Lisa Shea Forums General Discussion Religious Research Girls Unable to Prove Virginity

I find no evidence to suggest that "God supports atrocities". If one decides to hide their neurotic or psychotic tendencies behind literature it is the individual and not the book that is at fault. We are all taught (most of us) to choose right over wrong, good over bad, etc. This is what I find in the Bible. Just as my mother taught me as a child. I concede that it is worthy of further investigation as is any spiritual literature that may serve to shape our soul. It seems that religion with some is more of a debate than a simple inquisitive discussion. If you don't believe the book or it's followers, that's fine. If you have problems with the way followers reference the book, that's fine too. If you can find no conversational reconcile with it's followers, perhaps a change of venue would be prudent.

I'm sorry Barak, but I am having some trouble following your argument.

Also, you say that you are not a Christian, yet you seem to find, in the Bible, that which Christians seems to find, so I am a bit confused there, as well.

I do not doubt that some people, with perhaps violent tendencies, may use Holy Books to somehow unreasonably support their bad behaviour.

However, people use the Bible as 'the word of God'. They may quote it in support of all they do. And here we have a case of the Bible supporting the killing of one's children ~ 'honour killing', I think it might be called in this case.

Elsewhere, we have more accounts of God ~ according to the Bible ~ supporting atrocities. The one that is usually at the forefront of my mind is the case of the Amalekites ~ including the children and babies!

I know that we can just see the Bible as great literature and an interesting set of historic documents, but for some it is a life-guide.

I think that 'religion' is worthy of both discussion and debate. I do not like it when it just descends into quarrelling, though, of course.

I often disagree with followers of the Bible. It doesn't mean that this results in falling out with them. On this site, it is possible to debate and discuss, while remaining objective and non-aggressive, which is what I liked about it in the first place, so why would I want or need a change of venue???

barak - 59 posts, pdm 21170 posts. change of venue? oh dear, i've just wet myself. there wouldn't be much left of this forum without you, pdm, so i wouldn't take too much notice.

Indeed!

Thank you, Janimal, that's very kind

And Carl

Back when the Bible was assembled from various books they chose to include, and other books they chose not to include, they put together a quilt, let's say, out of what made sense to their current culture and morality.

For whatever reason they felt, at the time, that stoning girls who did not bleed at intercourse was in line with their culture. Scary as that seems.

I think it is WELL worth it in current modern times for us to do a "fresh compilation". I think we should start again with every single book we can find in all of their various permutations. Look through them. See what messages they hold for us. And I think we should create a NEW "Bible" - i.e. set of books - which applies to us now.

I think it's very fair to say that items we felt appropriate back 2,000 years ago are probably not appropriate now. Maybe we've "matured" to not need them any more. It could also easily be that there were books that were too complex and confusing back then so they were excluded, which now would be understood and helpful to people.

So this section here is first on my list for the exclusion side.

I do want to add a note to Barak. Barak - we appreciate all input, and welcome all points of view. It is important that every member be respectful to every other member. Suggesting another member leave because they do not agree with you is not something we support in this forum.

If you are not enjoying this particular discussion, then we have many other discussions going on which you might enjoy better.