomplished'.

I know that the gospel writers were addressing different audiences, and showing different aspects of the life and person of Jesus, but it gets confusing.

Oh, and I'm not sure JimiTime will be coming in my direction for babysitting anytime soon either! :pac:

JimiTime

Dog Fan wrote: »

Oh, and I'm not sure JimiTime will be coming in my direction for babysitting anytime soon either! :pac:

Awwww. And i got me a new big stick too:(

Steviemak

Genocide anyone??

When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girga****es, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you—and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. (Deuteronomy 7:1-5, NIV)

Fanny Cradock

Steviemak wrote: »

Genocide anyone??

When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girga****es, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you—and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. (Deuteronomy 7:1-5, NIV)

Indeed!

I would have a major issue with 1 Samuel 15:3. Here God, in no uncertain terms, orders the complete destruction of the Amalekites. That is the death of every being from man, to woman to child and all the way down to the lower animals. I've heard a few explanations but none have ever fully erased the unease I feel when reading these stories. For my part, I can only really explain away these actions if they were all obstacles to God's wider strategy, which culminated in Jesus on the cross. Still, the unease remains.

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

--amadeus--

JimiTime wrote: »

Maybe its just my black heart, but the killing of children by God is not a big deal to me. The bears mauling the young men that taunted elijah, I welcome actually. There were 4 year olds that I knew even as a kid myself, that they'd be trouble in later life. We as people can't judge though, so we must give children a chance to grow, make their decisions and hopefully change, even when it looks hopeless. If God see's the future of the child though, then there's no difference between the child and the man IMO. Surely the killing of children by men would not have been good for the mens mental health though. I wonder why God got men to kill, when he showed that he himself could and would kill when necessary. Thats the bit that troubles me in all the God judging bits.

I bumble about the internet a fair bit and I can honestly say that that post is the scariest thing I have ever seen.

JimiTime

--amadeus-- wrote: »

I bumble about the internet a fair bit and I can honestly say that that post is the scariest thing I have ever seen.

Yeah, I was wondering when someone would say that.

Zombrex

--amadeus-- wrote: »

I bumble about the internet a fair bit and I can honestly say that that post is the scariest thing I have ever seen.

Oh we say things like that around these parts all the time it has become old hat. :pac:

--amadeus--

JimiTime wrote: »

Yeah, I was wondering when someone would say that.

Well if it's just shock value you're after there are probably better places to be. Personally I would find it hard to reconcile the idea of a just, kind, loving and interventionist god with the idea that killing children is a-ok because they are destined to be scum.

And I thought we had free will anyway?

Zombrex

--amadeus-- wrote: »

And I thought we had free will anyway?

We do! Except when we don't!

Work that one out. :pac:

Riche670

Hi,

I'm new to this forum, so I'm unsure if the link I'm about to post has been discussed previously...

For me it posed MANY questions, and I have struggled to refute it's well made points. I had never really challenged my interpretations of the bible before reading this, so I tried to keep an open mind.

Read at your own risk: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/emmett_fields/word_of_god_debate.html

JimiTime

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Well if it's just shock value you're after there are probably better places to be.

No, I just didn't beat around the bush. I could pretend to be horrified, but then reason about it, because thats the accepted thing. I'm not horrified by it though, so there's no point in pretending. If I believe God is Just, I'd be somewhat of a hypocrite to doubt he was just on these occasions.

Personally I would find it hard to reconcile the idea of a just, kind, loving and interventionist god with the idea that killing children is a-ok because they are destined to be scum.

Thats only a throwaway thought of mine, I'm not representing Gods reasoning on the matter. Whatever Gods reason is, I accept it. Don't get me wrong, I struggle to put a 'why' there. However, the judgement itself does not trouble me.

And I thought we had free will anyway?

You've just unearthed one of my own issues. If there is in fact a book of life. Surely the whole 'god is allowing us time to repent etc' does not make sense?

The Free Will - Pre-destined thing is something thats playing on my mind lately.

santing

Riche670 wrote: »

Hi,
Read at your own risk: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/emmett_fields/word_of_god_debate.html

But also look at the Christian Answer to this web side "AnsweringInfidels.org":

Riche670

Thanks Santing.

I was completely unaware of that site, but upon searching it I see no direct reference to Emmet Fields article.

Also, I am unsurprised to see that someone/thing associated with organised religion is charging a fee for their services. See below:

**NEW UPDATE** On January 12th, John Loftus and David Wood debated the Problem of Evil on "The Debate Hour." Click here to download the debate. (It costs $1.75, but it's a fun discussion!)

Can I ask a question which I have not researched in anyway, but has been itching at me since a friend mentioned it?

Why did the position/title of Pope come into exsistence? Where in the bible was it planned, mentioned, recommended?

Something that annoys me about Catholicism is the amount of money involved...

PDN

Riche670 wrote: »

Hi,

I'm new to this forum, so I'm unsure if the link I'm about to post has been discussed previously...

For me it posed MANY questions, and I have struggled to refute it's well made points. I had never really challenged my interpretations of the bible before reading this, so I tried to keep an open mind.

Read at your own risk: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/emmett_fields/word_of_god_debate.html

I read a little bit of it but it honestly didn't seem to be well enough thought out or argued for me to waste time reading all of it.

For example, consider this little gen of irrational thinking:

Silly Atheist Debater wrote:

And this seedy story goes on until Genesis 19:36 reads: "Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father."

Now I know that is not what the Bible says to you who believe it to be "the word of God." But to me, it seems to say: "Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father." To me that story is pure filth, but others say there is no filth, and no immorality, in the Bible, so I do not know what that story says to others, but to me it is pure filth. And, to me, filth cannot be a part of "the word of God."

Why can 'filth' not be part of the Word of God? The Bible is not supposed to be "sugar & spice & all things nice" while all the time ignoring the brutish nastiness that characterises so much of humanity's experience and history. The Bible unsparingly details how Lot's family, despite having their undeserving hides rescued from destruction, practiced drunkenness, date-rape and incest. The idea that such honesty cannot possibly be the Word of God because it deals with 'filth' is an example of Mr Fields' irrational and subjective twaddle.

As I said, I don't want to waste my time reading more of this stuff - but if you think other parts of the article rise above this mediocre level then by all means articulate the argument you find impressive and start a new thread with it. We can then discuss it.

PDN

Riche670 wrote: »

Also, I am unsurprised to see that someone/thing associated with organised religion is charging a fee for their services. See below:

**NEW UPDATE** On January 12th, John Loftus and David Wood debated the Problem of Evil on "The Debate Hour." Click here to download the debate. (It costs $1.75, but it's a fun discussion!)

Professors in theology get paid just like academics in other subjects. Authors of books on religion get paid royalties like any other author.
A pastor who has trained for 5 years to gain the necessary qualifications will receive a salary for his work as a minister, just as other workers receive a salary.

Next week I am an invited speaker at a Church Conference in the US. They pay my air fare, hotels, car rental etc. and will pay me a nice fee for speaking at their Conference. I see that as no different from a speaker being invited to a secular Conference to share his/her insights and expertise on politics, science, or any other non-religious subject.

If you pay peanuts then you get monkeys.

Húrin

I've always hated Ezra 9:20

PDN

Húrin wrote: »

I've always hated Ezra 9:20

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????

You using that Chinese Whispers Bible the atheists believe in?

Jannah

The part of the bible that I find the most... trying... is right after the 10 Commandments when they talk about how to sell your daughters, manage your slaves and in warfare to kill all women who have slept with men and rape the virgins...

I asked my priest uncle about this part- apparently it falls under the heading of "writing style"

Pffft.

Exodus 34:7
"Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation."

Ahhh, yes, the fact that no child is born without sin. A classic Catholic trait. Catholic justice is really terrible; if your great grandparents sinned, well whoop dee doo, because you're paying the price. Suppose this is the religion where a man had to suffer the concequences of sins he didn't commit... I don't think I'll ever see the logic behind that...

Slavery…

Exodus 21:7-9
Joel 3:8
Timothy 6:1-2
Matthew 10:24
John 13:16
Titus 2:9-10
Ephesians 6:5
Colossians 3:22
Leviticus 25:44-46

And of course, in Luke 12:47 (a parable about the faithful and the unfaithful slaves) Jesus even recommends the beating of slaves. Another gem from Jesus himself is in Matthew 10:24-25. Here Jesus not only reminds slaves that they are never above their master, he actually recommends that they strive to be like him.

Peter, Jesus' favourite disciple, directs slaves to obey and fear their master without question, even though he may be cruel and unjust (1 Peter 2:18)

In Exodus 21:26-27 and Proverbs 29:19 God tells the masters how to punish their slaves.

In Deuteronomy 20:13-14 God tells the Israelites what they should do with the inhabitants of a conquered city, "Whereas the men must be killed, the women and children are to be taken as the spoils of war." Presumably that gives the Israelites the green light to sell them into slavery.

And of course the age old tale of why women are apparently second class citizens Genesis 3:16

"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 NIV

And of how a rapist should always marry his victim- oh but of course, that solves everything! The bible sadly doesn’t mention the girl’s right to deny the rapist. According to the Bible, seduction and rape of an unwed girl were crimes against her father, for he would not only lose the anticipated bride-price for his daughter’s virginity but also have the onus of having to marry off “damaged goods.” Bible law is concerned with giving him justice and not the virgin.

Deuteronomy 21:10-14
"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."
More rape

Exodus 21:7-11
“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment”.
Selling of daughters

Deuteronomy 3:6
“And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city.”
Kiddie killers. How pleasant… of course, they also go on to talk of how you can rape the virgins of a city after a war as "booty" (and no, that's not quite the ghetto booty, but not too far off either!)


Buuuut, those are just the parts I have issues with...

robindch

Riche670 wrote: »

Something that annoys me about Catholicism is the amount of money involved...

Relatively speaking, the Vatican is run on a shoestring -- I've a vague memory that its annual budget last year came to something like 280 million euro (might be wrong on that), and that's by far the richest part of the CC.

In comparison, the annual value of religious economy in the USA is estimated to be between 60 and 90 billion dollars, and most of `that is due to protestant religious activity.

--amadeus--

PDN wrote: »

Next week I am an invited speaker at a Church Conference in the US. They pay my air fare, hotels, car rental etc. and will pay me a nice fee for speaking at their Conference. I see that as no different from a speaker being invited to a secular Conference to share his/her insights and expertise on politics, science, or any other non-religious subject.

If you pay peanuts then you get monkeys.

"A certain ruler asked him, 'Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?' Jesus said to him, 'Why doyou call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: 'You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother.' He replied, 'I have kept all these since my youth.' When Jesus heard this, he said to him, 'There is still one thing lacking. Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me. Jesus looked at him and said, 'How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!'" [Lk. 18:18-23]

"Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need." [Acts 4:32-5]

?

Húrin

PDN wrote: »

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????

You using that Chinese Whispers Bible the atheists believe in?

sorry, toomany zeros. I meant Ezra 9:2

They have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, and have mingled the holy race with the peoples around them. And the leaders and officials have led the way in this unfaithfulness."

What a bunch of self-righteous people.

Dog Fan

robindch wrote: »

Relatively speaking, the Vatican is run on a shoestring -- I've a vague memory that its annual budget last year came to something like 280 million euro (might be wrong on that), and that's by far the richest part of the CC.

In comparison, the annual value of religious economy in the USA is estimated to be between 60 and 90 billion dollars, and most of `that is due to protestant religious activity.

In fact they ran at a deficit last year. See this for more info.

Capital rich, cash poor.

santing

Dog Fan wrote: »

In fact they ran at a deficit last year. See this for more info.

Capital rich, cash poor.

Yes, but that only relates to the Vatican. As each diocee is run financially independent, it is impossible to estimate how much money the RC Church makes.

A 2002 Article in BusinessWeek says:

Joseph Harris, financial officer for the St. Vincent de Paul Society in Seattle and a student of Church finances, estimates that the [USA] nation's nearly 20,000 parishes had revenues of $7.5 billion in 2000. About $6.5 billion went to cover direct expenses, and much of the remaining $1 billion was used to subsidize Catholic schools.

santing

Húrin wrote: »

sorry, toomany zeros. I meant Ezra 9:2

Quote:
They have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, and have mingled the holy race with the peoples around them. And the leaders and officials have led the way in this unfaithfulness."

What a bunch of self-righteous people.

Is it the word "holy" you have problems with? Holy means separated to God, usefull/ready for His service.
As for not marrying outside of Jewish people - that was a command of God with several possible exemptions.

Húrin

santing wrote: »

Is it the word "holy" you have problems with? Holy means separated to God, usefull/ready for His service.
As for not marrying outside of Jewish people - that was a command of God with several possible exemptions.

It's this notion of racial purity.

Four-Too

Christ said: "Thou shalt not kill", yet everyday we support the killing of innocent animals, and people call themselves good Christians while being engaged in gross meat-eating for the satisfaction of the tongue. The slaughterhouses would cease to exist if people gave up meat-eating. If Christ meant thou shalt not kill just other humans, he would have said "thou shalt not MURDER!"

MrPudding

Four-Too wrote: »

Christ said: "Thou shalt not kill", yet everyday we support the killing of innocent animals, and people call themselves good Christians while being engaged in gross meat-eating for the satisfaction of the tongue. The slaughterhouses would cease to exist if people gave up meat-eating. If Christ meant thou shalt not kill just other humans, he would have said "thou shalt not MURDER!"

But meat tastes goooooood. Besides, if god did not want to to eat animals he would not have made them out of meat.

MrP

--amadeus--

I'm a veggie and I normally grab at any anti-meat argument but I think I'll have to pass on that one..!

Anyway, back on topic and an interesting website listing all the (biblical) reasons that jesus is a false messiah here. A good read

anti-venom

Four-Too wrote: »

Christ said: "Thou shalt not kill", yet everyday we support the killing of innocent animals, and people call themselves good Christians while being engaged in gross meat-eating for the satisfaction of the tongue. The slaughterhouses would cease to exist if people gave up meat-eating. If Christ meant thou shalt not kill just other humans, he would have said "thou shalt not MURDER!"

I don't think this argument will put the slightest dent in any Christian's faith or give them pause for thought. God has apparently given humankind dominion over the animal kingdom. You could argue that this biblically mandated 'authority' over other life forms should also imply a responsibility to preserve and maintain.

JimiTime

Four-Too wrote: »

Christ said: "Thou shalt not kill", yet everyday we support the killing of innocent animals, and people call themselves good Christians while being engaged in gross meat-eating for the satisfaction of the tongue. The slaughterhouses would cease to exist if people gave up meat-eating. If Christ meant thou shalt not kill just other humans, he would have said "thou shalt not MURDER!"

Not sure if you are a Christian, or just a veggie saying 'surely God wants us to be veggie'. Anyway, just to clarify, the commandment 'is' thou shalt not MURDER.

Four-Too

Okay, I don't know how to use quotes...but the words of God are most important, not those of any ordinary man, and Christ certainly said "Thou shalt not kill". Therefore, those who are meat-eaters are NOT Christians, clean up your act. "Apparently" is no good mate...then you don't know what God requires you to do and not to do. Your knowledge is defective. If I attack and destroy your house, would you be happy? Is is okay to do that? Same goes for other beings - animals, is it a good society that destroys animals? Why should one intrude on the animals "house" i.e. his body?? The cow is giving milk to our whole population, like a mother of sorts, and then when she gets too old, you cut her throat and kill her. That is why it is the greatest sin to eat the meat of the cow.

JimiTime

Four-Too wrote: »

Okay, I don't know how to use quotes...but the words of God are most important, not those of any ordinary man, and Christ certainly said "Thou shalt not kill". Therefore, those who are meat-eaters are NOT Christians, clean up your act. "Apparently" is no good mate...then you don't know what God requires you to do and not to do. Your knowledge is defective. If I attack and destroy your house, would you be happy? Is is okay to do that? Same goes for other beings - animals, is it a good society that destroys animals? Why should one intrude on the animals "house" i.e. his body?? The cow is giving milk to our whole population, like a mother of sorts, and then when she gets too old, you cut her throat and kill her. That is why it is the greatest sin to eat the meat of the cow.

No, its definately murder. You are obviously passionate about animals, but seriously, there is nothing wrong with eating an animal from a christian perspective. The cutting of the throat you mentioned was actually a command from God on how to slaughter an animal. Spilling out its life blood, as life belongs to God. The passover feast involved lamb, which God commanded and was symbolic of Jesus sacrafice, The Lamb of God. You are very wrong in saying it is not christian to eat meat. Are you just a passionate animal welfare person trying to use christianity, or r u actually a christian?

PDN

Four-Too wrote: »

Why should one intrude on the animals "house" i.e. his body?? The cow is giving milk to our whole population, like a mother of sorts, and then when she gets too old, you cut her throat and kill her. That is why it is the greatest sin to eat the meat of the cow.

So what makes it OK for people to steal the milk of the poor cow? If you want to treat the commandments as referring to animals then it is just as wrong to steal the cow's milk as it is to kill the cow! To be consistent you need to be a vegan, not just a veggie.

BTW, I don't think the meat of an aged dairy cow would make for a very good steak. It might possibly end up in corned beef along with all the genitals, udders & gristle etc. Any posters familiar enough with the meat industry to enlighten us on this?

Riche670

PDN wrote: »

Why can 'filth' not be part of the Word of God? The Bible is not supposed to be "sugar & spice & all things nice" while all the time ignoring the brutish nastiness that characterises so much of humanity's experience and history. The Bible unsparingly details how Lot's family, despite having their undeserving hides rescued from destruction, practiced drunkenness, date-rape and incest. The idea that such honesty cannot possibly be the Word of God because it deals with 'filth' is an example of Mr Fields' irrational and subjective twaddle.

I'm not saying 'filth' cannot be part of the Word of God? My question that stems from Mr.Fields' analysis of this passage is, how can a Christian condemn date-rape and incest when the bible condones it if the circumstances merit such actions. i.e. protecting two "angels".

Apologies if I have totally misinterpreted the passage, but this is how it appears to me.

PDN

Riche670 wrote: »

I'm not saying 'filth' cannot be part of the Word of God? My question that stems from Mr.Fields' analysis of this passage is, how can a Christian condemn date-rape and incest when the bible condones it if the circumstances merit such actions. i.e. protecting two "angels".

Apologies if I have totally misinterpreted the passage, but this is how it appears to me.

The Bible passage concerned does not condone date-rape or incest. Nor are they involved in protecting anyone. The date-rape and incest occur well after the incident with the two angels.