Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry

[ippy]

Poor Spud your posts lack any sort of credibility. Biblical literalism is sadder than sad.

I'm with you LR, but when you look there are still people around that really think they're practising spiritual healing, really believe in horoscopes and some that swear by homeopathy etc and I suppose Spud and his ilk are no worse than that lot, I just wish there were some way to stop them teaching their nonsense to vulnerable young children as though it were the truth.

If some way could be found to stop people like Spud passing on this nonsense to our future generations as though it were true, it'd be so easy to ignore nonsensical discussions like this one between, Spud and Enki, and then although as I've agreed with you how sad that adults still take these things so seriously as Spud obviously does at least if our children were protected from religion's nonsense Spud could go on forever it wouldn't matter.

Oh yes and which mythical, magical and superstition based parts of the bible have they found any supporting evidence for them to this date, that'd be interesting if people like Spud had any?

Regards L R, ippy.

[jeremyp]

We have to ask why God would tell them to do it

OK. Why would God tell them to do it?

When the Israelites were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the sabbath day. Those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses, Aaron, and to the whole congregation. They put him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him outside the camp.” The whole congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death, just as the Lord had commanded Moses.

Why on Earth did God tell them to put a man to death for gathering firewood? It doesn't even say he was an Israelite.

[Enki]

Why do you think that? Alacrity means brisk and cheerful readiness. I would think the opposite.If we are to be consistent in interpretation, in the story it is because they had seen God's miracles in Egypt and the wilderness, which convinced them that he was real, that they carried out the stoning, not because they were barbaric in themselves. We have to ask why God would tell them to do it.In context, the incident is an example of someone sinning defiantly, which is discussed in the previous paragraph of Numbers 31.

Well, there is no mention of those that stoned him taking a long time to do it, or that they did it reluctantly. However, I'm quite happy to take back the word 'alacrity' with pleasure. It doesn't suggest the opposite however and it still doesn't change or excuse the deed one iota though.

You can ask whatever you like. It is still barbaric and reflects badly on the OT God.

Incidentally, in your previous post, your last paragraph said this:

Nowadays we have what I have recently heard described as an economic surplus. This enables us to lock up murderers in prison, so avoiding the need for capital punishment. Without that, it would be necessary to punish murder in the most efficient way possible. Given that some other things, such as you have listed, are damaging to society, and assuming no economic surplus, these too were made into capital offenses.

Apart from the obvious fact that it wasn't a case of murder for which the stick gatherer was being punished, you seem to be suggesting that any society which hasn't an 'economic surplus' would need to execute its murderers as being the way to go 'in the most efficient way possible'. You also seem to be suggesting that societies that do not have this 'economic surplus' should also execute their citizens in certain cases where no murder has been committed. God help us then, after we start to recover from the ravages of the Lockdown as execution, in your eyes, should be the order of the day. Frankly I'm appalled by your moral position, Spud. It certainly isn't mine. I'm not really surprised though, as you seem to be greatly influenced by this nasty OT God of yours.

[jeremyp]

Well, there is no mention of those that stoned him taking a long time to do it, or that they did it reluctantly. However, I'm quite happy to take back the word 'alacrity' with pleasure. It doesn't suggest the opposite however and it still doesn't change or excuse the deed one iota though.

You can ask whatever you like. It is still barbaric and reflects badly on the OT God.

Incidentally, in your previous post, your last paragraph said this:

Apart from the obvious fact that it wasn't a case of murder for which the stick gatherer was being punished, you seem to be suggesting that any society which hasn't an 'economic surplus' would need to execute its murderers as being the way to go 'in the most efficient way possible'. You also seem to be suggesting that societies that do not have this 'economic surplus' should also execute their citizens in certain cases where no murder has been committed. God help us then, after we start to recover from the ravages of the Lockdown as execution, in your eyes, should be the order of the day. Frankly I'm appalled by your moral position, Spud. It certainly isn't mine. I'm not really surprised though, as you seem to be greatly influenced by this nasty OT God of yours.

A society that is not in economic surplus (whatever that means) does itself harm by executing healthy people, especially for relatively minor crimes like gathering sticks on the wrong day.

[Spud]

Perhaps in suggesting it was about economic surplass I read too much into the situation. Shall we assume that it wasn't anything to do with not having enough resources to imprison someone.

One point to note is that the death penalty in OT Israel translates into excommunication in the church.

Another point is that Hebrews 10:26-28 seems to commentate on Numbers 15:30-36, saying that deliberately continuing to sin when you know something is wrong cannot be forgiven.

This suggests that it doesn't matter what the sin was, it was the fact that it was done defiantly that made it a capital offense. 

[Outrider]

More intolerant antitheistic intellectual totalitarianism.

There's a world of difference between removing religious education from the curriculum (which could, arguably, be anti-theistic) and removing the PRIVELEGED position of some (but not all) religions in the state education sector of an area.  Having religious schools is a debatable issue - religious people have the right to express their outlook, but that needs to balanced against a child's right to an impartial exposure to the various points of view.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

There's a world of difference between removing religious education from the curriculum (which could, arguably, be anti-theistic) and removing the PRIVELEGED position of some (but not all) religions in the state education sector of an area.  Having religious schools is a debatable issue - religious people have the right to express their outlook, but that needs to balanced against a child's right to an impartial exposure to the various points of view.

O.

And religious people do not (in my opinion) have the right to expect the state to pay for schools that promote a particular religious outlook, which is the case for state-funded faith schools.

[Roses]

I don't think the state should fund faith schools.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't think the state should fund faith schools.

I agree - if people want a school with a particular religious flavour that's fine - but they need to fund it themselves. And that same should apply to a humanist school, an atheist school, a Conservative party school etc etc. The role of the state is to fund provision that is suitable to all regardless of the religion of the parents or their children (if old enough to be able to make a choice on religion).

[ippy]

I agree - if people want a school with a particular religious flavour that's fine - but they need to fund it themselves. And that same should apply to a humanist school, an atheist school, a Conservative party school etc etc. The role of the state is to fund provision that is suitable to all regardless of the religion of the parents or their children (if old enough to be able to make a choice on religion).

The religion of the parents is up to them and if they feel it necessary to put these ideas to their children well that's for them to organise in their own time and pay any accompanying fees that might might be involved themselves.

Although I have no time for any kind of religion but these people must be free to have and express these views without fear or favour.

Things like the funding religions have provided for them from the public purse should have come to an end years ago.

ippy

[Roses]

Children should always be permitted to make up their minds about belief systems, and never have them forced on them. There is no evidence to prove that any religious faith has any validity.

[Nearly Sane]

Children should always be permitted to make up their minds about belief systems, and never have them forced on them. There is no evidence to prove that any religious faith has any validity.

Your morals are a belief system. Do you think your children should never have had any morals forced on them?

[Roses]

Your morals are a belief system. Do you think your children should never have had any morals forced on them?

One person's idea of morals is not that of another. For instance, some people think it morally wrong to be gay, or to have an abortion.

[ippy]

Children should always be permitted to make up their minds about belief systems, and never have them forced on them. There is no evidence to prove that any religious faith has any validity.

Whilst I do agree with you L R, it's a very well known fact that pre seven year old children have not on average gained the ability to challenge and guess what? The C of E has more schools that serve pre seven year old children than any of the other schools they run, I wonder why?

Regards L R, ippy.

[Spud]

One person's idea of morals is not that of another. For instance, some people think it morally wrong to be gay, or to have an abortion.

One can know something is morally wrong but still do it, because the desire to do it overcomes the conscience. Seems you are trying to eliminate feeling guilty.

[Roses]

One can know something is morally wrong but still do it, because the desire to do it overcomes the conscience. Seems you are trying to eliminate feeling guilty.

Murder, stealing, lying, cheating on your partner gay or straight, paedophilia and all forms of sexual abuse are morally wrong.

[Outrider]

Murder, stealing, lying, cheating on your partner gay or straight, paedophilia and all forms of sexual abuse are morally wrong.

The devil, though, is in the details - what marks the difference between murder and justifiable homicide?  When is it stealing and when is it colonisation, or 'seeking reparations'?  What's the cut-off age for paedophilia?  Is it abuse if he wants it?

Black and white moral pronouncements are rarely useful as anything more than starting points for discussions or pithy homilies for politicians election posters.

O.

[jeremyp]

One can know something is morally wrong but still do it, because the desire to do it overcomes the conscience. Seems you are trying to eliminate feeling guilty.

Are you claiming that gay people know being gay is morally wrong but "do" it anyway? I would suggest that they've looked at it and decided that it doesn't hurt anybody and they had no choice about it and therefore it can't be morally wrong.

In fact, I would suggest that morality cannot even apply to something over which you have no choice.

[Aruntraveller]

I wonder (as I find myself doing frequently in these days of political pygmies) if people have the self awareness to feel guilty for being so mind-numbingly fucking stupid.

[ippy]

One can know something is morally wrong but still do it, because the desire to do it overcomes the conscience. Seems you are trying to eliminate feeling guilty.

Like teaching religion to vulnerable young children as though all of the religious stories they teach are proven facts, I doubt there are many religionists that feel guilty about that Spud?

I'd guess a lot of religionists, like you Spud, think they're doing the children a favour teaching their magical, mystical and superstition based nonsense to children as though they are proven, tried and tested facts, more than likely without having the slightest feeling of guilt.

ippy.

[Spud]

Are you claiming that gay people know being gay is morally wrong but "do" it anyway? I would suggest that they've looked at it and decided that it doesn't hurt anybody and they had no choice about it and therefore it can't be morally wrong.

In fact, I would suggest that morality cannot even apply to something over which you have no choice.

I was going to give as an example one or more people who use those small bags to pick up dog poo, then leave them on the ground near the litter bin on the otherwise clean street where I live. I can't believe someone does that without their conscience telling them it's wrong.

[ProfessorDavey]

I was going to give as an example one or more people who use those small bags to pick up dog poo, then leave them on the ground near the litter bin on the otherwise clean street where I live. I can't believe someone does that without their conscience telling them it's wrong.

So are you equating being gay with leaving dog poo lying around. Do you realise how offensive that comes across as. Perhaps your conscience tells you that making such offensive comments is morally wrong, but you just can't help yourself.

[Roses]

I was going to give as an example one or more people who use those small bags to pick up dog poo, then leave them on the ground near the litter bin on the otherwise clean street where I live. I can't believe someone does that without their conscience telling them it's wrong.

Your conscience should be telling you that your attitude towards gays is WRONG!

[ippy]

So are you equating being gay with leaving dog poo lying around. Do you realise how offensive that comes across as. Perhaps your conscience tells you that making such offensive comments is morally wrong, but you just can't help yourself.

Absolutely spot on Proff, 'Moderator: content removed', comes to mind, can't for one moment think why? 

Fancy these people letting the ignorance of a bronze age book have so much influence on their thinking and letting it take over any rationality they may have had, then having to work with such a reduced capacity for thought without giving good and fair consideration out to their fellow man rather than thinking for themselves.

Spud don't you remember the cruelty of when gay loved ones lay dying in hospital and someone they may have lived with for many years and the visiting rules used to be next of kin only and then inheritance and becoming homeless, so many gay people lost everything due to inequality mainly all due to the cruelty of god doctors just like yourself.

Thank goodness we're living in a far more enlightened world. no thanks to the religious.

I don't think we have to look very far to see who should be feeling guilty.

ippy

[Nearly Sane]

Absolutely spot on Proff, 'Moderator: content removed', comes to mind, can't for one moment think why? 

Fancy these people letting the ignorance of a bronze age book have so much influence on their thinking and letting it take over any rationality they may have had, then having to work with such a reduced capacity for thought without giving good and fair consideration out to their fellow man rather than thinking for themselves.

Spud don't you remember the cruelty of when gay loved ones lay dying in hospital and someone they may have lived with for many years and the visiting rules used to be next of kin only and then inheritance and becoming homeless, so many gay people lost everything due to inequality mainly all due to the cruelty of god doctors just like yourself.

Thank goodness we're living in a far more enlightened world. no thanks to the religious.

I don't think we have to look very far to see who should be feeling guilty.

ippy

Many of the people on the front line of campaigning for gay rights were religious so the 'no thanks to the religious' comment is simply wrong